• Siegfried Bodenmann
  • Anne-Lise Rey
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science book series (BSPS, volume 331)


In asking what it means to be an empiricist, the present volume does not seek to provide a definitive or authoritative introduction to the foundation and establishment of empiricism. Instead, our objectives are to deconstruct some misleading preconceptions and to propose some new perspectives on this much used but still somehow ambiguous concept. It marks the beginning of a new reflection rather than a conclusion.

Throughout this volume, we aim to present empiricism as the result of two parallel dialogues. First, it was born out of an exchange between several distinct observational and experimental traditions in Europe. We therefore advocate speaking in the plural about empirical methods, underlining the distinctions between local uses and grand, national standards, while also highlighting the complex discussion around the values and norms of empiricism.

Secondly, it emerged as part of a dialog between several positions within the theory of knowledge which for too long have been reduced to a simple dualism. The most important lesson to be learned from the eighteenth century is that there wasn’t such a thing as a war between rationalism and empiricism, but rather a constant attempt to accommodate both. This forces us to conceive of a more complex and fruitful relationship, but also a much more interesting one.


Other Primary Literature

  1. Chambers, Ephraim. 1728. Cyclopedia, or, an universal dictionary of arts and sciences […]. London: James and John Knapton.Google Scholar
  2. Sprat, Thomas. 1667. History of the Royal Society of London, for the improving of natural knowledge. London: The Royal Society.Google Scholar
  3. Voltaire, François Marie Arouet. 1992. Eléments de la philosophie de Newton (1735), Trans. William Henry Barber and Robert L. Walters, ed. In Complete works. Oxford: The Voltaire Foundation, vol. 15.Google Scholar

Secondary Literature

  1. Abraham, Gary A. 1983. Misunderstanding the Merton Thesis: A boundary dispute between history and sociology. Isis 74 (3): 368–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anstey, Peter R. 2005. Experimental versus speculative natural philosophy. In Science of Nature in the seventeenth century: Patterns of change in early modern natural philosophy, ed. Peter R. Anstey and J.A. Schuster The, 215–242. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becker, George. 1991. Pietism’s confrontation with Enlightenment rationalism: An examination of the relation between ascetic Protestantism and science. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 30: 139–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Biener, Zvi, and Eric Schliesser, eds. 2014. Newton and empiricism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bodenmann, Siegfried. 2013. False Agreements and True Dissensions: Rhetorics and Strategies of Controversy in Leonhard Euler’s Correspondence Network”, English translation of “Faux accords et vrais désaccords: Rhétoriques et stratégies de la controverse dans le réseau de correspondance de Leonhard Euler. Revue d’histoire des sciences 66(2): 361–394. Scholar
  6. Bodenmann, Siegfried, and Anne-Lise Rey. 2013. La guerre en lettres: La controverse scientifique dans les correspondances des Lumières. Revue d’histoire des sciences 66 (2): 233–248. Scholar
  7. Borghero, Carlo. 2011. Les Cartésiens face à Newton. Philosophie, science et religion dans la première moitié du XVIIIe siècle. Brepols: Turnhout.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Charrak, André. 2006. Contingence et nécessité des lois de la nature au XVIII e siècle. La philosophie seconde des Lumières. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
  9. Clementz, François. 2014. Métaphysique du rationalisme, rationalité de la métaphysique. In La reconstruction de la raison. Dialogues avec Jacques Bouveresse, ed. Claudine Tiercelin (digital ed. in coll. La Philosophie de la Connaissance au Collège de France, Paris: Collège de France). Scholar
  10. Cohen, I. Bernard. 1980. The Newtonian revolution: With illustrations of the transformation of scientific ideas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. ———., ed. 1990. Puritanism and the rise of modern science. The Merton Thesis. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Dobre, Mihnea, and Tammy Nyden. 2013. Cartesian empiricisms. Dordrecht: Springer. (=Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 31).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Domski, Mary. 2010. Newton’s empiricism and metaphysics. Philosophy Compass 5 (7): 525–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Draper, John William. 1875. History of the conflict between religion and science. New York: Appleton and Co..Google Scholar
  15. Ducheyne, Steffen. 2012. The main business of natural philosophy: Isaac Newton’s natural-philosophical methodology. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. ———. 2014a. ’s Gravesande’s appropriation of Newton’s natural philosophy, part I: Epistemological and theological issues. Centaurus 56 (1): 31–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. ———. 2014b. ’s Gravesande’s appropriation of Newton’s natural philosophy, Part II: Methodological issues. Centaurus 56 (2): 97–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. ———. 2015. Petrus van Musschenbroek and Newton’s ‘vera stabilisque Philosophandi methodus’. Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte 38 (4): 279–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Foucault, Michel. 2002. The archaelogy of knowledge (1969). Trans. A.M. Sheridan Smith. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Granger, Gilles-Gaston. 2000. Rationalité et raisonnement. In Université de tous les savoirs, Qu’est-ce que la vie, ed. Yves Michaud, vol. 1, 215–222. Paris: Odile Jacob.Google Scholar
  21. Hamou, Philippe. 2003. Introduction. In Figures de l’antinewtonianisme (1672–1832), ed. Philippe Hamou and Neil Ribe, 115–129 (Archives Internationales d’Histoire des Sciences 53).Google Scholar
  22. Israel, Jonathan. 2001. Radical enlightenment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jacob, Margaret C. 1981. The radical enlightenment: Pantheists, freemasons and republicans. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  24. Janiak, Andrew. 2008. Newton as philosopher. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Markie, Peter. 2015. Rationalism vs. Empiricism. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta. (Summer 2015 online edition). Scholar
  26. Merton, Robert K. 1936. Puritanism, pietism, and science. The Sociological Review 28 (1): 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. ———. 1938. Science, technology and society in seventeenth century England. Osiris 4: 360–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Norton, David Fate. 1981. The myth of British empiricism. History of European Ideas 1: 331–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pépin, François. 2012a. Fontenelle, l’Académie et le devenir scientifique de la chimie. Methodos 12. Scholar
  30. ———. 2012b. La Philosophie expérimentale de Diderot et la chimie. Philosophie, sciences et arts. Paris: Classiques Garnier.Google Scholar
  31. Rey, Anne-Lise, and Tadié Alexis (eds.). 2016. Disputes et territoires épistémiques. Revue de Synthèse 137(3–4).Google Scholar
  32. Shapin, Steven. 1988. Understanding the Merton Thesis. Isis 79 (4): 594–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shapin, Steven, and Simon Schaffer. 1985. Leviathan and the air-pump, Hobbes, Boyle, and the experimental life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Terrall, Mary. 2014. Catching nature in the act. Réaumur and the practice of natural history in the eighteenth century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of HistoryUniversity of ZurichZürichSwitzerland
  2. 2.History and Philosophy of ScienceLille University/Marie Curie Individual FellowshipVrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselBelgium

Personalised recommendations