Joshua Eisenthal
  • Home
  • Research
  • Teaching
  • CV
  • Extras
  • Home
  • Research
  • Teaching
  • CV
  • Extras

Phil 460: Midterm Study Guide

To return to the main class website, click here

Re-read Shapin (1996), The Scientific Revolution, chapter 1, pp.20-30  (the section titled “The Challenge to a Human-Centered Universe”).
  • What are the four different “elements” according to Aristotelian philosophy? (pp.22-23) What are their “natural motions”? (pp.28-29)
  • In very basic outline, what are Ptolemy’s and Copernicus’ models of the cosmos? (pp.20-25)
  • What were some of Galileo's observations through his telescope, and what was the significance of those observations? (pp.25-26)

Re-read Descartes’s Principles of Philosophy, in particular (a) sections 1-3 of Part 1, and (b) sections 3-4, 10-16, 20 and §§23-25 of Part 2.
  • What is Descartes’ basic strategy for getting rid of “preconceived opinions” so that we can get closer to a “knowledge of truth”? (Part 1, §§1-2)
  • What does Descartes regard as the one essential property of bodies? (Part 2, §§3-4)
  • Why does Descartes regard both a metaphysical vacuum and metaphysical atoms as impossible? (Part 2, §11, §16 and §20)
  • What, according to Descartes, does “all the variety in matter, all the diversity of its forms” come down to? (Part 2, §4, §11, and in particular §23)
  • What is Descartes’ distinction between (i) motion “in the ordinary sense of the term” and (ii) motion “in the strict sense of the term”? (Part 2, §§24-25)

Read pp.19-22, 64-66, and 70-71 from Boyle (2018), The Well-Ordered Universe.
  • Deborah Boyle offers three different perspectives from which to understand Cavendish’s non-atomistic account of the world. In basic terms, what are these three perspectives? (pp.19-20)
  • What are the three “degrees” of matter according to Cavendish? (pp.64-65)
  • What is Cavendish’s hypothetical explanation for the variety of different kinds of things in the universe? (pp.70-71)  Are Cavendish and Descartes’ accounts similar in this regard?

Re-read pp.22-24 and pp.40-46 from Shapin and Schaffer (1985) Leviathan and the Air-Pump.
  • Explain why Robert Boyle seems to be a clear example of an empiricist (rather than a rationalist) (pp.22-24)
  • Explain the basic outline of Boyle’s “void-in-the-void” experiment. (pp.40-43, and maybe just look it up online) What was Boyle’s own evaluation of the significance of this experiment? (p.45)

Re-read pp.138-144 of Smith (2002), “The Methodology of the Principia ”.
  • What was the basic principle of the prevailing “mechanical philosophy” of Newton’s time? (p.139)
  • What does it mean to treat forces mathematically rather than physically? (pp.140-144) According to George Smith, what characterizes Newton’s “if-then” reasoning vs. the “when-then” reading of Galileo and Huygens?
  • Use the above to help answer the question: what does Newton mean when he says he does not “feign hypotheses”? (quoted by Smith on p.139)

Take a look at the “Scholium” after the first 8 definitions in Book 1 of Newton’s Principia.
  • What is Newton’s distinction between (i) “absolute space” (ii) “relative space” (p.64)
  • What is Newton’s distinction between (i) absolute motion and (ii) relative motion? (p.65) How does Newton’s conception of motion compare and contrast with Descartes’?

Re-read Nick Huggett’s commentary on the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence (pp.159-167).
  • Why does Leibniz count as a rationalist? What’s the role of the “Principle of Sufficient Reason” (PSR) for Leibniz? (pp.159-160)
  • What’s Leibniz’s relationalist account of space (and time)? (pp.160-161; and see near the bottom of p.146 for Leibniz’s own words) How does it compare with Newton’s account of space (and time)?
  • What are Leibniz’s static shift and kinematic shift arguments against the notion of absolute space? (pp.161-163) Why might we call this kind of argument an “indirect proof” or reductio argument?
  • What is the Principle of Identity of Indiscernibles (PII)? (p.164) Why does the PII follow from the PSR? What’s an empiricist argument for the PII on its own terms?

Take a look at Du Châtelet’s chapter “On Hypotheses” from her book Foundations of Physics, particularly pp.147-148.
  • Why does Du Châtelet say that both the Cartesians and the Newtonians have gone astray in their attitude towards the use of hypotheses in physics (or science more generally)?
Proudly powered by Weebly