The Platonism of Modern Physical Science: Historical Roots and “Rational Reconstruction”
Springer Science and Business Media LLC - Trang 1-20 - 2023
Tóm tắt
Perhaps the most influential historian of science of the last century, Alexandre Koyré, famously argued that the icon of modern science, Galileo Galilei, was a Platonist who had hardly performed experiments. Koyré has been followed by other historians and philosophers of science. In addition, it is not difficult to find examples of Platonists in contemporary science, in particular in the physical sciences. A famous example is the icon of twenty century physics, Albert Einstein. This paper addresses two questions related to the Platonism of modern physical science. The first is: How is Galileo’s Platonism compatible with the fact that he did perform experiments? The solution to this apparent paradox can be found in Plato’s late dialogue Timaeus. In the dialogue the world has been created by a divine craftsman according to an original plan. The task of the scientist is not primarily to describe the material world, but to reconstruct the original plan. This view has later been known as “God’s Eye View”. The second question is: If a God’s Eye View is unattainable, how is it possible to give a “rational reconstruction” of Galileo’s Platonism? The key-word is idealisation. It is further argued that idealisation is intimately related to technology. Technology is required to realize ideal experimental conditions, and the results are in its turn implemented in technology. The implication is that the quest for unity in science, based on physics as the basic science, should be replaced by the recognition of the diversity of the sciences.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Aristotle. (1984). On the heavens. In J. Barnes (Ed.), The complete works of aristotle. Princeton University Press.
Auyang, S. Y. (1998). Foundations of complex-system theories. Cambridge University Press.
Brian, D. (1996). Einstein: A life. John Wiley & Sons.
Brown, J. R. (2011). The laboratory of the mind (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Burtt, E. A. (1972). The metaphysical foundations of modern physical science (1924). Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Campbell, N. R. (1928). An account of the principles of measurement and calculation. Longmans, Green & Co.
Cartwright, N. (1983). How the laws of physics lie. Clarendon Press.
Cartwright, N. (1989). Nature’s capacities and their measurement. Clarendon Press.
Cartwright, N. (1999). The dappled world: A study of the boundaries of science. Cambridge University Press.
Cartwright, N. (2022). A philosopher looks at science. Cambridge University Press.
Chu, D. (2011). Complexity: Against systems. Theory in Biosciences., 130(3), 229–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12064-011-0121-4
Clifford, W. K. (1955). The common sense of the exact sciences (1885). Dover Publications.
Cohen, I. B. (1994). Interactions: Some contacts between the natural sciences and the social sciences. The MIT Press.
Commoner, B. (2020). The closing circle: Nature, man & technology. Dover Publications.
Cornford, F. M. (1977). Plato’s Cosmology. The Timaeus of Plato (1937). Translated with a Running Commentary. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Crombie, A. C. (1994). Styles of scientific thinking in the European tradition. Duckworth.
De Caro, M. (2018). On Galileo’s platonism, again. In J. Agassi, D. Drozdova, & D. Pisano (Eds.), Boston studies in the philosophy of science. Springer.
Descartes, R. (1971). Discourse on Method and the Meditations. Translated by F. E. Sutcliffe. Penguin Books.
Descartes, R. (2004). The world. In S. Gaukroger (Ed.), The world and other writings: Cambridge texts in the history of philosophy. Cambridge University Press.
Dilthey, W. (1970). Der Aufbau der geschichtlichen Welt in den Geistenwissenschaften. Suhrkamp Verlag.
Dingler, H. (1911). Die grundlagen Der Angewandten Geometrie. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft.
Drake, S. (1978). Galileo at work. University of Chicago Press.
Drake, S. (1990). Galileo: Pioneer scientist. University of Toronto Press.
Einstein, A (1969) Autobiographical notes. In Schilpp, Paul Arthur (ed.), Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, volume 1, The Library of Living Philosophers, pages 1–96. La Salle, Open CourtOpen Court, 3 edition.
Einstein, A. (1905). Zur elektrodynamik bewegter Körper. Annalen Der Physik, 17, 891–921.
Ellis, G., & Silk, J. (2014). Defend the integrity of physics. Nature, 516, 321–323.
Favrholdt, D. (1994). Niels bohr and realism. In F. Jan & H. J. Folse (Eds.), Niels Bohr and contemporary philosophy: Boston studies in the philosophy of science (pp. 77–96). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Feyerabend, P. (1978). Against method. Verso.
Fjelland, R. (1991). The theory-ladenness of observations, the role of scientific instruments, and the Kantian a priori. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 5(3), 269–280.
Galilei, G. (1954). Dialogues concerning two new sciences (1638). Dover.
Galilei, G. (1957a). The Assayer (1623). In S. Drake (Ed.), Discoveries and opinions of galileo. Doubleday & Company.
Galilei, G. (1957b). The starry messenger. In S. Drake (Ed.), Discoveries and opinions of galileo. Doubleday & Company.
Galilei, G. (1970). Dialogue concerning the two chief world systems (1630). University of California Press.
Galison, P., & Stump, D. J. (1996). The disunity of science. Stanford University Press.
Gould, S. J. (2002). The structure of evolutionary theory. The Belknapp Press of Harvard University.
Habermas, J. (1966). Knowledge and interest. Inquiry, 9(1–4), 285–300.
Hacking, I. (1992). The self-vindication of the laboratory sciences. In P. Andrew (Ed.), Science as practice and culture (pp. 29–64). The University of Chicago Press.
Hawking, S., Max, T., Frank, W., Stuart, R. (2014). Transcendence looks at the implications of artificial intelligence—But are we taking AI seriously enough? Retrieved 13 Aug 2023 from https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/stephen-hawking-transcendence-looks-at-the-implications-of-artificial-intelligence-but-are-we-taking-ai-seriously-enough-9313474.html
Hawking, S. (1988). A brief history of time. Bantam Books.
Hawking, S., & Mlodinow, L. (2013). The elusive theory of everything. Scientific American Special, 22(2), 90–93.
Heelan, P. (1988). Space-perception and the Philosophy of science. University of California Press.
Hooft, G. (1994). Questioning the answers or stumbling upon good and bad theories of everything. In J. Hilgevoord (Ed.), Physics and our view of the world (pp. 16–37). Cambridge University Press.
Husserl, E. (1970). The crisis of european sciences and transcendental phenomenology. Northwestern University Press.
Ihde, D. (2016). Husserl’s missing technologies. Fordham University Press.
Kant, I. (1956). Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Insel Verlag.
Kleinert, A. (1988). Messen, was messbar ist. Über ein angebliches Galilei-Zitat. Berichte Zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte, 11, 253–255.
Koyré, A. (1968). Galileo and plato. In A. Koyré (Ed.), Metaphysics and measurement (p. 1943). Johns Hopkins Press.
Koyré, A. (1978). Galileo studies (1939). Harvester.
Krajewski, W. (1977). Correspondence principle and growth of science. D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Lakatos, I. (1970). History of science and its rational reconstruction. PSA: Proceedings of the biennal meeting of the philosophy of science association, (pp 91–136). The University of Chicago Press.
Landgrebe, J., & Smith, B. (2023). Why machines will never rule the world. Routledge.
Lanier, J. (2013). Who owns the future? Allen Lane.
Lubchenco, J. (1998). Entering the century of the environment: A new social contract for science. Science, 279, 491.
Matthews, M. (2004). Idealisation and Galileo’s pendulum discoveries: Historical, philosophical and pedagogical considerations. Science & Education, 13, 689–715.
Nagel, T. (1986). The view from nowhere. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Oppenheim, P., & Hilary, P. (1958). The unity of science as a working hypothesis. In H. Feigl (Ed.), Concepts, theories and the mind–body problem: Minnesota studies in the philosophy of sciene. University of Minnesota Press.
Pais, A. (1982). ’Subtle Is the Lord…’ the science and the life of Albert Einstein. Oxford University Press.
Plato. (1955). The Republic. Penguin Books.
Plato. (1956). Meno. Penguin Books.
Plato. (1971). Timaeus, in Plato. Timaeus and Critias. Translated by Desmond Lee. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Plato. (1977). The parmenides. In Cornford, F. M. (ed.) Plato and Parmenides, Translated with Running Commentary by F M Cornford. The international library of psychology, philosophy and scientific method. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Polanyi, M. (2009). The Tacit Dimension. The University of Chicago Press.
Randall, J. H. (1962). Aristotle. Columbia University Press.
Randall, J. H. (1970). Plato: Dramatist of the life of reason. Columbia University Press.
Settle, T. B. (1961). An experiment in the history of science. Science, 133(3445), 19–23.
Smolin, L. (2006a). A Crisis in Fundamental Physics. Update, Magazine of the New York Academy of Sciences.
Smolin, L. (2006b). The trouble with physics. Houghton Mifflin Company.
Stump, J. B. (2001). History of Science through Koyré’s Lenses. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 32(2), 243–263.
Tegmark, M. (2017). Life 3.0. Being human in the age of artificial intelligence. Alfred A. Knopf.
Thompson, D. W. (1992). On growth and form (1917). Edited John Tyler Bonner. Abridged edition (1961). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Toulmin, S. (1990). Cosmopolis: The hidden agenda of modernity. The Free Press.
Vico, G. (1988). The New Science of Giambattista Vico: Unabridged translation of the third edition (1744) transl: Thomas Goddard Bergin and Max Harold Fisch. Cornell University Press.
Villemaire, D. D. (2002). EA Burtt historian and philosopher: A study of the author of the metaphysical foundations of modern physical science. Boston studies in the philosophy and history of science. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Von Goethe, J. W., & Miller, G. L. (1988). The Matamorphosis of plants. In D. Miller (Ed.), Goethe Suhrkamp edition in 12 volumes (pp. 76–97). Suhkamp Publishers.
von Wright, G. H. (2004). Explanation and understanding. Cornell University Press.
Weinberg, S. (1976). The forces of nature. Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 29(4), 13–29.
Weyl, H. (1952). Symmetry. Princeton University Press.
Woit, P. (2006). Not even wrong. Basic Books.
Wulf, A. (2015). The invention of nature. The advantures of Alexander von Humboldt: the lost hero of science. John Murray.
Young, H. D. & Roger, A. F. (2004). University physics. In Ed A. Black (ed.), 11th ed. Addison Wesley.