Kanan Purkayastha has both general and special theories about how the master rationalist inspired modern empirical science.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/155/How_Descartes_Inspired_Science
How Descartes Inspired Science
Re: How Descartes Inspired Science
Thank-you for introducing new writings of a philosopher. I have read other writings by this philosopher too. Using, your search engine in
is amazing in articles. Thank-you, again.Philosophy Now
-
Will Bouwman
- Posts: 1334
- Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2022 2:17 pm
Re: How Descartes Inspired Science
Medical science isn't my speciality, so it was interesting to read about that element of Descartes's influence. I agree that "Descartes' Discourse on Method (1637) is a good starting point...", however, I think that "Descartes tells us how reason goes about its successful pursuit of truth in any area accessible to human mind" is an overstatement. In my view, and that of many commentators, Descartes failed to show that "truth" can be established by "long chains of reasoning". The one thing he did establish by such chains, is that there are definitely phenomena, but, as he made clear, there are different potential explanations for those phenomena. Few people think Descartes' invocation of a good God to ensure the "truth" of his "clear and distinct ideas" compelling.
His mechanical philosophy, for all its influence on physiology, ultimately fails when it comes to physics. In his conclusion, Purkyastha writes:
"In his book Dreams of a Final Theory (1992), the American physicist Steven Weinberg wrote, "the mechanical philosophy of Descartes had a powerful influence on Newton, not because it was right but because it provided an example of the sort of mechanical theory that could make sense out of nature" (p 134). Perhaps then we might venture, no Descartes, no Newton?"
It's not clear to me that Newton relied upon a mechanical philosophy. What Newton achieved in his Principia Mathematica, was a very accurate mathematical description of the phenomenon of gravity. Some years ago, I wrote this as part of an article published in Philosophy Now:
The ink was barely dry on the first edition of the Principia before people started objecting that Newton had introduced a force without a mechanism: for all the explanatory power of 'the force of gravity', there was (and is) no explanation for how gravity works. Much of the challenge came from followers of Renault Descartes (1596-1650). Descartes had also been interested in the movement of planets, but his main concern was to give an explanation of the orbits. This he did by invoking the idea of vortices, according to which space is composed of infinitesimal 'corpuscles' that behave like a fluid. These are swept around the Sun a little like water is dragged around a plughole, and they in turn pull the planets along with them. When in 1713 Newton published a second edition of the Principia, he felt compelled to add an essay called 'The General Scholium' in which he directly challenged the idea of vortices. Newton pointed out that the orbits of comets are too eccentric to fit the model, and that they cut across planetary vertices with no apparent effect: "And therefore the celestial spaces, through which the globes of the planets and comets move continually in all directions freely and without any sensible diminuation of motion, are devoid of any corporeal fluid".
Having dismissed Descartes' explanation of how gravitational attraction works, Newton included a passage known by a phrase that occurs in it: hypotheses non fingo- 'I make no hypotheses'. He writes: "But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I make no hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena, is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, have no place in experimental philosophy." To Newton, an explanation of how something works isn't essential to science; as long as the mathematical model gives us the power to map, predict and manipulate, the job of physics is done. As the passage concludes: "And to us it is enough, that gravity does really exist, and act according to the laws which we have explained, and abundantly serves to account for all the motions of the celestial bodies, and of our sea."
https://philosophynow.org/issues/133/Ph ... _Millennia
No doubt Newton arrived at his "truth" about gravity through long chains of reasoning, but unlike Descartes' "clear and distinct ideas", Newton started with phenomena; the one thing Descartes was sure of.
The truth that Newton discovered is about the effect gravity has. That gravity has an effect was a surprise to no one, but the explicit abandonment of any attempt to explain what causes the effect, to many scientists, pushed philosophy into the bushes and brought mathematics much closer to science.
So, while "his nerve conduction model about how we sense our environment put us on the right path"', his work on optics, not to mention his coordinate system were and remain influential, it is arguable that his main influence on science is showing what not to do and, via Newton, making a clear distinction between philosophy and science.
His mechanical philosophy, for all its influence on physiology, ultimately fails when it comes to physics. In his conclusion, Purkyastha writes:
"In his book Dreams of a Final Theory (1992), the American physicist Steven Weinberg wrote, "the mechanical philosophy of Descartes had a powerful influence on Newton, not because it was right but because it provided an example of the sort of mechanical theory that could make sense out of nature" (p 134). Perhaps then we might venture, no Descartes, no Newton?"
It's not clear to me that Newton relied upon a mechanical philosophy. What Newton achieved in his Principia Mathematica, was a very accurate mathematical description of the phenomenon of gravity. Some years ago, I wrote this as part of an article published in Philosophy Now:
The ink was barely dry on the first edition of the Principia before people started objecting that Newton had introduced a force without a mechanism: for all the explanatory power of 'the force of gravity', there was (and is) no explanation for how gravity works. Much of the challenge came from followers of Renault Descartes (1596-1650). Descartes had also been interested in the movement of planets, but his main concern was to give an explanation of the orbits. This he did by invoking the idea of vortices, according to which space is composed of infinitesimal 'corpuscles' that behave like a fluid. These are swept around the Sun a little like water is dragged around a plughole, and they in turn pull the planets along with them. When in 1713 Newton published a second edition of the Principia, he felt compelled to add an essay called 'The General Scholium' in which he directly challenged the idea of vortices. Newton pointed out that the orbits of comets are too eccentric to fit the model, and that they cut across planetary vertices with no apparent effect: "And therefore the celestial spaces, through which the globes of the planets and comets move continually in all directions freely and without any sensible diminuation of motion, are devoid of any corporeal fluid".
Having dismissed Descartes' explanation of how gravitational attraction works, Newton included a passage known by a phrase that occurs in it: hypotheses non fingo- 'I make no hypotheses'. He writes: "But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I make no hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena, is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, have no place in experimental philosophy." To Newton, an explanation of how something works isn't essential to science; as long as the mathematical model gives us the power to map, predict and manipulate, the job of physics is done. As the passage concludes: "And to us it is enough, that gravity does really exist, and act according to the laws which we have explained, and abundantly serves to account for all the motions of the celestial bodies, and of our sea."
https://philosophynow.org/issues/133/Ph ... _Millennia
No doubt Newton arrived at his "truth" about gravity through long chains of reasoning, but unlike Descartes' "clear and distinct ideas", Newton started with phenomena; the one thing Descartes was sure of.
The truth that Newton discovered is about the effect gravity has. That gravity has an effect was a surprise to no one, but the explicit abandonment of any attempt to explain what causes the effect, to many scientists, pushed philosophy into the bushes and brought mathematics much closer to science.
So, while "his nerve conduction model about how we sense our environment put us on the right path"', his work on optics, not to mention his coordinate system were and remain influential, it is arguable that his main influence on science is showing what not to do and, via Newton, making a clear distinction between philosophy and science.