Essence, Experiment, and Underdetermination in the Spinoza-Boyle Correspondence

Stephe Harrop
{"title":"Essence, Experiment, and Underdetermination in the Spinoza-Boyle Correspondence","authors":"Stephe Harrop","doi":"10.1086/721136","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"I examine the (mediated) correspondence between Spinoza and Robert Boyle concerning the latter’s account of fluidity and his experiments on reconstitution of niter in the light of the epistemology and doctrine of method contained in the Treatise on the Emendation of the Intellect. I argue that both the Treatise and the correspondence reveal that, for Spinoza, the proper method of science is not experimental and that he accepted a powerful underdetermination thesis. I argue that, in contrast to modern versions, Spinoza’s form of naturalism was a highly rationalist and antiempirical one. I conclude with a brief account of the value of experience and experimentation for Spinoza’s scientific method.","PeriodicalId":42878,"journal":{"name":"HOPOS-The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science","volume":"61 1","pages":"447 - 484"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HOPOS-The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/721136","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

I examine the (mediated) correspondence between Spinoza and Robert Boyle concerning the latter’s account of fluidity and his experiments on reconstitution of niter in the light of the epistemology and doctrine of method contained in the Treatise on the Emendation of the Intellect. I argue that both the Treatise and the correspondence reveal that, for Spinoza, the proper method of science is not experimental and that he accepted a powerful underdetermination thesis. I argue that, in contrast to modern versions, Spinoza’s form of naturalism was a highly rationalist and antiempirical one. I conclude with a brief account of the value of experience and experimentation for Spinoza’s scientific method.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
斯宾诺莎-波义耳对应中的本质、实验和不确定
我考察了斯宾诺莎和罗伯特·波义耳之间的(中介的)通信,涉及后者对流动性的描述以及他在《智力修正论》中包含的认识论和方法学说的基础上对水的重构的实验。我认为,《人物论》和信件都表明,对斯宾诺莎来说,科学的正确方法不是实验性的,他接受了一个强有力的不确定性论点。我认为,与现代版本相比,斯宾诺莎的自然主义形式是高度理性主义和反经验主义的。最后,我简要说明了经验和实验对于斯宾诺莎的科学方法的价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
期刊最新文献
Conceptual Analysis and the Analytic Method in Kant’s Prize Essay Johann Nikolaus Tetens (1736-1807) and the Idea of Phoneme. A Chapter in the History of Linguistic Thought What Conceptual Engineering Can Learn From The History of Philosophy of Science: Healthy Externalism and Metasemantic Plasticity Sellars, Analyticity, and a Dynamic Picture of Language Special Section Introduction
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1