Contents:
Accordingly, the study of efficient causation in nature belonged to natural theology, rather than natural philosophy. The ambiguous causal status of laws of nature seems to have been a constant through much of their history. It more or less bridged the gap between an instantaneous creation and secular views of evolution. This brings us to the question how the shift from natural philosophy to modern science affected the view of laws and their causal import. The most virulent attack on the inclination to reify the laws of nature was delivered by Ernst Mach.
In general, however, it seems that the concept easily survived the loss of its religious underpinnings. Laws, now seen as fully autonomous, have remained part of nature itself. In a sense they are judged to be epistemologically prior to concrete events. To explain an observed fact means to incorporate that fact into a general law. Still, there is some evidence, to be addressed below, that the laws of nature have not survived the process of secularization unharmed.
For now, we can conclude this first of our three perspectives by emphasizing that a general history of the laws of nature still needs to be written. Most rules or patterns in nature did not receive this label.
Why we have come to privilege certain rules over others is not always clear and may well depend upon several historical contingencies. Google N-gram suggests that most eponymous laws acquired their names in the nineteenth century. National rivalries may well have influenced this process e. When in the course of the nineteenth century the possession of laws became the hallmark of a mature science, aspiring disciplines acquired a strong interest in producing and showcasing their own laws.
One of these emerging disciplines in the nineteenth century was the burgeoning field of meteorology. As it turns out there is an intricate story behind this transformation. It revolves around the misgivings of the British scientific elite about the British practice of storm warnings, based upon practical experience rather than laws.
In his case, the introduction of a second law also served some personal interests. Behind these specific interests, however, we can also distinguish a shared interest: These early Mendelians were eager to isolate the study of heredity from related and overlapping branches of biology by construing a new kind of life science that was both experimental and exact. The central position of mathematical laws in the new field helped to distinguish and sever it from biology, which clearly lacked such laws.
This example brings us to our third perspective and a new set of questions. They accordingly abounded in the emerging discipline of physics and were rare — or even absent — in the life sciences during much of the nineteenth century.
None of them acquired textbook status. Eponymous laws did not emerge in biology before the twentieth century. In these regards there is an interesting discrepancy between general talk of the laws of nature, where the concept is often used in a very broad meaning, and concrete instances of such laws, where the concept is usually restricted to mathematical cases.
Such inconsistencies cry out for a deeper explanation and therefore for serious research. Whatever the outcomes of such research, it may tell us something about hierarchies and power structures within the emerging world of science and, possibly, also about the changes in such relationships. In this regard, the Mendel case is highly suggestive. Taking a more diachronic perspective, a remarkable feature is the sudden disappearance of eponymous laws around within the discipline of physics. This is a clear sign of a meaningful change within physics.
So what does it symbolize? The conclusion of the gradual shift from natural philosophy with its religious overtones to a fully secular modern physics? The emergence of theoretical physics as a branch of physics? In general, there is a remarkable discrepancy between the vast amount of literature about laws of nature produced by philosophers of science, and the scarcity of books and papers by historians. So far, all the issues raised above have hardly been touched upon by historians of science.
I hope to have been able to show that this neglect is regrettable. During the project, we will digitally transcribe a corpus of approximately early modern works on natural philosophy, published in Britain, France and the Dutch Republic. Using digital tools to investigate how the networks of authors and concepts of natural philosophy co-evolved over time will allow the team project to identify textual excerpts that are representative of historical trends.
By analysing these excerpts with close reading and assessing them against the digital results, it will be possible to determine and explain how normalisation shaped the evolution of natural philosophy.
This project will boost the integration of digital approaches in the history of philosophy and science by producing a newly digitised corpus, tools customized for analysing early modern texts, and methodological reflections on their implementation. At the beginning of the seventeenth century, the claim that God actively participates in the production of natural phenomena was an integral part of the new worldview emerging from the scientific revolution.
The Science of Nature in the Seventeenth Century. Patterns of Change in Early Modern Natural Philosophy. Editors: Anstey, Peter R., Schuster, John A. (Eds.). Patterns of Change in Early Modern Natural Philosophy Peter R. Anstey, John A. seventeenth century, and of some of the tactics he employed to exploit and.
However, during the eighteenth century natural philosophers progressively dismissed this reliance on divine action. The reasons for this dramatic change remain unclear, even though they shaped the process of secularization of early modern science. The question to be investigated in this project then is: Why — and how — did the theology-based science of the seventeenth century turn into an apparently theology-free science a century later?
Moreover, it will contribute to the debate on science and religion by highlighting how religious concerns impacted the development of educational programs during the scientific revolution. This book defends two theses that significantly overthrow this reading.
First, Spinoza is committed to ethical intellectualism only in his early writings until ca. Depending on the circumstances and different conditions in which individuals interact, certain passions can turn out to be wise insofar as they constrain individuals to operate in such a way that their rationality will be strengthened in the process.
The unique contribution that this book makes to the existing literature is twofold. The question of how to understand autonomy has emerged as a critical issue in contemporary political philosophy. Feminists and others argue that autonomy cannot be adequately conceived without taking into consideration the ways in which it is shaped by our relationships with others. By offering a relational understanding of the nature of individuals centred on the role played by emotions, Spinoza offers not only historical roots for the contemporary debates but also broadens the current discussion.