Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Historiography of Mathematics in the 19th and 20th CenturiesThe ‘Mathematization of Nature’: The Making of a Concept, and How It Has Fared in Later Years

Historiography of Mathematics in the 19th and 20th Centuries: The ‘Mathematization of Nature’:... [The concept of ‘the mathematization of nature’ arose in close connection with the equally novel concept of ‘The Scientific Revolution of the seventeenth century’. The pioneers were DijksterhuisDijksterhuis, Eduard Jan (1892-1965) (Val en worp. Een bijdrage tot de geschiedenis der mechanica van Aristoteles tot Newton. Noordhoff, Groningen, 1924), BurttBurtt, Edwin Arthur (1892-1989) (The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science. A Historical and Critical Essay, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1924), and KoyréKoyré, Alexandre (1892-1964) (Etudes Galiléennes. Hermann, Paris, 1939/1940). Thanks in good part to KoyréKoyré, Alexandre (1892-1964)’s agenda-driven perseverance, these became highly productive concepts. Nonetheless their analytically sharp delineation quickly gave way to an unceasing process of meaning dilution. In the 1970s KuhnKuhn, Thomas Samuel (1922-1996) and WestfallWestfall, Richard S. (1924-1996) sought (but to little avail) to halt the process by suggesting two ingenious ‘two-current’ accounts of the Scientific Revolution, with the mathematization of nature figuring prominently in each. The idea of the mathematization of nature being key to the Scientific Revolution has kept informing a ‘master narrative’ that professionals have ever since the 1980s tended to regard as hopelessly obsolete. It is certainly true that, in their original guise, these concepts are incapable of capturing fundamental aspects of the pursuit of knowledge of nature in seventeenth century Europe. But is that good enough a reason to give them up altogether? Two efforts at fresh reconceptualization have recently been undertaken, one by GaukrogerGaukroger, Stephen (*1950), one by the author of the present chapter. Having compared the two elsewhere, he outlines here in what ways he has partly reinstated, partly revised, partly expanded, but in all cases built forth upon, the still vital notion of the mathematization of nature. In this partly altered guise, it marks three of the six revolutionary transformations that in his view comprise the Scientific Revolution of the seventeenth century.] http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png

Historiography of Mathematics in the 19th and 20th CenturiesThe ‘Mathematization of Nature’: The Making of a Concept, and How It Has Fared in Later Years

Part of the Trends in the History of Science Book Series
Editors: Remmert, Volker R.; Schneider, Martina R.; Kragh Sørensen, Henrik
Floris Cohen, H.
Historiography of Mathematics in the 19th and 20th Centuries — Dec 9, 2016
Download PDF
17 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/historiography-of-mathematics-in-the-19th-and-20th-centuries-the-U0gykHz2SC

References (13)

Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Copyright
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016
ISBN
978-3-319-39647-7
Pages
143 –160
DOI
10.1007/978-3-319-39649-1_8
Publisher site
See Chapter on Publisher Site

Abstract

[The concept of ‘the mathematization of nature’ arose in close connection with the equally novel concept of ‘The Scientific Revolution of the seventeenth century’. The pioneers were DijksterhuisDijksterhuis, Eduard Jan (1892-1965) (Val en worp. Een bijdrage tot de geschiedenis der mechanica van Aristoteles tot Newton. Noordhoff, Groningen, 1924), BurttBurtt, Edwin Arthur (1892-1989) (The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science. A Historical and Critical Essay, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1924), and KoyréKoyré, Alexandre (1892-1964) (Etudes Galiléennes. Hermann, Paris, 1939/1940). Thanks in good part to KoyréKoyré, Alexandre (1892-1964)’s agenda-driven perseverance, these became highly productive concepts. Nonetheless their analytically sharp delineation quickly gave way to an unceasing process of meaning dilution. In the 1970s KuhnKuhn, Thomas Samuel (1922-1996) and WestfallWestfall, Richard S. (1924-1996) sought (but to little avail) to halt the process by suggesting two ingenious ‘two-current’ accounts of the Scientific Revolution, with the mathematization of nature figuring prominently in each. The idea of the mathematization of nature being key to the Scientific Revolution has kept informing a ‘master narrative’ that professionals have ever since the 1980s tended to regard as hopelessly obsolete. It is certainly true that, in their original guise, these concepts are incapable of capturing fundamental aspects of the pursuit of knowledge of nature in seventeenth century Europe. But is that good enough a reason to give them up altogether? Two efforts at fresh reconceptualization have recently been undertaken, one by GaukrogerGaukroger, Stephen (*1950), one by the author of the present chapter. Having compared the two elsewhere, he outlines here in what ways he has partly reinstated, partly revised, partly expanded, but in all cases built forth upon, the still vital notion of the mathematization of nature. In this partly altered guise, it marks three of the six revolutionary transformations that in his view comprise the Scientific Revolution of the seventeenth century.]

Published: Dec 9, 2016

Keywords: Scientific Revolution; Mathematization of nature

There are no references for this article.