Advertisement

Toward a New Science: Gathering Results and the Rise and Demise of a Dynamical Foundation

  • Jochen Büttner
Chapter
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science book series (BSPS, volume 335)

Abstract

The chapter discusses how around 1602, and in any case before 1604, Galileo started to collect and systematize the results he had obtained while pursuing his challenging research program on swinging and rolling. The folios he used for this work all share the same watermark showing a small star with mountains. In his exposition of the content, Galileo mimicked a treatise by, for instance, drawing a margin, by opening paragraphs with majuscules, or by having the propositions noted follow the classical schema of a geometrical proof. Galileo was no longer merely exploring but was aiming at molding his results into a form in which they could properly be communicated in print in the future. Galileo, moreover, started to analyze his new results with respect to concepts anchored in the traditional conceptual frameworks. Thus, in particular, the concept of velocity started to figure in his considerations regarding naturally accelerated motion from which it had thus far been virtually absent. It was thus indeed Galileo’s analysis of the relation of the velocities of motions along planes of different inclination which revealed an inconsistency that, in the long run, forced him to renounce the attempt to provide a dynamical foundation for his new insights regarding naturally accelerated motion.

References

  1. Barbour, J. (2001). The discovery of dynamics: A study from a Machian point of view of the discovery and the structure of dynamical theories. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Büttner, J. (2001). Galileo’s cosmogony. In J. Montesinos & C. Solís (Eds.), Largo campo di filosofare: Eurosymposium Galileo 2001 (pp. 391–401). La Orotava: Fundación Canaria Orotava de Historia de la Ciencia.Google Scholar
  3. Büttner, J. (2008). Big wheel keep on turning. Galilaeana, 5, 33–62.Google Scholar
  4. Damerow, P., Freudenthal, G., McLaughlin, P., & Renn, J. (2004). Exploring the limits of preclassical mechanics. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Drake, S. (1978). Galileo at work: His scientific biography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Drake, S. (1979). Galileo’s notes on motion arranged in probable order of composition and presented in reduced facsimile (Annali dell’Istituto e Museo di Storia della Scienza Suppl. Fasc. 2, Monografia n. 3). Florence: Istituto e Museo di Storia della Scienza.Google Scholar
  7. Galilei, G. (1914). Dialogues concerning two new sciences. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  8. Galilei, G., Crew, H., & Salvio, A.D. (1954). Dialogues concerning two new sciences. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
  9. Galluzzi, P. (1979). Momento. Rome: Ateneo e Bizzarri.Google Scholar
  10. Giusti, E. (1981). Aspetti matematici della cinematica galileiana. Bolletino di storia delle scienze matematiche, 1(2), 3–42.Google Scholar
  11. Giusti, E. (2004). A master and his pupils: Theories of motion in the Galilean school. In C.R. Palmerino, & J.M.M.H. Thijssen (Eds.), The reception of the Galilean science of motion in seventeenth-century Europe (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 239, pp. 119–135). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  12. Hahn, A.J. (2002). The pendulum swings again: A mathematical reassessment of Galileo’s experiments with inclined planes. Archive for History of Exact Sciences, 56, 339–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harman, P.M., Shapiro, A.E., & Whiteside, D.T. (2002). The investigation of difficult things: Essays on Newton and the history of the exact sciences in honour of D.T. Whiteside. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hooper, W.E. (1992). Galileo and the problems of motion. Dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar
  15. Maffioli, C.S. (2008). Galileo, Guiducci and the engineer Bartolotti on the Bisenzio river. Galilaeana, 5, 179–206.Google Scholar
  16. Naylor, R.H. (1990). Galileo’s method of analysis and synthesis. ISIS, 81(4), 695–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ravetz, J.R. (1972). Galileo and the mathematization of speed. In G. Canguilhem (Ed.), La mathématisation des doctrines informes, Hermann, Paris, (pp. 11–32)Google Scholar
  18. Settle, T. (1966). Galilean science: Essays in the mechanics and dynamics of the Discorsi. PhD thesis, Cornell University.Google Scholar
  19. Shea, W.R. (1983). The Galilean geometrization of motion: Some historical considerations. In: Shea W.R. (eds) Nature Mathematized. (pp. 51–60). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Souffrin, P. (1990). Galilée et la tradition cinématique pré-classique. La proportionnalité momentum-velocitas revisitée. Cahier du Séminaire d’Epistémologie et d’Histoire des Sciences, 22, 89–104.Google Scholar
  21. Wallace, W.A. (1981). Prelude to Galileo: Essays on medieval and sixteenth-century sources of Galileo’s thought. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wallace, W.A. (1984). Galileo and his sources: The heritage of the Collegio Romano in Galileo’s science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wallace, W. (1990). Duhem and Koyré on Domingo de Soto. Synthese, 83(2), 239–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wisan, W.L. (1974). The new science of motion: A study of Galileo’s De motu locali. Archive for History of Exact Sciences, 13, 103–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wolff, M. (1994). “Neutrale Bewegung” beim jungen Galilei. In L. Schäfer & E. Ströker (Eds.), Naturauffassungen in Philosophie, Wissenschaft, Technik (Renaissance und frühe Neuzeit, Vol. 2). Freiburg: Alber.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jochen Büttner
    • 1
  1. 1.Max Planck Institute for the History of ScienceBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations