Publisher's Synopsis
This volume presents new work in history and historiography to the increasingly broad audience for studies of the history and philosophy of science. These essays are linked by a concern to understand the context of early modern science in its own context. The editors' introduction--itself a substantial essay--examines several myths about the Copernican revolution perpetuated by the neglect of context. They conclude that the question of modern science's continuity with medieval science cannot be settled except by particular historical investigations--a conclusion that undermines the presumption of discontinuity in most contemporary history and philosophy of science. Neither continuity not discontinuity may be legislated.
The papers presented in this volume form four groups. The first two essays address historiographical questions concerning the role of instituitions such as universities and scientific academies in the founding of modern science. Mordechai Feingold substantially qualifies the thesis that universities were the centers of resistance to the new science. David Lux examines the pervasive influence of Maryha Ornstein's work concerning seventeeth-century scientific societies. The second group of essays extends the range of historical studies into generally neglected areas of science. Harold Cook's essay provides an entry into a range of issues connecting medicine and other sciences. Roger Ariew's paper reminds us that astronomy and physics were by no means the exculsive interests of those now remembered as founders of modern physics.
The third section of essays is in more traditional areas of interest to historians and philosophers of science but offers distinctly novel conclusions. Alan Gabbey provides the first modern treatment of a central problem in heliocentric astronomy and cosmology--the nature of the moon's motion. Josephn Pitt offers a unique picture of the relationship between Bellarmine and Galileo. Bernard Goldstein punctures one of the great myths of the Copernican revolution: Alfonso of Castile's supposed dissatisfaction with the Ptolemaic tradition. Finally, the last group presents papers on early modern mathematics. Emily Groshoiz considers the mathematical practice of Descartes and demonstrates that Descartes' own mathematical ideals were an impediment to the full utilization of the mathematical resources exploited by his successors.
ABOUT THE EDITORS:
Peter Barker is associate professor in the Department of Philosophy and Science and Technology Studies at the Center for the Study of Science in Society, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Roger Ariew is professor in the Department of Philosophy and Center for the Programs in the Humanities at the same institution. Both also editedPierre Duhem: Historian and Philosopher of Science.
