Notes
In private discussion with Ducheyne it has become clear to me that he really did not wish his position to be identified with De Gandt’s.
For a very different interpretation of these passages, see Schliesser (in press).
I thank Steffen Ducheyne, Mary Domski, and Ori Belkind for their help.
References
Domski, M. 2012. Newton and proclus: geometry, imagination, and knowing space. The Southern Journal of Philosophy 50: 389–413.
Belkind, Ori 2012. Newton’s scientific method and the universal law of gravitation. In Interpreting Newton: Critical essays ed. A. Janiak & E. Schliesser: 138–168. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schliesser, Eric. (in press). On reading Newton as an Epicurean: Kant, Spinozism and the changes to the Principia. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A. doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2012.10.012.
Schliesser, Eric 2011a. Without God: Gravity as a Relational Quality of Matter in Newton. Vanishing Matter and the Laws of Motion: Descartes and Beyond, edited by Dana Jalobeanu & Peter Anstey, London: Routledge.
Schliesser, Eric. 2011b. Newton’s substance monism, distant action, and the nature of Newton’s empiricism: discussion of H. Kochiras ‘Gravity and Newton’s substance counting problem’. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 42: 160–166.
Smeenk, C., and E. Schliesser. (in press). Newton’s Principia. In The Oxford Handbook for the History of Physics, ed. J. Buchwald. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schliesser, E. The methodological dimension of the Newtonian revolution. Metascience 22, 329–333 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11016-013-9787-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11016-013-9787-1