Force, Mathematics, and Physics in Newton's Principia: A New Approach to Enduring Issues

2007 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 571-600 ◽  
Author(s):  
Koffi Maglo

ArgumentThis paper investigates the conceptual treatment and mathematical modeling of force in Newton's Principia. It argues that, contrary to currently dominant views, Newton's concept of force is best understood as a physico-mathematical construct with theoretical underpinnings rather than a “mathematical construct” or an ontologically “neutral” concept. It uses various philosophical and historical frameworks to clarify interdisciplinary issues in the history of science and draws upon the distinction between axiomatic systems in mathematics and physics, as well as discovery patterns in science. It also dwells on Newton's “philosophy” of mathematics, described here in terms of mathematical naturalism. This philosophy considers mathematical quantities to be physically significant quantities whose motions are best mapped by geometry. It then shows that to understand the epistemic status of force in the Principia, it is important to scrutinize both Newton's mathematical justificatory strategies and his background assumptions about force – without constructing, however, an overarching metaphysical framework for his science. Finally, the paper studies scientific attempts to redefine or eliminate force from science during the period between Newton and Laplace. From a philosophical standpoint, the paper implicitly suggests that questions about the reality of force be distinguished from questions about the validity of force, and that both sets of questions be distinguished from questions about the utility of the concept of force in science.

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Andrei G. Aleinikov ◽  
David A. Smarsh

This article illustrates how 11 new Laws of Conservation (Aleinikov, 2004, 2005, 2007a,b,c,d,e; Aleinikov & Smarsh, 2007, 2009a, 2009b, 2011; Aleinikov & McFarland, 2008a, 2008b, 2009) expand the Bartini/Kuznetsov LT system of interpretation of laws of physics (Bartini, 1965, 1966, 2005; Kuznetsov & Bolshakov, 2000), thus expanding the physics and strategic management horizons. The new laws are described, explained, and, in some cases, shown in their application to real world problems, including outer space research and global strategic management issues. However, the main contribution of these discoveries is certainly the opening of new horizons for scientific research – the global strategic development of science. In the history of science, these new laws represent an opportunity for a heuristic leap. While in old times, it took about 50-100 years to discover one new law of conservation, the new approach offered by Robert Oros di Bartini and implemented by our research group, allowed us to discover 11 new laws of conservation within five years. It means 100 times acceleration! That's why this article is titled “Viva di Bartini!” It emphasizes the contribution of the great engineer and scientist, named a “prescient genius” by press, to the strategic development of science, including the first in the world MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR LAWS OF CONSERVATION that led to a revolutionary leap in developing new laws and new sciences, including the science of genius – Geniusology, first mentioned in 2003, published in 2004, as described in (Aleinikov, 2013a).


2013 ◽  
Vol 54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raffaele Pisano

Based on recent researches of mine concerning history and epistemology of sciences (physics and mathematics) one side and foundations of sciences within my physics and mathematics teaching other side, in this paper I briefly discuss and report the role played by history of science within physics and mathematics teaching. Some case-study on the relationship between mathematics, physics and logics in the history and teaching process are presented, as well.


2012 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 93-100
Author(s):  
Maria Mellone ◽  
Raffaele Pisano

Although several efforts produced by new mathematical education approaches for improving education systems and teaching, yet the results are not sufficient to adsorb the totality of innovations proposed, both in the contents and management. In this sense constructive debates and new ideas were welcomed and appreciated upon new aspects of science education, side new learning and Cognitive Modelling, for our interests. A parallel effort was produced by scientist-epistemologist-historians concerning the history of science and its foundations in science education. Historical foundations represent the most important intellectual part of the science, even if sometimes they were avoided or limited to specialist disciplines such as history of mathematics, history of physics, only. Nevertheless some results, such as the operative concept of mass by Mach, rather the coherence and validity of an algebraic–geometric group in a Euclidean geometry and in non-Euclidean geometry was firstly appointed by epistemological point of view by (e.g.,) Poincaré, etc... Thus, what kind of concrete relationship between science education (mathematics and physics) and history of science (idem) one can discuss correlated with foundations of science? and above all, how this relationship can be appointed? The history and epistemology of science help to understand evolution/involution of mathematical and physical sciences in the interpretation-modelling of a phenomenon and its interpretation-didactic-modelling, and how the interpretation can change for a different use of mathematical: e.g., mathematics à la Cauchy, non-standard analysis, constructive mathematics in physics. Based on previous studies, a discussion concerning mathematics education and history of science is presented. In our paper we will focus on learning modelling to discuss its efficacy and power both from educational point of view and the need of mathematics and physics teachers education. Some case–studies on the relationship between physics and mathematics in the history are presented, as well. Particularly we focus on a possible learning modelling activity within physics phenomenology to create a resonance among the above poles and mathematical modelling cycle to argue its efficacy, power and related with historical foundations of physical, mathematical sciences. Key words: modelling, mathematics, physics, history of foundations, epistemology of science.


Author(s):  
Allison Margaret Bigelow

Mining in colonial Latin America and the early modern Iberian empire has been studied from a variety of disciplinary perspectives, including archaeology and archaeometallurgy; philosophy; art history, visual studies, and material cultural analysis; literary studies; social, labor, legal, and economic histories; and the history of science. This book adopts a language-centered approach that incorporates methods of all of these fields, especially discursive, visual, and historical analysis. The introduction reviews current scholarship in the study of mining and argues for the importance of a new approach to the history of metals – one that centers the knowledges of Indigenous, African, and South Asian miners, refiners, and mineralogists.


2021 ◽  
pp. 194-208
Author(s):  
Steven L. Goldman

Thomas Kuhn subverted the image of science that had become entrenched by the mid-twentieth century, that science was a body of knowledge produced by logical reasoning about objective facts. Kuhn argued that a new approach to the history of science revealed that the process of discovery was integral to the practice of science and that nonlogical factors played a role in theory acceptance and theory change. Insofar as they entered into the reasoning leading to the formulation of a theory, facts were not objective but interpreted consistent with contingent assumptions on which the theory rested. Kuhn himself believed that scientific knowledge was about reality. His theory of how scientific knowledge was produced, however, strongly supported the view that scientific theories were contingent interpretations of experience.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document