AI Article Synopsis
- The long-standing interpretation of Boscovich's concept of force follows the tradition of Leibniz, suggesting that properties like solidity arise from a balance of attractive and repulsive forces within matter.
- The author critiques this interpretation, highlighting its flaws and proposing an alternative view that emphasizes Boscovich's early definition of forces as mathematical determinations linked to motion.
- This perspective aligns more closely with Newtonian principles and introduces an agnostic stance on the nature of forces, promoting mathematics as a neutral tool that accommodates multiple interpretations.
Article Abstract
Argument According to a long-standing interpretation which traces back to Max Jammer's Concepts of Force (1957), Ruggiero G. Boscovich would have developed a concept of force in the tradition of Leibniz's dynamics. In his variation on the theme, basic properties of matter such as solidity or impenetrability would be derived from an interplay of some "active" force of attraction and repulsion that any primary element of nature ("point of matter" in Boscovich's theory) would possess. In the present paper I discuss many flaws of this interpretation and argue for an alternative point of view, according to which the crucial aspect in the development of Boscovich's natural philosophy is his early definition of forces as "mathematical determinations" to have a certain state of motion. This is consistent with a Newtonian background and has as its epistemological consequence a certain agnosticism about the nature of forces and a "mathematical neutralism" (mathematics as a neutral tool, allowing for a plurality of interpretations).
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0269889717000266 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!