{"title":"Strong Foundations","authors":"Pieter T. L. Beck","doi":"10.1525/hsns.2023.53.2.109","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this article, I discuss Petrus van Musschenbroek’s research on the strength of materials in relation to his methodological views. In the latter, van Musschenbroek emphasizes the importance of repeating and varying experiments. This is related to his views on the complexity of nature, which play a role in his views on mathematics, laws of nature, causes, and experimental method. In each case, the construction of an (experimental) history is presented as a first step in experimental philosophy, necessary to deal with the complexity of nature. The experimental research on the strength of materials can likewise be seen as aimed at the construction of an (experimental) history. His experimental practice takes the form of a systematic variation of parameters and the performance of an extensive series of experiments on different kinds of substances. In his experimental reports, van Musschenbroek repeatedly points to the utility of his experimental results. This utilitarian attitude is typical for the experimental history literature as discussed by Klein. Van Musschenbroek himself also presents his work as an experimental history. However, unlike the examples discussed by Klein, van Musschenbroek’s experimental history is characterized by a systematic experimental method. I argue that this method can be seen as an example of exploratory experimentation in Steinle’s sense. Finally, I suggest that with its emphasis on the nature and properties of specific materials, it could be fruitful to read van Musschenbroek’s experimental history in light of the emergence of engineering as a discipline in the eighteenth century.","PeriodicalId":56130,"journal":{"name":"Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1525/hsns.2023.53.2.109","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In this article, I discuss Petrus van Musschenbroek’s research on the strength of materials in relation to his methodological views. In the latter, van Musschenbroek emphasizes the importance of repeating and varying experiments. This is related to his views on the complexity of nature, which play a role in his views on mathematics, laws of nature, causes, and experimental method. In each case, the construction of an (experimental) history is presented as a first step in experimental philosophy, necessary to deal with the complexity of nature. The experimental research on the strength of materials can likewise be seen as aimed at the construction of an (experimental) history. His experimental practice takes the form of a systematic variation of parameters and the performance of an extensive series of experiments on different kinds of substances. In his experimental reports, van Musschenbroek repeatedly points to the utility of his experimental results. This utilitarian attitude is typical for the experimental history literature as discussed by Klein. Van Musschenbroek himself also presents his work as an experimental history. However, unlike the examples discussed by Klein, van Musschenbroek’s experimental history is characterized by a systematic experimental method. I argue that this method can be seen as an example of exploratory experimentation in Steinle’s sense. Finally, I suggest that with its emphasis on the nature and properties of specific materials, it could be fruitful to read van Musschenbroek’s experimental history in light of the emergence of engineering as a discipline in the eighteenth century.
在这篇文章中,我将讨论Petrus van Musschenbroek关于材料强度的研究及其方法论观点。在后者中,van Musschenbroek强调了重复和变化实验的重要性。这与他对自然复杂性的看法有关,这在他对数学、自然规律、原因和实验方法的看法中发挥了作用。在每种情况下,(实验)历史的构建都是实验哲学的第一步,是处理自然复杂性所必需的。对材料强度的实验研究同样可以被视为旨在构建(实验)历史。他的实验实践采取了系统变化参数的形式,并对不同种类的物质进行了一系列广泛的实验。在他的实验报告中,范·穆申布鲁克反复指出他的实验结果的实用性。这种功利主义的态度是克莱因所讨论的实验历史文学的典型。范穆申布鲁克本人也将他的作品描述为一个实验史。然而,与克莱因所讨论的例子不同,范·穆申布鲁克的实验史具有系统实验方法的特点。我认为这种方法可以被看作是斯坦勒意义上的探索性实验的一个例子。最后,我建议,鉴于其对特定材料的性质和特性的强调,鉴于18世纪工程作为一门学科的出现,阅读范·穆申布鲁克的实验史可能是富有成效的。
期刊介绍:
Explore the fascinating world of Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences, a journal that reveals the history of science as it has developed since the 18th century. HSNS offers in-depth articles on a wide range of scientific fields, their social and cultural histories and supporting institutions, including astronomy, geology, physics, genetics, natural history, chemistry, meteorology, and molecular biology. Widely regarded as a leading journal in the historiography of science and technology, HSNS increased its publication to five times per year in 2012 to expand its roster of pioneering articles and notable reviews by the most influential writers in the field.