Abstract
Maxwell claimed that the electrostatic inverse square law could be deduced from Cavendish's spherical condenser experiment. This is true only if the accuracy claims made by Cavendish and Maxwell are ignored, for both used the inverse square law as a premise in their analyses of experimental accuracy. By so doing, they assumed the very law the accuracy of which the Cavendish experiment was supposed to test. This paper attempts to make rational sense of this apparently circular procedure and to relate it to some variants of traditional problems concerning old and new evidence.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Birkhoff, Garrett: 1960,Hydrodynamics: A Study in Logic, Fact and Similitude, rev. ed., Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Cavendish, Henry: 1771, ‘An Attempt to Explain Some of the Principle Phenomena of Electricity, by Means of an Elastic Fluid’,Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society LXI, 584–677 (repr. in Cavendish, 1879, pp. 3–63).
Cavendish, Henry: 1879,The Electrical Researches of the Honourable Henry Cavendish, ed. J. Clerk Maxwell, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Dorling, Jon: 1971, ‘Einstein's Introduction of Photons: Argument by Analogy or Deduction from the Phenomena?’,British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 22, 1–8.
Dorling, Jon: 1973, ‘Demonstrative Induction: Its Significant Role in the History of Physic’,Philosophy of Science 40, 360–72.
Dorling, Jon: 1974, ‘Henry Cavendish's Deduction of the Electrostatic Inverse Square Law from the Result of a Single Experiment’,Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 4, 327–48.
Dorling, Jon: 1990, ‘Einstein's Methodology of Discovery was Newtonian Deduction-from-the-Phenomena’, manuscript.
Glymour, Clark: 1980,Theory and Evidence, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Green, George: 1835, ‘Mathematical Investigations Concerning the Laws of the Equilibrium of Fluids Analogous to the Electric Fluid, with Other Similar Researches’,Transactions of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 5, 1–63 (repr. inMathematical Papers of George Green, ed. N. M. Ferrers, Chelsea, New York, pp. 117–84).
Hopkinson, J: 1885, ‘On the Quadrant Electrometer’,Philosophical Magazine, ser. 5,19, 291–303.
Jeans, Sir James: 1925,The Mathematical Theory of Electricity and Magnetism, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Laplace, Marquis de: 1966,Celestial Mechanics, 4 vols., trans. Nathaniel Bowditch, Chelsea, New York.
Laudan, L.: 1977,Progress and Its Problems, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Laymon, R.: 1978, ‘Newton'sExperimentum Crucis and the Logic of Idealization and Theory Refutation’,Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 9, 51–77.
Laymon, R.: 1983, ‘Newton's Demonstration of Universal Gravitation and Philosophical Theories of Confirmation’, inMinnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. X, ed. John Earman. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp. 179–99.
Laymon, R.: 1985, ‘Idealizations and the Testing of Theories by Experimentation’, in P. Achinstein and O. Hannaway (eds.), MIT Press/Bradford Books, Boston, pp. 147–73.
Laymon, R.: 1987, ‘Using Scott Domains to Explicate the Notions of Approximate and Idealized Data’,Philosophy of Science 4, 194–221.
Laymon, R.: 1988, ‘The Michelson-Morley Experiment and the Appraisal of Theories’, in L. Laudan, R. Laudan, and A. Donovan (eds.),Scrutinizing Science: Empirical Studies of Scientific Change, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 245–66.
Laymon, R.: 1989, ‘Cartwright and the Lying Laws of Physics’,Journal of Philosophy 136, 353–72.
Laymon, R.: 1991, ‘Computer Simulations, Idealization and Approximation’, inPSA 1990, Vol. 2, ed. A. Fine, M. Forbes, and L. Wessels, Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing, pp. 519–34.
Maxwell, James Clerk: 1891,A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, Constable, London (repr.: 1954, Dover, New York).
Mayo, Deborah G.: 1991, ‘Novel Evidence and Severe Tests’,Philosophy of Science 58, 513–52.
Miller, D. C.: 1933, ‘The Ether-Drift Experiment and the Determination of the Absolute Motion of the Earth’,Reviews of Modern Physics 6, 204–42.
Norton, John: 1989, ‘Eliminative Induction as a Method of Discovery: How Einstein Discovered General Relativity’, manuscript.
Norton, John: 1993, ‘The Determination of Theory by Evidence: The Case for Quantum Discontinuity, 1900–1915’,Synthese 97, 1–31.
Norton, John: 1994, ‘Science and Certainty’,Synthese 99(1) this issue, 3–22.
Plimpton, S. J., and W. E. Lawton: 1936, ‘A Very Accurate Test of Coulomb's Law of Force between Charges’,Physical Review 50, 1066–71.
Rayleigh, Lord (John William Strutt): 1890, ‘Clerk-Maxwell's Papers’,Nature 43, 26–27 (repr.: in 1964,Scientific Papers by Lord Rayleigh, Vol. III, Dover, New York, pp. 426–28).
Shimony, Abner: 1970, ‘Scientific Inference’, in Robert G. Colodny (ed.),The Nature and Function of Scientific Theories, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, pp. 79–172.
Sylvester, J. J.: 1876, ‘Note on Spherical Harmonics’ and ‘Postscript’,Philosophical Magazine, 5th ser.,2, 29–307, 400.
Thomson, Sir William (Lord Kelvin): 1848, ‘Geometrical Investigations with Reference to the Distribution of Electricity on Spherical Conductors’,Cambridge and Dublin Mathematical Journal (1848)3, 141–48, 266–74; (1849)4, 276–84; (1850)5, 1–9 (repr. in: 1884,Reprint of Papers on Electrostatics and Magnetism, Macmillan, London, pp. 52–85).
Thomson, Sir William (Lord Kelvin): 1867, ‘Report on Electrometers and Electrostatic Measurements’,Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, pp. 489–512 (repr. in: 1884,Reprint of Papers on Electrostatics and Magnetism, Macmillan, London, pp. 263–313).
Worrall, John: 1985, ‘Scientific Discovery and Theory-Confirmation’, in Joseph Pitt (ed.),Change and Progress in Modern Science, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 301–31.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
My interest in demonstrative induction developed as the result of being given the opportunity by Joseph Pitt to comment on an earlier version of John Norton's ‘Science and Certainty’ (1994) at a conference held at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. I want to thank Joe and John for much stimulating discussion and John specifically for sharing his work on demonstrative induction with me. My gratitude also goes to the National Science Foundation (DIR-8920699) and Ohio State University for providing funding for a larger project of which this paper forms a part.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Laymon, R. Demonstrative induction, old and new evidence and the accuracy of the electrostatic inverse square law. Synthese 99, 23–58 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01064529
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01064529