Advertisement

Synthese

, Volume 99, Issue 1, pp 23–58 | Cite as

Demonstrative induction, old and new evidence and the accuracy of the electrostatic inverse square law

  • Ronald Laymon
Article

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.

Keywords

Rational Sense Experimental Accuracy Accuracy Claim Traditional Problem Condenser Experiment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Birkhoff, Garrett: 1960,Hydrodynamics: A Study in Logic, Fact and Similitude, rev. ed., Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  2. 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).Google Scholar
  3. Cavendish, Henry: 1879,The Electrical Researches of the Honourable Henry Cavendish, ed. J. Clerk Maxwell, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  4. 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.Google Scholar
  5. Dorling, Jon: 1973, ‘Demonstrative Induction: Its Significant Role in the History of Physic’,Philosophy of Science 40, 360–72.Google Scholar
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. Dorling, Jon: 1990, ‘Einstein's Methodology of Discovery was Newtonian Deduction-from-the-Phenomena’, manuscript.Google Scholar
  8. Glymour, Clark: 1980,Theory and Evidence, Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  9. 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).Google Scholar
  10. Hopkinson, J: 1885, ‘On the Quadrant Electrometer’,Philosophical Magazine, ser. 5,19, 291–303.Google Scholar
  11. Jeans, Sir James: 1925,The Mathematical Theory of Electricity and Magnetism, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  12. Laplace, Marquis de: 1966,Celestial Mechanics, 4 vols., trans. Nathaniel Bowditch, Chelsea, New York.Google Scholar
  13. Laudan, L.: 1977,Progress and Its Problems, University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  14. Laymon, R.: 1978, ‘Newton'sExperimentum Crucis and the Logic of Idealization and Theory Refutation’,Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 9, 51–77.Google Scholar
  15. 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.Google Scholar
  16. 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.Google Scholar
  17. Laymon, R.: 1987, ‘Using Scott Domains to Explicate the Notions of Approximate and Idealized Data’,Philosophy of Science 4, 194–221.Google Scholar
  18. 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.Google Scholar
  19. Laymon, R.: 1989, ‘Cartwright and the Lying Laws of Physics’,Journal of Philosophy 136, 353–72.Google Scholar
  20. 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.Google Scholar
  21. Maxwell, James Clerk: 1891,A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, Constable, London (repr.: 1954, Dover, New York).Google Scholar
  22. Mayo, Deborah G.: 1991, ‘Novel Evidence and Severe Tests’,Philosophy of Science 58, 513–52.Google Scholar
  23. 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.Google Scholar
  24. Norton, John: 1989, ‘Eliminative Induction as a Method of Discovery: How Einstein Discovered General Relativity’, manuscript.Google Scholar
  25. Norton, John: 1993, ‘The Determination of Theory by Evidence: The Case for Quantum Discontinuity, 1900–1915’,Synthese 97, 1–31.Google Scholar
  26. Norton, John: 1994, ‘Science and Certainty’,Synthese 99(1) this issue, 3–22.Google Scholar
  27. 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.Google Scholar
  28. 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).Google Scholar
  29. 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.Google Scholar
  30. Sylvester, J. J.: 1876, ‘Note on Spherical Harmonics’ and ‘Postscript’,Philosophical Magazine, 5th ser.,2, 29–307, 400.Google Scholar
  31. 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).Google Scholar
  32. 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).Google Scholar
  33. Worrall, John: 1985, ‘Scientific Discovery and Theory-Confirmation’, in Joseph Pitt (ed.),Change and Progress in Modern Science, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 301–31.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ronald Laymon
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyOhio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations