Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-mwwwr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-19T07:23:27.093Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What Is Newton's Law of Inertia About? Philosophical Reasoning and Explanation in Newton's Principia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Bernd Ludwig
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper it will be shown that Newton's Principia gives an explication of and an argument for the first Law of Motion, that seems to be outside the scope of today's philosophy of science but was familiar to seventeenth-century commentators: The foundation of classical mechanics is possible only by recurrence to results of a successful technical practice. Laws of classical mechanics gain their meaning as well as their claims to validity only when considered as statements about artifacts whose production belongs to the shared know-how of a scientific community.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , Spring 1992 , pp. 139 - 163
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bergmann, P. G. 1942. Introduction to the Theory of Relativity. New York.Google Scholar
Clarke, D. 1982. Descartes' Philosophy of Science. Manchester.Google Scholar
d' Alembert, J. 1743. Traité de Dynamique. Paris.Google Scholar
Descartes, R. 1647. Principia Philosophiae. Paris.Google Scholar
Dijksterhuis, E. J. [1950] 1960. De Mechanisering van het Wereldbeeld. Amsterdam. (English edition: The Mechanization of the World picture., Oxford)Google Scholar
Duhem, P. 1962. The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. New York.Google Scholar
Euler, L. 1912. Leonhardi Euleri Opera Omnia, edited by Rudio, F., Krazer, A., and Stäckel, P.. Berlin.Google Scholar
Euler, L. [1736] 1912. Mechanica sive motus scientia analytice exposita. In Opera, Ser. II, vol. 1.Google Scholar
Euler, L. [1750] 1912. Einleitung in die Naturlehre. In Opera, Ser. II, vol. 1.Google Scholar
Euler, L. [1765] 1912. Theoria Motus corporum Solidorum seu Rigidorum (= Mechanica Tomus III). In Opera, Ser. II, vol. 3.Google Scholar
Gabbey, A. 1972. “Force and Inertia in Seventeenth-Century Dynamics.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 2:1–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrison, J. W. 1987. “Newton and the Relation of Mathematics to Natural Philosophy.” Journal of Historical Ideas 609–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, N. 1983. Fact, Fiction, Forecast. Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. 1983. Representing and Intervening. Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, A. R. 1983. The Revolution in Science 1500–1750. London.Google Scholar
Herivel, J. 1965. The Background to Newton's Principia. Oxford.Google Scholar
Hintikka, J., and Remes, U. 1974. The Method of Analysis. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. XXV. Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Koyré, A. 1965a. “Newton and Descartes.” In his Newtonian Studies, pp. 53–201. London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koyré, A. 1965b. “Newton's Regulae Philosophandi.” In his Newtonian Studies, pp. 261–72. London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacLaurin, C. 1748. An Account of Sir Isaac Newton's Philosophical Discoveries. London.Google Scholar
Nagel, E. 1961. The Structure of Science. London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newton, I. [1687] 1934. Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica. London (31725, Sir Isaac Newton's Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, translated into English by Motte, Andrew, 1729; revised by F. Cajori, University of California Press, Berkeley 1934. (Referred to in the text as Principia.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newton, I. [1704–1730] 1979. Opticks. London (New York: Dover Publications.)Google Scholar
Newton, I. 1958 I. Newton's Papers and Letters on Natural Philosophy, edited by Cohen, I. B.. Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Newton, I. 1967a. The Correspondence of I. Newton, edited by Turnbull, H. W. and Scott, J. F., 4 vols. Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newton, I. 1967b. The Mathematical Papers of I. Newton, edited by Whiteside, D. T., 8 vols. Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Pemperton, H. 1728. A View of Sir Isaac Newton's Philosophy. London.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. 1987. “Meaning Holism and Epistemic Holism.” In Theorie der Subjektivität, Festschrift für D. Henrich, edited by Cramer, K. et al. , pp. 251ff. Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
Rescher, N. 1984. The Limits of Science. Berkeley, Calif.Google Scholar
Salmon, W. 1984. Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World. Pittsburg.Google Scholar
Scott, W. L. 1970. The Conflict between Atomism and Conservation Theory 1644–1860. London.Google Scholar
Stegmüller, W. 1970. Probleme und Resultate der analytischen Wissenschaftstheorie, vol. II, 1. Berlin.Google Scholar
Van Fraassen, B. 1988. “Die Pragmatik des Erklärens.” In Erklären und Verstehen in der Wissenschaft, edited by Schurz, G., pp. 31–90. Munich.Google Scholar
Wolff, M. 1978. Geschichte der Impetustheorie. Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar