{"title":"Petrus Van Musschenbroek (1692-1761) on the scope of physica and its place within philosophia","authors":"S. Ducheyne","doi":"10.3989/ASCLEPIO.2016.02","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As a supplement to John L. Heilbron’s account, I will argue that, although the label ‘experimental physics’ can be rightfully used to describe aspects of Petrus van Musschenbroek’s (1692-1761) work, the latter’s understanding of ‘physica’ is to be situated within a broader framework in which theological, philosophical and teleological considerations continued to play an important role. First, I will draw attention to Musschenbroek’s views on the scope of physica and especially to his conception of a law of nature. It will be shown that by radicalizing certain aspects of Isaac Newton’s methodological ideas van Musschenbroek no longer considered physics as the discipline that uncovered causes from effects, as Newton did, but as the discipline that studies the effects of unknown causes. In addition, I will show that van Musschenbroek endorsed the view that the laws of nature are contingent on God’s free will and that they are knowable due to his goodness. Second, it will be argued that for van Musschenbroek physics, alongside with teleology, had clear physico-theological repercussions. Along the way, van Musschenbroek’s views on the principle of sufficient reason will be discussed for the first time.","PeriodicalId":44082,"journal":{"name":"Asclepio-Revista de Historia de la Medicina y de la Ciencia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2016-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asclepio-Revista de Historia de la Medicina y de la Ciencia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3989/ASCLEPIO.2016.02","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
As a supplement to John L. Heilbron’s account, I will argue that, although the label ‘experimental physics’ can be rightfully used to describe aspects of Petrus van Musschenbroek’s (1692-1761) work, the latter’s understanding of ‘physica’ is to be situated within a broader framework in which theological, philosophical and teleological considerations continued to play an important role. First, I will draw attention to Musschenbroek’s views on the scope of physica and especially to his conception of a law of nature. It will be shown that by radicalizing certain aspects of Isaac Newton’s methodological ideas van Musschenbroek no longer considered physics as the discipline that uncovered causes from effects, as Newton did, but as the discipline that studies the effects of unknown causes. In addition, I will show that van Musschenbroek endorsed the view that the laws of nature are contingent on God’s free will and that they are knowable due to his goodness. Second, it will be argued that for van Musschenbroek physics, alongside with teleology, had clear physico-theological repercussions. Along the way, van Musschenbroek’s views on the principle of sufficient reason will be discussed for the first time.
作为对John L. Heilbron的叙述的补充,我认为,尽管“实验物理学”这个标签可以正确地用来描述Petrus van Musschenbroek(1692-1761)工作的各个方面,但后者对“物理学”的理解应该放在一个更广泛的框架中,在这个框架中,神学、哲学和目的论的考虑继续发挥重要作用。首先,我将提请注意Musschenbroek对物理学范围的看法,特别是他对自然法则的概念。我们将看到,通过激进化艾萨克·牛顿方法论思想的某些方面,范·穆申布鲁克不再像牛顿那样,把物理学看作是一门从结果中发现原因的学科,而是一门研究未知原因的结果的学科。此外,我将表明,范·穆申布鲁克赞同这样一种观点,即自然法则取决于上帝的自由意志,由于上帝的仁慈,它们是可知的。其次,有人会说,对于范·穆申布鲁克来说,物理学和目的论有着明显的物理神学影响。一路上,范穆申布鲁克关于充分理由原则的观点将首次被讨论。