Advertisement

The Experiments of Willem Jacob ’s Gravesande: A Validation of Leibnizian Dynamics Against Newton?

Chapter
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science book series (BSPS, volume 331)

Abstract

In 1720, Willem Jacob ’s Gravesande wrote Physicis elementa mathematica, experimentis confirmata. Sive introductio ad philosophiam Newtonianam (An Introduction to Sir Isaac Newton’s Philosophy; or, Mathematical Elements of Natural Philosophy, Confirmed by Experiments). Although he was undoubtedly one of the most important popularizers of Newtonian physics, experimental methodology and epistemology in the 1720s, his empirical claim somehow backfired: in applying tenets of Newtonian methodology, he was ultimately led to validate the Leibnizian principle of the conservation of living forces, contrary to the Newtonians. This conclusion invited a great deal of anger, particularly from Samuel Clarke who, in a volume of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society from 1729, accused ’s Gravesande of having written the book with the aim of “darkening Newton’s philosophy”. In a reply, which ’s Gravesande published as a supplement to his Essay upon a New Theory of the Collision of Bodies, he developed a hybrid methodology that relied upon both experimentation and reason. In my paper, I shall thoroughly analyse this interesting combination.

Keywords

Certainty Dynamics Experiments Metaphysics Willem Jacob ’s Gravesande Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Isaac Newton 

Bibliography

Other Primary Literature

  1. Clarke, Samuel. 1728. A Letter from the Rev. Dr. Samuel Clarke to Mr. Benjamin Hoadly, F.R.S. Occasion’d by the Present Controversy among Mathematicians, concerning the Proportion of Velocity and Force in Bodies in Motion. Philosophical Transactions 35 (1727): 381–388.Google Scholar
  2. ’s Gravesande, Willem Jacob. 1720–1721. Physices elementa mathematica experimentis confirmata, sive introductio ad philosophiam Newtonianam. Leiden: Pieter van der Aa.Google Scholar
  3. ———. 1722. Essai d’une nouvelle théorie du choc des corps fondée sur l’experience. The Hague: T. Johnson.Google Scholar
  4. ———. 1723. Philosophiae newtonianae institutiones. Leiden: Pieter van der Aa.Google Scholar
  5. ———. 1736. Introductio ad Philosophiam, Metaphysicam et Logicam continens. ed. Leyden: J. and H. Verbeek (2nd ed. 1737, French transl. 1737).Google Scholar
  6. Huygens, Christiaan. 1888–1950. Œuvres complètes. The Hague: Nijhoff /Société hollandaise des sciences.Google Scholar
  7. Leclerc, Jean. 1709. Eloge de feu Mr. de Volder, Professeur de Philosophie et aux Mathematiques, dans l’Academie de Leide. Bibliothèque choisie XVIII: 346–401.Google Scholar
  8. Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. 1860. Brevis demonstratio, In: Ibid.: Leibnizens gesammelte Werke, ed. by Georg Heinrich Pertz, Dritte, C.I. Gerhardt, vol. 6, 117–119. Halle/Folge: H.W. Schmidt/Mathematik.Google Scholar
  9. Locke, John. 1706. An essay concerning human understanding. 5th ed. London: Churchill.Google Scholar

Secondary Literature

  1. Brown, Gregory. 1984. ‘Quod ostendendum susceperamus?’ What did Leibniz Undertake to Show in Brevis Demonstratio? Leibniz’ Dynamica, Studia Leibnitiana, Sonderheft 13: 122–137.Google Scholar
  2. Brunet, Pierre. 1926. Les Physiciens hollandais et la méthode expérimentale en France au XVIII e siècle. Paris: Albert Blanchard.Google Scholar
  3. Bunge, Wiep van. 2013. Dutch Cartesian Empiricism and the Advent of Newtonianism. In Cartesian Empiricisms, ed. Mihnea Dobre and Tammy Nyden, 89–104. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Cassirer, Ernst. 1951. The philosophy of the enlightenment. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Chareix, Fabien. 2006. La philosophie naturelle de Christiaan Huygens. Paris: Vrin. (Mathesis).Google Scholar
  6. Costabel, Pierre. 1964. ’s Gravesande et les forces vives ou des vicissitudes d’une expérience soi-disant cruciale. In Mélanges Alexandre Koyré, vol. I: “L’aventure de la science”, 117–134. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
  7. Duchesneau, François. 1994. La dynamique de Leibniz. Paris: Librairie philosophique J. Vrin.Google Scholar
  8. Ducheyne, Steffen. 2012. The main business of natural philosophy: Isaac Newton’s natural-philosophical methodology. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. ———. 2014a. ’s Gravesande’s appropriation of Newton’s natural philosophy, part I: Epistemological and theological issues. Centaurus 56 (1): 31–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. ———. 2014b. ’s Gravesande’s appropriation of Newton’s natural philosophy, Part II: Methodological issues. Centaurus 56 (2): 97–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Feingold, Mordechai. 2004. The Newtonian moment. Isaac Newton and the making of modern culture. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Gori, Giambattista. 1972. La fondazione dell’esperienza in ‘s Gravesande. Florence: La Nuova Italia.Google Scholar
  13. Iltis, Carolyn. 1971. Leibniz and the Vis Viva Controversy. Isis 62: 21–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ———. 1973. The Leibnizian-Newtonian Debates: Natural philosophy and social psychology. The British Journal for the History of Science 6 (4): 343–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Israel, Jonathan. 2001. Radical enlightenment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lunsingh Scheurleer, Theodoor Herman, et al. 1975. Leiden University in the seventeenth century: An exchange of learning. Brill: Leyden.Google Scholar
  17. Nyden, Tammy. 2013. “De Volder’s Cartesian physics and experimental pedagogy”, in: Dobre, Mihnea and Nyden, Tammy (eds.) (2013): Cartesian empiricisms. Dordrecht: Springer, 227-249.Google Scholar
  18. ———. 2014. Living force at Leiden. De Volder, ’s Gravesande and the reception of newtonianism. In Newton and empiricism, ed. Zvi Biener and Eric Schliesser, 207–222. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pater, Kees de. 1995. ’s Gravesande on moral evidence. In Frans Hemsterhuis (1721–1790): Quellen, Philosophie und Rezeption, ed. Marcel F. Fresco, Loek Geeraedts, and Klaus Hammacher, 221–242. Münster/Hamburg, Lit.Google Scholar
  20. Schuurman, Paul. 2004. Ideas, mental faculties and method. The logic of ideas of descartes and Locke and its reception in the Dutch Republic, 16301750. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  21. Shapiro, Barbara. 1983. Probability and certainty in seventeenth-century England. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Wiesenfeldt, Gerhard. 2002. Leerer Raum in Minervas Haus. Experimentelle Naturlehre an der Universität Leiden, 16751715. Amsterdam: Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.History and Philosophy of ScienceLille University/Marie Curie Individual Fellowship Vrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselBelgium

Personalised recommendations