Abstract
In this paper an analysis of Newton’s argument for universal gravitation is provided. In the past, the complexity of the argument has not been fully appreciated. Recent authors like George E. Smith and William L. Harper have done a far better job. Nevertheless, a thorough account of the argument is still lacking. Both authors seem to stress the importance of only one methodological component. Smith stresses the procedure of approximative deductions backed-up by the laws of motion. Harper stresses “systematic dependencies” between theoretical parameters and phenomena. I will argue that Newton used a variety of different inferential strategies: causal parsimony considerations, deductions, demonstrative inductions, abductions and thought-experiments. Each of these strategies is part of Newton’s famous argument.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
B. Brackenbridge (1996) The Key to Newton’s Principia, The Kepler Problem and the Principia The University of California Press Berkeley
S. Chandrashekar (1995) Newton’s Principia for the Common Reader Oxford University Press Oxford
E.B. Davies (2003) ArticleTitleThe Newtonian Myth Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 34 763–780 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0039-3681(03)00045-1
F. De Gandt (1995) Force and Geometry in Newton’s Principia Princeton University Press Princeton
D. Densmore (1995) Newton’s Principia, The Central Argument Green Lion Press Santa Fe
S. Ducheyne (2005a) ArticleTitleNewton’s Notion and Practice of Unification Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 36 IssueID1 61–78 Occurrence Handle10.1016/j.shpsa.2004.12.004
S: Ducheyme (2005b) ArticleTitleMathematical Models in Newton’s Principia: A New View of the ‘Newtonian Style’ International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 19 1–19 Occurrence Handle10.1080/02698590500051035
N. Guicciardini (1999) Reading the Principia, The Debate on Newton’s Mathematical Methods for Natural Philosophy from 1687 to 1736 Cambridge University Press Cambridge
C. Glymour (1980) Theory and Evidence Princeton University Press Princeton
Harper, W. L., S. R. Valluri and R. B. Mann: 2002, Jupiter’s Moons as a Test of the Equivalence Principle. In G. Vahe, G. Gurzadyan, R. T. Jantzen and R. Ruffini (eds.), The Ninth Marcel Grossmann Meeting. Proceedings of the M6-IX Meeting held at The University of Rome “La Sapienza”, 2–8 July 2000. Singapore, World Scientific Publishing, 1803–1813.
Harper, W. L. (1990), Newton’s Classic Deductions from Phenomena. PSA: Proceeding of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. II: 183–196.
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, Holder-Pichler-Tempsky, Vienna, 265–287.
W.L. Harper (2002a) Newton’s Argument for Universal Gravitation I.B. Cohen G.E Smith (Eds) The Cambridge Companion to Newton Cambridge University Press Cambridge 174–201
Harper, W. L.: 2002b, Howard Stein on Isaac Newton: Beyond Hypotheses. In D. B. Malament (eds.), Reading Natural Philosophy: Essays in the History and Philosophy of Science and Mathematics. Open Court, Chicago, 71–112.
M. Nauenberg (2003) ArticleTitleKepler’s Area Law in the Principia: Filling in some details in Newton’s proof of Proposition 1 Historia Mathematica 30 441–56 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0315-0860(02)00027-7
Newton, I.: 1979[1730], Opticks or A Treatise of Reflections, Refractions, Inflections and Colours of Light, 4th edition. New York: Dover.
Newton, I.: 1999[1726], The Principia, Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, A New Translation by I. Bernard Cohen and Anne Whitman, assisted by Julia Budenz, Preceded by A Guide to Newton’s Principia by I. Bernard Cohen. Berkeley: California University Press.
J. Norton (1994) ArticleTitleScience and Certainty Synthese 99 3–22 Occurrence Handle10.1007/BF01064528
Popper, K. R.: 1992[1958], Conjectures and Refutations, 5th edition. London: Routledge.
B. Pourciau (2003) ArticleTitleNewton’s Argument for Proposition 1 of the Principia Archive for History of Exact Sciences 57 267–311 Occurrence Handle10.1007/s00407-002-0062-x
A. Raftopoulos (1999) ArticleTitleNewton’s Experimental Proofs as Eliminative Reasoning Erkenntnis 50 91–121 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1005430219735
Smith, G. E.: 2002a, From the Phenomena of the Ellipse to an Inverse-Square Force: Why Not?. In D. B. Malament (eds.), Reading Natural Philosophy: Essays in the History and Philosophy of Science and Mathematics, Chicago: Open Court, 31–70.
G.E. Smith (2002b) The Methodology of the Principia I.B. Cohen G.E Smith (Eds) The Cambridge Companion to Newton Cambridge University Press Cambridge 138–173
H. Stein (1970) On the Notion of Field in Newton, Maxwell, and Beyond R.H. Stuewer (Eds) Historical and Philosophical Perspectives on Science University of Minnesota Press Minneapolis 264–87
C. Wilson (1989) Astronomy from Kepler to Newton Variorum London
C. Wilson (2001) Newton and the Moon’s Variation and Apsidal Motion J. Z. Buchwald I. B. Cohen (Eds) Isaac’s Newton’s Natural Philosophy MIT Press Cambridge 139–188
J. Worrall (2001) ArticleTitleThe Scope, Limits and Distinctiveness of the Method of “Deduction from the Phenomena” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 51 45–80 Occurrence Handle10.1093/bjps/51.1.45
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ducheyne, S. The Argument(s) for Universal Gravitation. Found Sci 11, 419–447 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-005-3189-9
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-005-3189-9