Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-6c7dr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-23T01:07:35.974Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Paradox of Conceptual Novelty and Galileo's Use of Experiments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Maarten Van Dyck
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Starting with a discussion of what I call ‘Koyré's paradox of conceptual novelty’, I introduce the ideas of Damerow et al. on the establishment of classical mechanics in Galileo's work. I then argue that although their view on the nature of Galileo's conceptual innovation is convincing, it misses an essential element: Galileo's use of the experiments described in the first day of the Two New Sciences. I describe these experiments and analyze their function. Central to my analysis is the idea that Galileo's pendulum experiments serve to secure the reference of his theoretical models in actually occurring cases of free fall. In this way, Galileo's experiments constitute an essential part of the meaning of the new concepts of classical mechanics.

Information

Type
Observation and Experiment
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 72 , Issue 5: Proceedings of the 2004 Biennial Meeting of The Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers , December 2005 , pp. 864 - 875
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

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

Footnotes

‡

The author is Research Assistant of the Fund for Scientific Research—Flanders.

References

Boumans, Marcel (2003), “How to Design Galilean Fall Experiments in Economics”, How to Design Galilean Fall Experiments in Economics 70:308–329.Google Scholar
Clavelin, Maurice (1968), La philosophie naturelle de Galilée. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Damerow, Peter, Freudenthal, Gideon, McLaughlin, Peter, and Renn, Jürgen (2004), Exploring the Limits of Preclassical Mechanics, 2nd ed. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijksterhuis, Eduard J. (1924), Val en Worp. Een bijdrage tot de Geschiedenis der Mechanica van Aristoteles tot Newton. Groningen: P. Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Duhem, Pierre ([1906] 1914), La théorie physique: Son objet, sa structure, 2nd ed. Paris: Marcel Rivière & Cie.Google Scholar
Galilei, Galileo ([1638] 1954), Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences. Translated by Crew, Henry and Salvio, Alfonso de. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Galilei, Galileo (1960), On Motion and on Mechanics. Translated by Drabkin, I. E. and Drake, Stillman. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Galison, Peter (1987), How Experiments End. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hacking, Ian (1983), Representing and Intervening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahn, Alexander (2002), “The Pendulum Swings Again: A Mathematical Reassessment of Galileo’s Experiments with Inclined Planes”, The Pendulum Swings Again: A Mathematical Reassessment of Galileo’s Experiments with Inclined Planes 56:339–361.Google Scholar
Hill, David K. (1988), “Dissecting Trajectories: Galileo’s Early Experiments on Projectile Motion and the Law of Fall”, Dissecting Trajectories: Galileo’s Early Experiments on Projectile Motion and the Law of Fall 79:646–668.Google Scholar
Koyré, Alexandre ([1939] 1966), Etudes galiléennes, 2nd ed. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
Koyré, Alexandre (1968), Metaphysics and Measurement. London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. ([1962] 1996), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naylor, Ronald (1976), “Galileo: Real Experiments and Didactic Demonstration”, Galileo: Real Experiments and Didactic Demonstration 67:398–419.Google Scholar
Naylor, Ronald (1989), “Galileo’s Experimental Discourse”, in Gooding, David, Pinch, Trevor, and Schaffer, Simon (eds.), The Uses of Experiment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 117–134.Google Scholar
Pickering, Andrew (1981), “The Hunting of the Quark”, The Hunting of the Quark 72:216–236.Google Scholar
Renn, Jürgen, Damerow, Peter, and Rieger, Simone (2000), “Hunting the White Elephant: When and How Did Galileo Discover the Law of Fall?”, Hunting the White Elephant: When and How Did Galileo Discover the Law of Fall? 13:299–419.Google Scholar
Sargent, Rose-Mary (1995), The Diffident Naturalist: Robert Boyle and the Philosophy of Experiment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinle, Friedrich (1997), “Entering New Fields: Exploratory Uses of Experimentation”, Entering New Fields: Exploratory Uses of Experimentation 64 (Proceedings): S65–S74.Google Scholar
Westfall, Richard S. (1971), Force in Newton’s Physics: The Science of Dynamics in the Seventeenth Century. London: MacDonald.Google Scholar