The art of estimation and the mathematization of force in Leibniz

IF 1.4 2区 哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Jeffrey Elawani , Filippo Costantini
{"title":"The art of estimation and the mathematization of force in Leibniz","authors":"Jeffrey Elawani ,&nbsp;Filippo Costantini","doi":"10.1016/j.shpsa.2024.12.009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>From 1686 onward, Leibniz is engaged in a dispute with Cartesian physicists on the correct expression for the quantity of force in moving bodies. In the 1690s, he puts forth an argument for his own expression that is allegedly based on the science of quantity in general (or the art of estimation). Leibniz states that the latter requires the quantity of force to be determined by the real repetitions of a measure. It would follow that his expression for force is the correct one. Now, commentators have not been sensitive to the ingenuity of the argument presented here. In this paper, focussing on the exchange between Johann Bernoulli and Leibniz, we want to show how this argument consists essentially in pushing for a certain conception of the mathematization of force based, in turn, on a serious conception of measurement of quantities. This conception exploits the conservative properties of physical systems in order to apply general principles of determination of quantity to the special case of the quantity of force. We conclude by confronting our interpretation with others which posit a stronger connection between measurement and metaphysics in Leibniz.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49467,"journal":{"name":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science","volume":"110 ","pages":"Pages 65-75"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003936812400164X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

From 1686 onward, Leibniz is engaged in a dispute with Cartesian physicists on the correct expression for the quantity of force in moving bodies. In the 1690s, he puts forth an argument for his own expression that is allegedly based on the science of quantity in general (or the art of estimation). Leibniz states that the latter requires the quantity of force to be determined by the real repetitions of a measure. It would follow that his expression for force is the correct one. Now, commentators have not been sensitive to the ingenuity of the argument presented here. In this paper, focussing on the exchange between Johann Bernoulli and Leibniz, we want to show how this argument consists essentially in pushing for a certain conception of the mathematization of force based, in turn, on a serious conception of measurement of quantities. This conception exploits the conservative properties of physical systems in order to apply general principles of determination of quantity to the special case of the quantity of force. We conclude by confronting our interpretation with others which posit a stronger connection between measurement and metaphysics in Leibniz.
莱布尼茨的估计艺术和力的数学化。
从1686年起,莱布尼茨就与笛卡尔学派的物理学家就运动物体的力的正确表达进行了争论。在17世纪90年代,他为自己的表述提出了一个论点,据称是基于一般数量科学(或估计艺术)。莱布尼茨指出,后者要求力的量由测量的实际重复来决定。由此可见,他对力的表述是正确的。现在,评论员们对这里提出的论点的独创性并不敏感。在这篇论文中,我们关注约翰·伯努利和莱布尼茨之间的交流,我们想要展示这种争论本质上是如何在推动某种力的数学化概念的基础上,反过来,在一个严肃的量的测量概念上。这个概念利用了物理系统的保守性,以便将量的确定的一般原理应用于力的量的特殊情况。最后,我们将我们的解释与莱布尼茨的测量与形而上学之间存在更强联系的其他人进行比较。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 管理科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
10.00%
发文量
166
审稿时长
6.6 weeks
期刊介绍: Studies in History and Philosophy of Science is devoted to the integrated study of the history, philosophy and sociology of the sciences. The editors encourage contributions both in the long-established areas of the history of the sciences and the philosophy of the sciences and in the topical areas of historiography of the sciences, the sciences in relation to gender, culture and society and the sciences in relation to arts. The Journal is international in scope and content and publishes papers from a wide range of countries and cultural traditions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信