No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Methodological Judgment and Critical Reasoning in Galileo's Dialogue
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 February 2022
Extract
The aim of this paper is to suggest that Galileo's Dialogue may be fruitfully interpreted and evaluated from the viewpoints of methodological judgment and critical reasoning. This approach has significant historical precedents in the readings of Thomas Salusbury and the Port-Royal logicians. This focus on the book's philosophical dimension is not meant to exclude its scientific, historical, rhetorical, and aesthetic dimensions; indeed, such anti-reductionism is suggested by methodological judgment applied at the metalevel; the latter also suggests a criticism of the excessively rhetorical readings prevalent today, as well as viable ways for resolving the problems of hermeneutical pluralism, interpretation versus evaluation, and theory versus practice. Finally, the book's methodological judgment and critical reasoning can be shown to correspond to Galileo's intentions and self-reflections.
- Type
- Part VIII. Science and Philosophy in the Classic Texts
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 1995 by the Philosophy of Science Association
Footnotes
1
This research was supported by a grant (no. RH-20980-91) from the National Endowment for the Humanities and a sabbatical leave (Fall 1994) from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
References
Arnauld, A. and Nicole, P. (1965), La Logique ou l'Art de Penser. Critical edition by Clair, P. and Girbal, F.. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Duhem, P. (1969), To Save the Phenomena. Trans. by Doland, E. and Maschler, C.. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finocchiaro, M.A. (1980), Galileo and the Art of Reasoning. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finocchiaro, M.A. (1986), “The Methodological Background to Galileo's Trial”, in Wallace, W.A. (ed.), Reinterpreting Galileo. Washington: Catholic University of America Press, pp. 241-72.Google Scholar
Finocchiaro, M.A. (ed. and trans.) (1989), The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Finocchiaro, M.A. (ed. and trans.) (forthcoming), Galileo on the World Systems. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Galilei, G. (1632), Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi…, in Le opere di Galileo Galilei, vol. 7, National Edition by Favaro, A. et al. Florence: Barbera, 1890–1909.Google Scholar
McMullin, E. (1967), “Introduction: Galileo, Man of Science”, in McMullin, E. (ed.), Galileo, Man of Science. New York: Basic Books, pp. 3–51.Google Scholar
McMullin, E. (1978), “The Conception of Science in Galileo's Work”, in Butts, R.E. and Pitt, J.C. (eds.), New Perspectives on Galileo. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 209-57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMullin, E. (1990), “Conceptions of Science in the Scientific Revolution”, in Lindberg, D.C. and Westman, R. S. (eds.), Reappraisals of the Scientific Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 27–92.Google Scholar
Pitt, J.C. (1992), Galileo, Human Knowledge, and the Book of Nature. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salusbury, T. (ed. and trans.) (1661), Mathematical Collections and Translations, Tome 1, part 1. London.Google Scholar
Wallace, W.A. (1984), Galileo and His Sources. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, W.A. (1992b), Galileo's Logic of Discovery and Proof. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar