Faculty Database Philosophy Arts & Sciences Duke University |
||
HOME > Arts & Sciences > Philosophy > Faculty | Search Help Login |
| Publications of Andrew Janiak :chronological by type listing:%% @article{fds374560, Author = {Janiak, A}, Title = {A Tale of Two Forces: Metaphysics and its Avoidance in Newton’s Principia}, Volume = {343}, Pages = {223-242}, Booktitle = {Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science}, Year = {2023}, Month = {January}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41041-3_11}, Abstract = {Isaac Newton did more than any other early modern figure to revolutionize natural philosophy, but he was often wary of other aspects of philosophy. He had an especially vexed relationship with metaphysics. As recent scholarship has highlighted, he often denounced metaphysical discussions, especially those in the Scholastic tradition (Levitin 2016). He insisted that he himself was not engaging with the aspect of philosophy that played such a prominent role in the work of his predecessors, especially Descartes, and his critics, especially Leibniz. However, in the Principia and the Opticks, along with correspondence and unpublished manuscripts, Newton expressed views about the gravity of bodies and the power of substances that place his thought squarely within the metaphysical tradition he sought to avoid. Alas, his famous reluctance to engage in disputes left even Newton’s supporters confused about his metaphysical ideas.}, Doi = {10.1007/978-3-031-41041-3_11}, Key = {fds374560} } @article{fds367070, Author = {A. Janiak}, Title = {Do forces exist? contesting the mechanical philosophy, I}, Pages = {50-86}, Booktitle = {Newton as Philosopher}, Publisher = {Cambridge University Press}, Year = {2008}, Month = {July}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511481512.005}, Doi = {10.1017/cbo9780511481512.005}, Key = {fds367070} } @article{fds363729, Author = {Janiak, A}, Title = {Émilie Du Châtelet: Physics, Metaphysics and the Case of Gravity}, Pages = {49-71}, Booktitle = {Early Modern Women on Metaphysics}, Year = {2018}, Month = {January}, ISBN = {9781107178687}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/9781316827192.004}, Abstract = {When Émilie Du Châtelet published her magnum opus, Institutions de physique, in 1740, it was quickly met with excited reactions from mathematicians and philosophers throughout the Continent.1 Within a few short years, it was read and discussed by philosophers like Kant and Wolff and by mathematicians like the Bernoullis, Euler and D’Alembert.}, Doi = {10.1017/9781316827192.004}, Key = {fds363729} } @article{fds363035, Author = {Janiak, A}, Title = {Émilie Du Châtelet’s Break from the French Newtonians}, Journal = {Revue D'Histoire Des Sciences}, Volume = {74}, Number = {2}, Pages = {265-296}, Year = {2021}, Month = {July}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.3917/rhs.742.0265}, Abstract = {In Madame Du Châtelet's milieu, many philosophers argued that Newton's physics allowed one to ignore metaphysics, or perhaps required a modest supplement from elements of Locke's metaphysics. In her Institutions physiques, Du Châtelet takes a radically different approach. She contends that Newton's science of gravity requires a foray into metaphysics, especially concerning the essence of matter. Using her version of the principle of sufficient reason, she also argues that Locke's metaphysics is not an appropriate supplement to the new science of gravity. I conclude that her approach is distinctive for the early Enlightenment.}, Doi = {10.3917/rhs.742.0265}, Key = {fds363035} } @article{fds367068, Author = {A. Janiak}, Title = {God and natural philosophy}, Pages = {163-178}, Booktitle = {Newton as Philosopher}, Publisher = {Cambridge University Press}, Year = {2008}, Month = {July}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511481512.008}, Doi = {10.1017/cbo9780511481512.008}, Key = {fds367068} } @book{fds306214, Author = {Janiak, A and Schliesser, E}, Title = {Interpreting Newton: Critical essays}, Pages = {i-iv}, Publisher = {Cambridge University Press}, Year = {2012}, Month = {January}, ISBN = {9780521766180}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511994845}, Abstract = {This collection of specially-commissioned essays by leading scholars presents new research on Isaac Newton and his main philosophical interlocutors and critics. The essays analyze Newton's relation to his contemporaries, especially Barrow, Descartes, Leibniz and Locke, and discuss the ways in which a broad range of figures, including Hume, Maclaurin, Maupertuis, and Kant, reacted to his thought. The wide range of topics discussed includes the laws of nature, the notion of force, the relation of mathematics to nature, Newton's argument for universal gravitation, his attitude toward philosophical empiricism, his use of “fluxions,” his approach toward measurement problems, and his concept of absolute motion, together with new interpretations of Newton's matter theory. The volume concludes with an extended essay that analyzes the changes in physics wrought by Newton's Principia. A substantial introduction and bibliography provide essential reference guides.}, Doi = {10.1017/CBO9780511994845}, Key = {fds306214} } @book{fds311980, Author = {Janiak, A and Schliesser, E}, Title = {Introduction}, Pages = {1-10}, Publisher = {Cambridge University Press}, Year = {2012}, Month = {January}, ISBN = {9780521766180}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511994845.001}, Abstract = {It may be anachronistic to say that Isaac Newton and his Principia decisively changed physics and philosophy, because separate fields of physics and philosophy did not yet exist. But the notion of decisive change captures something significant about the continuing relevance of studying Newton. What has been aptly termed “Newton's new way of inquiry” (Harper and Smith 1995) was baffling for even his most sophisticated contemporaries, and it took Europe's brightest astronomers and mathematically inclined natural philosophers almost a century in order to evaluate and assimilate the Principia. But for reasons that need not detain us here, few of these figures (e.g., Clairaut, Euler, Laplace), who were fully immersed in Newton's work, really offered a definitive account of the methodology of the Principia. Of course, many scholars from Newton's day onward have offered interpretations of Newton's explicit methodological claims, but surprisingly few have combined this approach with detailed knowledge of Newton's technical practice. As is well known, by the time physics became enshrined as the leading part of the disciplinary structure of science, its attitude toward its own history did not encourage close scrutiny of past practices. In this volume, the three chapters on methodology by George Smith, William Harper, and Ori Belkind all capture important aspects of Newton's new way of inquiry. Newton also changed philosophy in two important ways. First, the body of work eventually known as “Newtonian mechanics” became a privileged form of knowledge that had to be dealt with somehow within metaphysics and epistemology. Second, it initiated a slow process in which philosophy defined itself in terms that often contrasted with – or were modeled on – Newtonian success. But as a consequence, in philosophy's evolving self-conception Newton stopped being central to the history of philosophy. Somewhat surprisingly, philosophical interest in Newton revived at the beginning of the twentieth century, precisely when his physical theory was called into question by Einstein's revolutionary work. Most of the papers in this volume engage with Newton's place within the history of philosophy. Before we turn to a detailed description of the chapters collected here, we offer a brief introduction to the scholarship that in many ways forms the shared background of recent philosophically motivated work on Isaac Newton.}, Doi = {10.1017/CBO9780511994845.001}, Key = {fds311980} } @article{fds244493, Author = {Janiak, A}, Title = {Isaac Newton}, Booktitle = {Oxford Handbook of British Philosophy in the Seventeenth Century}, Publisher = {Oxford University Press}, Year = {2013}, Key = {fds244493} } @article{fds244494, Author = {Janiak, A}, Title = {Kant as Philosopher of Science}, Journal = {Perspectives on Science}, Volume = {12}, Number = {3}, Pages = {337-361}, Publisher = {MIT Press - Journals}, Year = {2004}, Month = {June}, ISSN = {1063-6145}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/1063614042795453}, Abstract = {Michael Friedman's Kant and the Exact Sciences (1992) refocused scholarly attention on Kant's status as a philosopher of the sciences, especially (but not exclusively) of the broadly Newtonian science of the eighteenth century. The last few years have seen a plethora of articles and monographs concerned with characterizing that status. This recent scholarship illuminates Kant's views on a diverse group of topics: science and its relation to metaphysics; dynamics and the theory of matter; causation and Hume's critique of it; and, the limits of mechanism and of mechanical intelligibility. I argue that recent interpretations of Kant's views on these topics should influence our understanding of his principal metaphysical and epistemological arguments and positions. © 2004 by The Massachusetts Institute of Technology.}, Doi = {10.1162/1063614042795453}, Key = {fds244494} } @article{fds311983, Author = {Janiak, A}, Title = {Kant's conception of moral character: The 'critical' link of morality, anthropology and reflective judgment}, Journal = {History of Political Thought}, Volume = {23}, Number = {3}, Pages = {545-546}, Year = {2002}, ISSN = {0143-781X}, url = {http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000178002300008&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=47d3190e77e5a3a53558812f597b0b92}, Key = {fds311983} } @article{fds311981, Author = {Janiak, A}, Title = {Kant, Herder and the birth of anthropology}, Journal = {History of Political Thought}, Volume = {25}, Number = {1}, Pages = {163-164}, Year = {2004}, ISSN = {0143-781X}, url = {http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000189176700012&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=47d3190e77e5a3a53558812f597b0b92}, Key = {fds311981} } @article{fds244497, Author = {Janiak, A}, Title = {Kant, Herder and the Birth of Anthropology (U Chicago Press)}, Journal = {History of Political Thought}, Volume = {25}, Year = {2003}, Key = {fds244497} } @article{fds244495, Author = {Janiak, A}, Title = {Kant’s Views on Space and Time}, Series = {Spring 2009 edition}, Booktitle = {Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy}, Editor = {Zalta, E}, Year = {2009}, Key = {fds244495} } @article{fds244491, Author = {Janiak, A}, Title = {Mathematics and infinity in Descartes and Newton}, Pages = {209-230}, Booktitle = {Mathematizing Space: the objects of geometry from Antiquity to the Early Modern Age}, Publisher = {Birkhauser}, Editor = {De Risi and V}, Year = {2015}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12102-4_9}, Abstract = {The concept of the infinite has often been regarded as inherently problematic in mathematics and in philosophy. The idea that the universe itself might be infinite has been the subject of intense debate not only on mathematical and philosophical grounds, but for theological and political reasons as well. When Copernicus and his followers challenged the old Aristotelian and Ptolemaic conceptions of the world’s finiteness, if not its boundedness, the idea of an infinite, if not merely unbounded, world seemed more attractive. Indeed, the infinity of space has been called the “fundamental principle of the new ontology” (Koyré in From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1957, p. 126). Influential scholarship in the first half of the twentieth century helped to solidify the idea that it was specifically in the seventeenth century that astronomers and natural philosophers fully embraced the infinity of the universe. As Kuhn writes in his Copernican Revolution (1957, p. 289): “From Bruno ’s death in 1600 to the publication of Descartes ’s Principles of Philosophy in 1644, no Copernican of any prominence appears to have espoused the infinite universe, at least in public. After Descartes, however, no Copernican seems to have opposed the conception.” That same year saw the publication of Alexandre Koyré ’s sweeping volume about the scientific revolution, From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe. The decision to describe and conceive of the world as infinite might be seen as a crucial, if not decisive, aspect of the overthrow of Scholasticism. As Kuhn and Koyré knew, one finds a particularly invigorating expression of this historical-philosophical interpretation in an earlier article by Marjorie Nicholson (Studies in Philology 25:356–374, 1929, p. 370).}, Doi = {10.1007/978-3-319-12102-4_9}, Key = {fds244491} } @article{fds367065, Author = {A. Janiak}, Title = {Matter and mechanism: contesting the mechanical philosophy, II}, Pages = {87-129}, Booktitle = {Newton as Philosopher}, Publisher = {Cambridge University Press}, Year = {2008}, Month = {July}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511481512.006}, Doi = {10.1017/cbo9780511481512.006}, Key = {fds367065} } @article{fds244505, Author = {Janiak, A}, Title = {Metaphysics and Natural Philosophy in Descartes and Newton}, Journal = {Foundations of Science}, Volume = {18}, Number = {3}, Pages = {403-417}, Publisher = {Springer Science and Business Media LLC}, Year = {2013}, Month = {August}, ISSN = {1233-1821}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10699-011-9277-0}, Abstract = {This paper compares Newton's and Descartes's conceptions of the complex relationship between physics and metaphysics. © 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.}, Doi = {10.1007/s10699-011-9277-0}, Key = {fds244505} } @article{fds366192, Author = {Janiak, A}, Title = {NATURAL PHILOSOPHY}, Pages = {385-409}, Booktitle = {The Routledge Companion to Seventeenth Century Philosophy}, Year = {2017}, Month = {January}, ISBN = {9780415775670}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315771960-14}, Abstract = {During the seventeenth century, there was something approaching consensus about the methodological parameters of natural philosophy. Throughout the century, a debate raged about whether the natural philosopher could legitimately employ geometric and arithmetic methods to model and understand phenomena. It is probably safe to say that by the middle of the century, Rene Descartes had set the agenda of natural philosophy for philosophers throughout Europe. There can be no doubt that Newton made astonishing progress in using mathematical, especially geometric, methods in answering questions about the motions of bodies and the forces that cause them in Principia mathematica. The Cartesian conception of space, time, and motion, it is fair to say, set the stage for nearly all later discussions of the topics within natural philosophy in the seventeenth century. Descartes’s and Newton’s discussions of God within natural philosophy can make it tempting to conclude that they are parroting well-worn theological points.}, Doi = {10.4324/9781315771960-14}, Key = {fds366192} } @article{fds244502, Author = {Janiak, A}, Title = {Newton and descartes: Theology and natural philosophy}, Journal = {The Southern Journal of Philosophy}, Volume = {50}, Number = {3}, Pages = {414-435}, Publisher = {WILEY}, Year = {2012}, Month = {September}, ISSN = {0038-4283}, url = {http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000308296900005&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=47d3190e77e5a3a53558812f597b0b92}, Abstract = {Scholars have long recognized that Newton regarded Descartes as his principal philosophical interlocutor when composing the first edition of Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica in 1687. The arguments in the Scholium on space and time, for instance, can profitably be interpreted as focusing on the conception of space and motion in part two of Descartes's Principles of Philosophy (1644). What is less well known, however, is that this Cartesian conception, along with Descartes's attempt to avoid Galileo's fate in 1633, serves as an essential background to understanding Newton's own (poorly understood) view of the theological implications of his theory of space and motion. In particular, after withdrawing Le Monde from publication in 1633 because of its Copernican leanings, Descartes later introduced what some regard as a "fudge factor" into the theory of motion in the Principles: from an ordinary perspective the earth does move; but from a philosophical one, it does not. This background indicates the novelty and originality of Newton's own attempt to explicate how scriptural passages concerning the motions of the heavenly bodies can be reconciled with the philosophical views he developed during the 1680s. New evidence from archival sources and correspondence supports this argument, shedding light on the Scholium and on Newton's conception of philosophy's relation to theology. © 2012 The University of Memphis.}, Doi = {10.1111/j.2041-6962.2012.00130.x}, Key = {fds244502} } @article{fds244506, Author = {Janiak, A}, Title = {Newton and the reality of force}, Journal = {Journal of the History of Philosophy}, Volume = {45}, Number = {1}, Pages = {127-147}, Publisher = {Johns Hopkins University Press}, Year = {2007}, ISSN = {0022-5053}, url = {http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000243762200006&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=47d3190e77e5a3a53558812f597b0b92}, Doi = {10.1353/hph.2007.0010}, Key = {fds244506} } @book{fds244503, Author = {Janiak, A}, Title = {Newton as philosopher}, Pages = {1-196}, Publisher = {Cambridge University Press}, Year = {2008}, Month = {January}, ISBN = {9780521862868}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511481512}, Abstract = {Newton's philosophical views are unique and uniquely difficult to categorise. in the course of a long career from the early 1670s until his death in 1727, he articulated profound responses to Cartesian natural philosophy and to the prevailing mechanical philosophy of his day. Newton as Philosopher presents Newton as an original and sophisticated contributor to natural philosophy, one who engaged with the principal ideas of his most important predecessor, René Descartes, and of his most influential critic, G. W. Leibniz. Unlike Descartes and Leibniz, Newton was systematic and philosophical without presenting a philosophical system, but over the course of his life, he developed a novel picture of nature, our place within it, and its relation to the creator. This rich treatment of his philosophical ideas, the first in English for thirty years, will be of wide interest to historians of philosophy, science, and ideas.}, Doi = {10.1017/CBO9780511481512}, Key = {fds244503} } @article{fds367071, Author = {Janiak, A}, Title = {Newton as philosopher, the very idea}, Pages = {1-10}, Booktitle = {NEWTON AS PHILOSOPHER}, Year = {2008}, Key = {fds367071} } @book{fds306213, Author = {A. Janiak}, Title = {Newton: Philosophical Writings}, Series = {SECOND EDITION}, Pages = {199 pages}, Publisher = {Cambridge University Press}, Editor = {Janiak, A}, Year = {2014}, Key = {fds306213} } @article{fds244492, Author = {Janiak, A}, Title = {Newton’s Forces in Kant’s Critique}, Booktitle = {Discourse on a New Method: Reinvigorating the Marriage of History and Philosophy of Science}, Publisher = {Open Court Press}, Editor = {Dickson, M and Domski, M}, Year = {2010}, Key = {fds244492} } @article{fds244496, Author = {Janiak, A}, Title = {Newton’s Philosophy}, Series = {SECOND EDITION}, Booktitle = {Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy}, Publisher = {S}, Editor = {Zalta, E}, Year = {2014}, Month = {May}, Key = {fds244496} } @article{fds367066, Author = {A. Janiak}, Title = {Physics and metaphysics: three interpretations}, Pages = {11-49}, Booktitle = {Newton as Philosopher}, Publisher = {Cambridge University Press}, Year = {2008}, Month = {July}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511481512.004}, Doi = {10.1017/cbo9780511481512.004}, Key = {fds367066} } @article{fds371295, Author = {Gessell, B and Janiak, A}, Title = {Physics and optics: Agnesi, Bassi, Du Châtelet}, Pages = {174-186}, Booktitle = {The Routledge Handbook of Women and Early Modern European Philosophy}, Year = {2023}, Month = {June}, ISBN = {9781138212756}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315450001-17}, Doi = {10.4324/9781315450001-17}, Key = {fds371295} } @article{fds367069, Author = {A. Janiak}, Title = {Preface}, Pages = {vii-x}, Booktitle = {Newton as Philosopher}, Publisher = {Cambridge University Press}, Year = {2008}, Month = {July}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511481512.001}, Doi = {10.1017/cbo9780511481512.001}, Key = {fds367069} } @article{fds244499, Author = {Janiak, A}, Title = {Review of Garber and Longuenesse, Kant and the early Moderns (Princeton Press)}, Journal = {Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews}, Year = {2009}, Key = {fds244499} } @article{fds244498, Author = {Janiak, A}, Title = {Review of Thomas Holden, The Architecture of Matter}, Journal = {Mind}, Volume = {115}, Number = {460}, Pages = {1130-1133}, Publisher = {Oxford University Press (OUP)}, Year = {2006}, Month = {October}, ISSN = {0026-4423}, url = {http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000241277400017&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=47d3190e77e5a3a53558812f597b0b92}, Doi = {10.1093/mind/fzl1130}, Key = {fds244498} } @article{fds311982, Author = {Janiak, A}, Title = {Science and religion (Steven Weinberg's review of Richard Dawkins's The 'God Delusion')}, Journal = {Tls the Times Literary Supplement}, Number = {5418}, Pages = {17-17}, Year = {2007}, ISSN = {0307-661X}, url = {http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000244376500018&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=47d3190e77e5a3a53558812f597b0b92}, Key = {fds311982} } @article{fds311979, Author = {Janiak, A}, Title = {Space and motion in nature and Scripture: Galileo, Descartes, Newton.}, Journal = {Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A}, Volume = {51}, Pages = {89-99}, Year = {2015}, Month = {June}, ISSN = {0039-3681}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2015.02.004}, Abstract = {In the Scholium to the Definitions in Principia mathematica, Newton departs from his main task of discussing space, time and motion by suddenly mentioning the proper method for interpreting Scripture. This is surprising, and it has long been ignored by scholars. In this paper, I argue that the Scripture passage in the Scholium is actually far from incidental: it reflects Newton's substantive concern, one evident in correspondence and manuscripts from the 1680s, that any general understanding of space, time and motion must enable readers to recognize the veracity of Biblical claims about natural phenomena, including the motion of the earth. This substantive concern sheds new light on an aspect of Newton's project in the Scholium. It also underscores Newton's originality in dealing with the famous problem of reconciling theological and philosophical conceptions of nature in the seventeenth century.}, Doi = {10.1016/j.shpsa.2015.02.004}, Key = {fds311979} } @article{fds367067, Author = {A. Janiak}, Title = {Space in physics and metaphysics: contra Descartes}, Pages = {130-162}, Booktitle = {Newton as Philosopher}, Publisher = {Cambridge University Press}, Year = {2008}, Month = {July}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511481512.007}, Doi = {10.1017/cbo9780511481512.007}, Key = {fds367067} } @article{fds331597, Author = {Janiak, A}, Title = {Space, atoms and mathematical divisibility in Newton}, Journal = {Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A}, Volume = {31}, Number = {2}, Pages = {203-230}, Year = {2000}, Month = {January}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0039-3681(00)00003-0}, Doi = {10.1016/S0039-3681(00)00003-0}, Key = {fds331597} } @book{fds303572, Title = {Space: history of a concept}, Publisher = {Oxford University Press (OUP)}, Editor = {Janiak, A}, Year = {2015}, Month = {January}, Key = {fds303572} } @article{fds244500, Author = {Janiak, A}, Title = {Substance and Action in Descartes and Newton}, Journal = {The Monist}, Volume = {93}, Number = {4}, Pages = {657-677}, Publisher = {Oxford University Press (OUP)}, Editor = {Sugden, SJB}, Year = {2010}, ISSN = {0026-9662}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/monist201093437}, Doi = {10.5840/monist201093437}, Key = {fds244500} } @article{fds244501, Author = {Janiak, A}, Title = {The Kantian Spirit: how to resist realism in the philosophy of science (Review Essay)}, Journal = {Metascience}, Volume = {20}, Pages = {153-157}, Year = {2011}, Key = {fds244501} } @article{fds244504, Author = {Janiak, A}, Title = {Three concepts of causation in Newton}, Journal = {Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A}, Volume = {44}, Number = {3}, Pages = {396-407}, Publisher = {Elsevier BV}, Year = {2013}, Month = {September}, ISSN = {0039-3681}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2012.10.009}, Abstract = {In this paper, I argue that recent debates about Newton's attitude toward action at a distance have been hampered by a lack of conceptual clarity. To clarify the metaphysical background of the debates, I distinguish three kinds of causes within Newton's work: mechanical, dynamical, and substantial causes. This threefold distinction enables us to recognize that although Newton clearly regards gravity as an impressed force that operates across vast distances, he denies that this commitment requires him to think that some substance acts at a distance on another substance. (Dynamical causation is distinct from substantial causation.) Newton's denial of substantial action at a distance may strike his interpreters as questionable, so I provide an argument to show that it is in fact acceptable. © 2012 Elsevier Ltd.}, Doi = {10.1016/j.shpsa.2012.10.009}, Key = {fds244504} } | |
Duke University * Arts & Sciences * Philosophy * Faculty * Staff * Grad * Reload * Login |