- Series: International Library of Philosophy
- Hardcover: 356 pages
- Publisher: Routledge; 1 edition (November 16, 2001)
- Language: English
- ISBN-10: 0415225671
- ISBN-13: 978-0415225670
- Product Dimensions: 8.8 x 5.7 x 1 inches
- Shipping Weight: 1.2 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
- Average Customer Review: 14 customer reviews
- Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #10,301,396 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science: A Historical and Critical Essay (International Library of Philosophy) (Volume 24) 1st Edition
Use the Amazon App to scan ISBNs and compare prices.
The Amazon Book Review
Author interviews, book reviews, editors picks, and more. Read it now
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
What other items do customers buy after viewing this item?
About the Author
Edwin Arthur Burtt (1892 – 1989) was an American philosopher who wrote extensively on the philosophy of religion. He was the Susan Linn Sage Professor of Philosophy at Cornell University. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
Browse award-winning titles. See more
Top customer reviews
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Burtt overthrows some of the conceptions still held today that the religious paradigm was the overrdiding impediment to the acceptance of the Copernican framework among the scientific community. Burtt demonstrates how the scientific community of the time had no need to revise the epicycles and deferrents of the ptolemaic scheme. It was only through the argument of greater simplicity and the appeal to the neo-platonic mathematical ideals that it became more widely accepted.
A must read for any student of science interested in the complex interplay of ideas that eventually led to the rationale for and acceptance of Newtonian mechanics and the resulting metaphysical framework.
So, if you really want, without prejudices, to really understand, or even "face" this problem, this is THE book to read.
According to this worldview, the underlying essence of the universe is mathematical, and in the case of Pythagoras, the mind-independent world was literally comprised by physical, geometrical atoms or structures. This was not a worldview that was supported by facts and empirical testing at the time, but was introduced on a priori (before experience) grounds and reasoning.
Burtt begins with Copernicus and his heliocentric view of the solar system, which stated that the Sun was the center of the solar system, not the earth. Contrary to our intuitions or education on how hypotheses originate, Copernicus was not swayed by any empirical data to suggest this new worldview (which was conceptually not new, but posited by Greek philosopher Aristarchus of Samos in 4th century B.C.), rather he was infatuated with the re-birth of the Pythagorean metaphysic via Neoplatonism.
At the time of Copernicus (1473 – 1543), there were no empirical issues with Ptolemy's Christian inspired and anthropocentric geocentric theory, and in fact Copernicus' heliocentric theory was up against several problems, such as the inability at the time to observe and validate
parallax (the shifting of the observable position of the stars based on the assumption that the earth shifts its position as it revolves around the Sun). And of course, Copernicus was up against the religious powers at the time, which used Biblical text to support the geocentric view of the universe.
In addition, both Copernicus and Ptolemy’s systems were able to predict the same celestial phenomena, so from a practical standpoint, Copernicus offered no advantage with his theory. The primary difference was that Copernicus' heliocentric theory exhibited or implied more harmony, simplicity, and beauty with its application of less epicycles (small circular deviations that planets had to take as they rotated around the Sun or Earth, to account for their real elliptical pathways, which were unknown until Kepler). Accepting the heliocentric theory based on the preconceived notions of harmony, simplicity, and beauty was not based on empirical testing, but was derived from the Pythagorean metaphysic, and indeed much of the Greek worldview that the universe was fundamentally orderly, harmonious, and beautiful at its core. This aesthetic and metaphysic was accepted by reason alone, a priori, not on something remotely close to the scientific method. Put another way, this metaphysic described the way thinkers wanted the essence of the universe to be, not the way it was validated to be via observation.
In short, Copernicus essentially embraced the Pythagorean mathematical interpretation of the universe and became convinced that the whole universe is made up of numbers. And since mathematicians at the time were attracted to the notion of simplicity, beauty, and harmony, this provided an a priori basis for accepting his heliocentric theory.
Burtt moves on to make a similar case in light of the theories and work of Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Gilbert, Newton, and others. All these great thinkers were inspired and influenced by the same Pythagorean metaphysic of numbers and the a priori, untestable assumption that the underlying (not observable) essence of the universe as mathematical.
Kepler worshiped the Sun metaphorically as "God"; introduced a mysterious, aesthetic, and untestable view of causation; and asserted that the real world existed independent of the mind and was entirely mathematical in nature.
Following the lead of Copernicus and his attention to celestial phenomena, Galileo applied the Pythagorean metaphysic to the world of terrestrial dynamics; stated that nature acts according to immutable mathematical laws (the language of the universe); asserted that matter is comprised of infinitely small indivisible atoms, which only possess mathematical properties (number, figure, magnitude, position, motion, etc); and introduced the notion of "occult" indestructible forces that governed the movement of matter behind the scenes (since matter by itself floating around in absolute space cannot govern its own orderly behavior without the aid of an exterior agent).
Descartes viewed the universe as a geometrical machine; denied the existence of a void or vacuum in space (as did many during that time to deal with the problem of "Action at a Distance); and constructed a radical mind-body dualism that would plague Western world thinkers for the rest of history, as well as introduce a number of philosophical absurdities and challenges (such as Descartes’ ludicrous idea that the pineal gland in the brain was the connection point or “dysfunctional conjunction” between the material body/brain and the soul).
Henry More envisioned forces as the "Spirit of Nature", where gravity, cohesion, magnetism, etc are not mechanical (like the geometrical motion of bodies), but “spiritual” or indicative of a divine presence.
Gilbert, the father of the study of magnetism, posited that magnetism was the "soul" of the universe, and that this soul, though spiritual, is extended in space (not immaterial) and explains action at a distance. Newton truly turned over a new leaf and suggested that we can never
know the essences or causes of these "occult" forces in nature, but can only mathematically reduce and formulate their observable effects (such as his inverse square law of gravity). Yet in the end he ironically embraces, as did many of his predecessors, the “God of the Gaps” and affirms that the material world is fundamentally mathematical (return of the Pythagorean metaphysic) and is composed of hard, indestructible particles that were created by God and have only mathematical attributes; that the human soul is locked up inside the body with absolutely no contact with the real, external physical world (dualism of Descartes); and that based on the metaphysic of primary-secondary qualities, secondary qualities (color, taste, etc) are all phantasms created by the mind, not properties of the physical, external universe.
Newton and those before him ultimately sold out to metaphysics, as their “fudge factor” and way of coping with the unknown. Or, as an alternative and perhaps more likely explanation, shall we speculate that maintaining a small and virtually harmless component of theological mysticism was their way of staying out of trouble with the Church, lest they be burnt as the stake as Bruno was in 1600 for his heretical ideas?
We can summarize the extent of metaphysical foundations of modern science as follows:
• The Pythagorean-Neo-Platonist view that the underlying nature of the universe is mathematical, assumed a priori and based on the aesthetic principles of harmony, simplicity, and beauty (Copernicus et al)
• Deification of the Sun and assumption that harmonious mathematical structures cause observable phenomenon (Kepler)
• Atomism: physical universe is comprised of indestructible particles that have only mathematical properties (Galileo et al)
• A priori assumption that all empirical phenomenon can be reduced to mathematical relationships (all)
• Universe viewed as “geometrical machine” (Descartes)
• Concept of primary/secondary qualities: only mathematical qualities of physical objects are real; secondary qualities (smell, taste, color, etc) are figments of the mind (all)
• Radical mind-body dualism: minds/souls completely detached and separate from the real, physical world (Descartes et al)
• A priori knowledge of the universe is mathematical and of divine origin
• Introduction of ether and occult or spiritual/divine forces to avoid the problem of “action at a distance” (spirit of nature, magnetic soul, God as incorporeal or extended plenum,