Abstract
The problem of the origins of Galileo’s mechanics has been discussed during this century by a number of eminent historians of science.1 Is Galileo’s dynamics fundamentally new, as compared with the medieval Aristotelian tradition, or only a continuation of the medieval theory of motion. Some scholars maintained that Galileo had merely taken over and perfected the “impetus” dynamics of scholastic philosophers of the fourteenth century.2 Other historians, on the other hand, vindicated the newness of Galileo’s dynamics, maintaining that it essentially depended on mathematical mechanics of the “Platonist” Archimedes.3
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Duhem, P., Études sur Leonard de Vinci, 3 series (Paris, 1906–1913). Duhem, P., Le système du monde 10 vol. (Paris, 1913–1960). Wohlwill, E., “Ein Vorganger Galileis im VI. Jahrhundert,” Philosophische Zeitschrift, 7 (1906). Olschki, L., Galilei und seine Zeit (Halle, 1917). Burtt, E.A., The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science (London, 1925). Koyré, A., Études Galiléennes 3rd series (Paris, 1939–1940). Koyré, A., “Galileo and Plato,” Journal of the History of Ideas, 4 (1943). Randall, J.H., “The Development of Scientific Method in the School of Padua,” Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 1 (1940). Zilsel, E., “The Sociological Roots of Science,” The American Journal of Sociology, 47 (1942). Cassirer, E., “Galileo’s Platonism,” Studies and Essays offered in Homage of George Sarton (New York, 1944). Maier, A., Studien zur Naturphilosophie der Spatscholastik, 5 vol. (Roma, 1949–1958). Clagett, M., Greek Science in Antiquity (New York, 1955). Clagett, M., The Science of Mechanics in the Middle Ages (Madison, 1959).
The first and most typical work of this position is Pierre Duhem’s Études sur Leonard de Vinci, Tom III, Les precurseurs parisiens de Galilé (Paris, 1913).
The most distinguished work of this line is Alexandre Koyré’s Études Galileinnes, Tome I, l’Aube de la science classique (Paris, 1939).
Ernest A. Moody, Professor Emeritus in Philosophy, the University of California (Los Angeles), is a distinguished scholar in medieval science and philosophy, and the author of such important works as: The Logic of William of Ockham (New York, 1935); Truth and Consequences in Medieval Logic (Amsterdam, 1953); The Medieval Science of Weights (with Marshall Clagett) (Madison, 1960); Studies in Medieval Philosophy, Science, and Logic (Los Angeles, 1975).
Moody, E.A., “Galileo and Avempace,” Journal of the History of Ideas, 12 (1951), 163–193 & 375–422. This article was reissued in a condensed form in Roots of Scientific Thought (New York, 1957), pp. 176–206 and in a full form in Studies in Medieval Philosophy, Science, and Logic (Los Angeles, 1975), pp. 203–286.
Galilei, Galileo De Motu, Le Opere di Galilei (Edizione Nazionale), Vol. 1 (Firenze, 1929), pp. 251–366.
My criticism of Moody’s thesis appeared briefly in the paper, “On the Formation of Modern Science I” (Kindai Kagaku Seiritsu-shi Ron), The Proceedings of the Department of Humanities, College of General Education, University of Tokyo, Vol. XVIII, (Tokyo 1958), and then in more detailed form in the paper “Who are Precursors of Galileo in His Pisan Dynamics?” Scientific Papers of the College of General Education, University of Tokyo, Vol. 14, No. 2 (Tokyo, 1964), which is substantially identical with this article. I should mention here Dr. Kiyonobu Itakura’s excellent paper “Koten Rikigaku no Seiritsu Katei II” (The Formation Process of Classical Mechanics), Kagakushi Kenkyu, No. 45 (Tokyo, 1958), which first pointed out Professor Moody’s error. His short critical comment in his foot-note, however, seems to be insufficient. Different from his formulation, my criticism here is not only better than his but, I believe, much more penetrating.
Galilei, Galileo, “Dialogus de motu,” Le Opere di Galileo Galilei, Vol. 1, pp. 367–408).
Drabkin, I.E. and Drake, S. Galileo Galilei on Motion and on Mechanics (Madison, 1960), pp. 36–37.
Moody, Op. cit., p. 175.
Opera Aristotelis... cum Averrois commentariis (Venetiis, MDLX), Tom, IV, fol. 131 verso. English translation by Moody. Cf. Moody, Op. cit., pp. 184–186.
Moody, Op. cit., p. 186.
As regards these formulations cf. Marshall Clagett, Greek Science in Antiquity (New York, 1955), p. 172.
Crosby, H.L., Thomas of Bradwardine, His Tractatus de Proportionibus (Madison, 1955).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1998 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ito, S. (1998). Who are Precursors of Galileo in His Pisan Dynamics? — A Criticism of Professor Moody’s Paper. In: Nagasaka, F.GI., Cohen, R.S. (eds) Japanese Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol 45. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5175-7_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5175-7_11
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-6176-6
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-5175-7
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive