Advertisement

Theory-Containment in Controversies: Neurath and Müller on Newton, Goethe, and Underdetermination

  • Gábor Á. Zemplén
Article
  • 41 Downloads

Abstract

Olaf Müller’s book (More Light) develops a new case for underdetermination (prismatic equivalence), and, as he is focusing on theories of a ‘limited domain’, this assumes the containability of the theories. First, the paper argues that Müller’s theory of darkness is fundamentally Newtonian, but for Newton’s optical theory the type of theoretical structure Müller adopts is problematic. Second, the paper discusses seventeenth-century challenges to Newton (by Huygens and Lucas), changes in the proof-structure of Newton’s optical theory, and how these affect Müller’s reconstruction. Müller’s book provides empirically equivalent theories, yet the historical theories were not empirically equivalent, and the same experiments were used to extract different bodies of evidence to rebut the opponent. Third, Goethe’s multi-layered critique of Newton’s experimental proof is investigated, including his developmental account of prismatic colours, the role of experimental series in rejecting Newton’s observations, and his incorporation of the ‘limited domain’ of prismatic colours in a broader framework. Two key elements of Goethe’s method, polarity and strengthening are discussed in contrast to Müller, who only utilises polarity in his account. Finally Neurath’s attempts to come to grips with the optical controversies and the prism-experiments with ‘blurred edges’ are recalled. Müller also discusses in detail some of these experiments and heavily draws on Quine. Neurath developed Duhem’s and Poincaré’s conventionalist insights and had good reasons to be pessimistic about theory-containment. Their differences provide some additions to the history of the Duhem–Quine thesis.

Keywords

Newton Goethe Optics Rational reconstruction Methodology Philosophy of experiment 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The work was supported by the MTA Lendület Science and Morals Research Group and the “Integrative Argumentation Studies” NKFI-OTKA K 109456 Grant. I appreciate the helpful comments by István Danka and two anonymous reviewers.

References

  1. Amrine, F. (1990). The metamorphosis of the scientist. Goethe Yearbook, 5, 187–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Biddle, J. (2013). State of the field: Transient underdetermination and values in science. Studies In History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 44(1), 124–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burwick, F. (1989). The new english edition of Goethe’s works. Eighteenth-Century Studies, 23(1), 62–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cohen, M. R., & Drabkin, I. E. [1948 (1969)]. A source book in Greek science (Source Books in the History of Science). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Dascal, M. (2003). Interpretation and understanding. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dijksterhuis, F. J. (2004). Once snell breaks down: From geometrical to physical optics in the seventeenth century. Annals of Science, 61, 165–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Duck, M. J. (1987). The Bezold–Brücke phenomenon and Goethe’s rejection of Newton’s Opticks. American Journal of Physics, 55(9), 793–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gelfert, A. (2014). Applicability, indispensability, and underdetermination: Puzzling over Wigner’s ‘unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics’. Science and Education, 23(5), 997–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goethe, J. W. V. (1988). Scientific studies (D. Miller, Trans., Vol. 12, Suhrkamp Edition in 12 Volumes). New York: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  10. HA: Goethes Werke in 14 Bänden, Hamburger Ausgabe, 1953. Hamburg.Google Scholar
  11. Halvorson, H. (2012). What scientific theories could not be. Philosophy of Science, 79(April), 183–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hegge, H. (1987). Theory of science in the light of Goethe’s science of nature. In F. Amrine, F. J. Zucker, & H. Wheeler (Eds.), Goethe and the sciences: A reappraisal (Vol. BSPS 97). Dordrecht: D. Reidel Pub. Co.Google Scholar
  13. Holtsmark, T. (2012). Colour and image. Berlin: Logos.Google Scholar
  14. Kuhn, T. S. (1958). Newton’s optical papers. In I. B. Cohen (Ed.), Isaac Newton’s papers and letters on natural philosophy (pp. 27–45). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. LA: Goethe, Die Schriften zur Naturwissenschaft. Weimar: Herausgegeben im Auftrage der Deutschen Akademie der Naturforscher (Leopoldina).Google Scholar
  16. Lampert, T. (2017). Underdetermination and provability: A reply to Olaf Müller. British Journal for the History of Philosophy. 25(2), 389–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Laymon, R. (1978). Idealization, explanation, and confirmation. PSA, I, 336–350.Google Scholar
  18. Lohne, J. A. (1977). Nova experimenta crystalli islandici disdiaclastici. Centaurus, 21(2), 106–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Müller, B. (Ed.). (1989). Goethe’s botanical writings. Connecticut: Ox Bow Press.Google Scholar
  20. Müller, O. L. (2015). Goethe mit Newton im Streit um die Farben. Frankfurt am Main: S. Fisher.Google Scholar
  21. Müller, O. L. (2016). Prismatic equivalence: A new case of underdetermination—Goethe vs. Newton on the prism experiments. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 24(2), 322–346.Google Scholar
  22. Neurath, O. (1914/5). Zur Klassifikation von Hypothesensystemen (Mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Optik). Jahrbuch der Philosophischen Gesellschaft an der Universität zu Wien 1914 und 1915, 39–63.Google Scholar
  23. Neurath, O. (1915). Prinzipielles zur Geschichte der Optik. Archiv für die Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften und der Technik, 5, 371–389.Google Scholar
  24. Neurath, O. (1973). Empiricism and sociology. Dordrecht: D. Riedel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Neurath, O. (1983). Philosophical papers, 1913–1946. Dordrecht: D. Riedel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Newman, W. R. (2010). Newton’s early optical theory and its debt to chymistry. In D. Jacquart & M. Hochmann (Eds.), Lumière et vision dans les sciences et dans les arts, de l’Antiquité du XVIIe siècle. Geneve: Librairie Droz.Google Scholar
  27. Newton, I. (1671–1672). New theory about light and colours. Philosophical Transactions, 80, 3075–3087.Google Scholar
  28. Newton, I. (1952). Opticks or a Treatise of the Reflections, Refractions, Inflections & Colours of Light. London: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
  29. Newton, I. (1984). The optical papers of Isaac Newton (Vol. I). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Palmer, S. E. (1998). Color, consciousness and the isomorphism constraint. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 22, 923–989.Google Scholar
  31. Ribe, N. M. (1985). Goethe’s critique of Newton: A reconsideration. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 16(4), 315–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ribe, N., & Steinle, F. (2002). Exploratory experimentation: Goethe, land, and color theory. Physics Today, 57, 43–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sepper, D. L. (1988). Goethe contra Newton: Polemics and the project for a new science of color. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shapiro, A. E. (1973). Kinematic optics: A study of the wave theory of light in the seventeenth century. Archive for History of Exact Sciences, 11, 134–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shapiro, A. E. (1980). The evolving structure of Newton’s theory of white light and colour. ISIS, 71(257), 211–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Turnbull, H. W. (Ed.). (1959). The correspondence of Isaac Newton I. 1661–1675. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Turnbull, H. W. (Ed.). (1960). The correspondence of Isaac Newton II. 1676–1687. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Vickers, P. (2014). Scientific theory eliminativism. Erkenntnis, 79(1), 111–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Westphal, J. (1987). Colour: Some philosophical problems from Wittgenstein, Aristotelian Society Series. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  40. Wroblewski, J. (1983). Fuzziness of legal system. Essays in Legal Theory in Honour of Kaarle Makkonen, Oikeustiede-Junsprudentia XVI, 315–319.Google Scholar
  41. Young, T. A. (1814). Zur Farbenlehre. On the doctrine of colours. The Quarterly Review, 10, 427–441.Google Scholar
  42. Zemplén, G. Á. (2006a). Auxiliary images: Appropriations of Goethe’s theory of colours. In S. Zielinski, & D. Link (Eds.), Yariantology 2: On deep time relations of arts, sciences and technologies (pp. 169–202). Köln: Verlag der Buchhandlung Walther König.Google Scholar
  43. Zemplén, G. Á. (2006b). The development of the Neurath-principle: Unearthing the Romantic link. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science A, 37(4), 585–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zemplén, G. Á. (2017a). Diagrammatic carriers & the acceptance of Newton’s optical theory. Synthese.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1356-5 Google Scholar
  45. Zemplén, G. Á. (2017b). Structure and advancement in Goethe’s morphology. In J. Faflak (Ed.), Marking time: Romanticism and evolution. Toronto: Toronto UP.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy and History of ScienceBudapest University of Technology and Economics (BME)BudapestHungary
  2. 2.Institute of Business EconomicsEötvös Loránd UniversityBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations