Newton's methodology is richer than the hypothetico-deductive model of scientific inference that was the focus of many philosophers of science in the last century. These enrichments focus on theory-mediated measurements of theoretical parameters by phenomena. It is argued that this richer methodology of Newton's informs a pre-relativity response to the Mercury perihelion problem, endorses the transition from Newton's theory to Einstein's, and continues to inform the testing frameworks for relativistic gravity theories today. On this rich methodology of Newton's, science is very informative about the world, without any commitment to progress toward an ideal limit of a final theory of everything.
Newton's scientific methodology is much richer than the models of scientific inference that have been studied by philosophers of science. I will be explaining several salient features that make this richer methodology more informative about the world than, even, quite sophisticated Bayesian models of scientific inference of the sort Abner Shimony has developed in his classic papers [23, 24]. Abner, Wayne Myrvold and I have begun a program of joint research designed to enrich the Bayesian model with resources to accommodate Newton's richer methodology. This paper will characterize some features that I shall argue ought to be accommodated in order to do justice to Newton's methodology. The job of how to enrich the Bayesian framework to do justice to these features will left to be addressed in future work.1
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Cajori, F. (trans.) (1962). Sir Isaac Newton's Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy and his System of the World. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Wilson, C. A. (1989). “The Newtonian achievement in astronomy,” in [41, 233–274].
Cohen, I. B., and A. Whitman (trans.) (1999). Isaac Newton The Principia, Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy: A New Translation. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1999.
van Fraassen, B. C. (1985). “Empiricism in the Philosophy of Science,” in [35, 245–308]
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Will, C. M (1993). Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics, 2nd revised edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Will, C. M. (1986). Was Einstein Right? Putting General Relativity to the Test. New York: Basic Books.
Newcomb, S. (1882). “Discussion and Results of Observations on Transits of Mercury from 1677 to 1881.” Astronomical Papers Prepared for the Use of the American Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac I 473.
Hall, A. (1894). “A suggestion in the theory of Mercury,” The Astronomical Journal 14, 35–46.
Valluri, S. R., C. Wilson, and W. L. Harper (1997). “Newton's apsidal precession theorem and eccentric orbits,” Journal for the History of Astronomy 28, 13–27.
Brown, E. W. (1903). “On the Verification of the Newtonian Law,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 14, 396–397.
Einstein A. ([1915] 1979). “Explanation of the perihelion motion of Mercury by means of the general theory of relativity,” Prussian Academy Proceedings 11, 831–839. B. Doyle (Trans.) in [38, 822–825].
Earman, J. and M. Janssen (1993). “Einstein's Explanation of the Motion of Mercury's Perihelion,” in [40, 129–172].
Pais, A. (1982) Subtle is the Lord: The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dicke, R. H. (1965). The Theoretical Significance of Experimental Relativity. New York: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers.
Dicke, R. H., and H. M. Goldenberg (1967). Physical Review Letters 18, 313.
Dicke, R. H., and H. M. Goldenberg (1974). “The oblateness of the Sun,” Astrophysics Journal Supplement Series. No. 241, 27, 131–182.
Dicke, R. H. (1974). “The oblateness of the Sun and relativity,” Science 184, 419–429.
Shapiro, I. (1964). “Fourth test of general relativity,” Physical Review Letters 13, 789–791.
Shapiro, I. I., M. E. Ash, R. P. Ingalls, W. B. Smith, D. B. Campbell, R. B. Dyce, R. F. Jurgens, and G. H. Pettengill (1971). “Fourth test of general relativity: new radar result,” .Physical Review Letters 26, 1132–1135.
Reasenberg, R. D., I. I Shapiro, P. E. MacNeil, R. B. Goldstein, J. C. Breidenthal, J. P. Brenkle, D. L. Cain, T. M. Kaufman, T. A. Komarek, and A. I. Zygielbaum (1979). “Viking relativity experiment: Verification of signal retardation by solar gravity,” .The Astrophysical Journal 234, L219–221.
Newton, I. ([1704] 1952) Optics: Or a Treatise of the Reflexions, Refractions, Inflexions and Colours of Light. (Based on the 4th edition of 1730.) New York: Dover Publications.
Shimony, A. (1970). “Scientific Inference,” in R. G. Colodny, ed., The Nature and Function of Scientific Theories. Pittsburgh: Pittsburg University Press. Reprinted in Shimony (1993), 183–273.
Shimony, A. (1993). “Reconsiderations on Inductive Inference,” in Search for a Naturalistic World View, Vol. I: Scientific Method and Epistemology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 274–300.
Harper, W. L. (2007). “Acceptance and Scientific Inference,” in W. Harper and G. Wheeler, eds. (2007), Probability and Inference: Essays in Honour of Henry E. Kyburg, Jr. London: Kings College Press, 33–52.
Stein, H. (1970). “On the Notion of Field in Newton, Maxwell, and Beyond,” in R. H. Stuewer, ed., Historical and Philosophical Perspectives of Science, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 264–287.
Stein, H (1977). “Some Philosophical Prehistory of General Relativity,” in J. Earman, C. Glymour, and J. Stachel, eds., Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 8, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 3–49.
Stein, H (1991). “‘From the Phenomena of Motions to the Forces of Nature’: Hypothesis or Deduction?” in PSA 1990, Vol. 2, 209–222.
Stein, H (2002). “Newton's Metaphysics,” in I. B. Cohen and G. Smith, eds., Cambridge Companion to Newton, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 256–307.
Harper, W. L. (1998). “Measurement and Approximation: Newton's Inferences from Phenomena versus Glymour's Bootstrap Confirmation,” in P. Weingartner, G. Schurz, and G. Dorn, eds., The Role of Pragmatics in Contemporary Philosophy, Vienna: Hoölder-Pinchler-Tempsky, 265–287.
French, A. P. (1971). Newtonian Mechanics. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Aiton, E. J. (1995) “The Vortex Theory in Competition with Newtonian Celestial Mechanics” in R. Taton and C. Wilson, eds., The General History of Astronomy, Vol. 2, Planetary astronomy from the Renaissance to the rise of astrophysics, Part A: Tycho Brahe to Newton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3–21.
Shimony, A. (1993). Search for a Naturalistic World View, Vol. I: Scientific Method and Epis-temology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brans, C., and R. H. Dicke, (1961). “Mach's principle and a relativistic theory of gravitation” Physical Review 124, 925–935. Reprinted in Dicke, R. H. (1965). The Theoretical Significance of Experimental Relativity. New York: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, 77–96.
Churchland P. M. and Hooker C. A., eds. (1985). Images of Science: Essays on Realism and Empiricism with a reply from Bas C. Van Fraassen. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Harper, W. L. (2007). “Newton's Methodology and Mercury's Perihelion before and after Einstein” Philosophy of Science 74, 932–942.
Harper, W. L. and G. R. Wheeler, eds. (2007). Probability and Inference: Essays in Honour of Henry E. Kyburg, Jr. London: Kings College Press.
Lang, K. R. and O. Gingerich, eds. (1979). A Source Book in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 1900–1975. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Roseveare, N. T. (1982). Mercury's Perihelion from Le Verrier to Einstein Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Earman, J., M. Janssen, and J. Norton, eds. (1993). The Attraction of Gravitation: New Studies in the History of General Relativity. Boston: Birkháuser.
Taton, R., and C. Wilson, eds. (1989). The General History of Astronomy, Vol. 2, Planetary astronomy from the Renaissance to the rise of astrophysics, Part A: Tycho Brahe to Newton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Huygens, C. (1690). Discourse on the Cause of Gravity, manuscript translation by Karen Bailey with annotations by Karen Bailey and George Smith. Translation of Discours de la Cause de la Pesanteur, in Oeuvres completes de Christian Huygens, vol. 21 (La Haye: Nijhoff, 1944), pp. 462–71 and pp. 476ff.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Harper, W. (2009). Newton's Methodology. In: Quantum Reality, Relativistic Causality, and Closing the Epistemic Circle. The Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science, vol 73. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9107-0_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9107-0_3
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-9106-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-9107-0
eBook Packages: Physics and AstronomyPhysics and Astronomy (R0)