Advertisement

The Conflict Between Newton’s Analysis of Configurations and Hegel’s Conceptual Analysis

  • Walter E. Wehrle
Chapter
Part of the Archives Internationales D’Histoire Des Idées / International Archives of the History of Ideas book series (ARCH, volume 136)

Abstract

Newton’s scientific methodology has seemed, to most of his twentieth-century expositors, to be something of a mystery. I suspect that this is because historians and philosophers of science have taken the hypothetico-deductive method, in one form or another, as their normative and descriptive standard. This assumption has led some to declare Newton methodologically confused or at least naive, although most contemporary Newtonian scholarship seems committed to saving Newton as a hypothetico-deductivist. All of this seems rather remarkable, given that Newton himself makes it perfectly clear that his method is the ancient and venerated mathematical method of analysis and synthesis. Nowhere is this more evident than in his longish methodological statement near the end of the Opticks, where he writes:

Keywords

Conceptual Analysis Physical Magnitude Universal Truth Reverse Solution Syllogistic Inference 
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.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Newton Opticks, p. 404.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ashley Montague, RM. 1944, pp. 277-297; Guerlac, H. 1973; Cassirer, B. 1906, pp. 136-137; Randall, J.H., Jr. 1961; Becker, O. 1959, pp. 20-25.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Newton MP VII.249.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hintikka, J. 1974, p. 106.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hintikka, J. 1974, p. 106.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hintikka, J. 1974, p. 107.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Owen, G.E.L. 1961, pp. 83-103.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Owen, G.E.L. 1961, pp. 83-103.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hegel WL II.471-472; tr. Miller pp. 812-813.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hegel WL II.471-472; tr. Miller pp. 812-813.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hegel WL II.471-472; tr. Miller pp. 812-813.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hegel WL II.473; tr. Miller p. 814.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hegel Encyclopedia § 261; tr. Miller p. 41; tr. Petry I.237, 13; Remark I.237, 19.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hegel WL I.323; tr. Miller p. 315.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hegel Encyclopedia § 36 Addition; tr. Wallace p. 59.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hegel Encyclopedia § 142 Addition; tr. Wallace p. 202.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hegel Encyclopedia § 236 Addition; tr. Wallace p. 292.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hegel Encyclopedia § 183 Addition; tr. Wallace p. 247.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hegel Encyclopedia § 187; tr. Wallace p. 250.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hegel Encyclopedia § 187; tr. Wallace p. 250.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hegel Encyclopedia § 244 Addition; tr. Miller p. 2; tr. Petry I.193,7.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Walter E. Wehrle

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations