Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T11:19:36.244Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Problem of Apodictic Proof in Early Seventeenth-Century Mechanics. Galileo, Guevara, and the Jesuits

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

William A. Wallace
William A. Wallace
Affiliation:
Committee on the History and Philosophy of ScienceThe University of Maryland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The argument developed herein, a countertheme to the Merton thesis, is that the ideal of science pursued by Galileo and his contemporaries in Italy would be unaffected by their Catholic faith if it could achieve apodictic proof in the subject of its investigations, in which case it would attain truth – the very goal sought by that faith. Unfortunately such proof was hard to come by in early seventeenth-century mechanics. A case study is proposed to show Galileo's difficulty demonstrating the tensile strength of columns in mathematical physics on the basis of improper suppositions, contrasting these with the suppositions of a contemporary, Giovanni de Guevara. The case study casts new light on the subject of Galileo's atomism and its relation to the Eucharist, refuting Redondi's claim that this was the real motive behind Galileo's trial in 1633. A further lesson relating to the Merton thesis can also be drawn, namely, that while challenges to science from religious orthodoxy may appear as temporary obstacles, in the long run they are an aid to science in its efforts to bring mankind closer to the truth.

Type
Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , Spring 1989 , pp. 67 - 87
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Albert the Great, St., 1890–1899. Opera omnia, 38vols., ed.Borgnet, A. Paris: Ludovicus Vives.Google Scholar
Aquinas, Thomas, 1965. Summa Theologiae, 60. vols, ed. Thomas, Gilby. Vol. 58: The Eucharistic Presence, trans. Barden, William, New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Aristotle, , 1936. “Mechanical Problems (Mechanica),” in Aristotle: Minor Works, trans. Hett, W. S., 327–411. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Baldini, Ugo, 1985. “Una fonte poco utilizzata per la storia intellettuale: Le ‘censurae librorum’ e ‘opinionum’ nell'antica Compagnia di Gesu” Annali dell'Istituto Storico Italo-Germanico in Trento 11:19–67.Google Scholar
Barden, William, 1965. “The Presences of Christ in the Eucharist,” in Aquinas 1965, 201–6.Google Scholar
Blancanus, Josephus, 1615. De natura mathematicarum scientiarum tractatio. Bologna: Apud Bartholomeum Cochium.Google Scholar
Carbone, Ludovico, 1597. Additamenta ad commentaria Toleti, D. Francisciin Logicam Aristotelis. Venice: Apud Georgium Angellerium.Google Scholar
Cippola, R. G., 1974. “Selvaggi Revisited: Transubstantiation and Contemporary Science” Theological Studies 35:667–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, I. B., 1988. “The Publication of Science, Technology and Society: Circumstances and Consequences” Isis 79:571–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galileo, Galilei, 1890–1909. Le Opere di Galileo Galilei, 20 vols. in 21, ed. Favaro, Antonio. Florence: G. Barbera Editrice.Google Scholar
Galileo, Galilei, 1988. Tractatio de praecognitionibus etpraecognitis and Tractatio de demonstratione. Transcribed from the Latin Autograph by Edwards, William F., with an Introduction, Notes, and Commentary by William A. Wallace. Padua: Editrice Antenore.Google Scholar
Galli, M. G., 1983. “L'argomentazione di Galileo in favore del sistema copernicano dedotta dal fenomeno delle maree” Angelicum 60:386–427.Google Scholar
Giacobbe, G. C., 1977. “Un gesuita progressista nella ‘Questio de certitudine mathematicarum’ rinascimentale: Benito Pereyra,“ Physis 19:51–86.Google Scholar
Grant, Edward, 1984. “In Defense of the Earth's Centrality and Immobility: Scholastic Reaction to Copernicanism in the Seventeenth Century,” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 74(4):1–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guevara, Giovanni de, 1622. De interiori sensu libri tres. Rome: Apud Jacobum Mascardum.Google Scholar
Guevara, Giovanni de, 1627. In Aristotelis mechanicas commentarii, una cum additionibus quibusdam ad eandem materiam pertinentibus. Rome: Apud Jacobum Mascardum.Google Scholar
Hacking, Ian, 1975. The Emergence of Probability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, A. Rupert, 1963. “Merton Revisited, or Science and Society in the Seventeenth Century” History of Science 2:1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Grand, H. E., 1978. “Galileo's Matter Theory,” in New Perspectives on Galileo, ed. Butts, J. C. and Pitt, R. E., 197–208. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merton, R. K., 1938. “Science, Technology and Society in Seventeenth-Century England” Osiris 4:360–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moss, J. D., 1983a. “Galileo's Letter to Christina: Some Rhetorical Considerations,” Renaissance Quarterly 36:547–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moss, J. D., 1983b. “Galileo's Rhetorical Strategies in Defense of Copernicanism,” in Novita' celesti e crisi del sapere, ed. Galluzzi, Paolo95–103., Florence: Istituto e Museo di Storia della Scienza.Google Scholar
Moss, J. D., 1985. “The Rhetoric of Proof in Galileo's Writings on the Copernican System,” in The Galileo Affair: A Meeting of Faith and Science, ed. Coyne, G.V, Heller, M., and Zycinski, J., 41–61. Vatican City: The Vatican Observatory.Google Scholar
Moss, J. D., 1988. “Newton and the Jesuits in the Philosophical Transactions,” in Newton and the New Direction in Science, ed. Coyne, G. V., Heller, M., andZycinski, J., 117–134.Vatican City: The Vatican Observatory.Google Scholar
Moss, J. D., 1989. “The Interplay of Science and Rhetoric in Seventeenth-Century Italy” Rhetorica 7:23–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nadler, S. M., 1988. “Arnauld, Descartes and Transubstantiation: Reconciling Cartesian Metaphysics and Real Presence” Journal of the History of Ideas 49:229–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pagano, S. M., and Luciani, A. G., eds., 1984. I documenti del processo di Galileo Galilei. Vatican City: Pontificia Academia Scientiarum.Google Scholar
Pererius, Benedictus, 1576. De communibus omnium rerum naturalium principiis et affectionibus. Rome: Apud Zannetum et Tosium socios.Google Scholar
Redondi, Pietro, 1987. Galileo Heretic, trans. Raymond Rosenthal. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Reilly, Conor, 1969. Francis Line S.J., An Exiled English Scientist, 1595–1675. Rome: Institutum Historicum S.I.Google Scholar
Shea, W. R., 1970. “Galileo's Atomic Hypothesis” Ambix 17:13–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shea, W. R., 1972. Galileo's Intellectual Revolution: Middle Period, 1610–1632. New York: Science History Publications.Google Scholar
Shea, W. R., 1978. “Descartes as Critic of Galileo,” in New Perspectives on Galileo, ed. Butts, J. C. and Pitt, R. E., 139–59. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toletus, Franciscus, 1575. Commentaria una cum quaestionibus in duos libros Aristotelis de generatione et corruptione. Venice: Apud luntas.Google Scholar
Vallius, Paulus, 1622. Logica…duobus tomis distincta. Lyons: Sumptibus Ludovici Prost haeredibus Rouille.Google Scholar
Van Melsen, A. G., 1960. From Atomos to Atom: The History of the Concept Atom. New York: Harper Torchbooks.Google Scholar
Wallace, W. A., 1984. Galileo and His Sources: The Heritage of the Collegio Romano in Galileo's Science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar