论牛顿前后的潮汐:罗杰·约瑟夫·博斯科维奇的《论海洋》

Q1 Arts and Humanities
O. Akopyan
{"title":"论牛顿前后的潮汐:罗杰·约瑟夫·博斯科维奇的《论海洋》","authors":"O. Akopyan","doi":"10.1162/posc_a_00567","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The causes of tidal motions were widely debated from antiquity up to the eighteenth century. These discussions got a second wind in the early modern period, in the wake of a growing number of cosmological alternatives that challenged the dominant Aristotelian-Ptolemaic stance. The 1687 publication of Isaac Newton’s Principia Mathematica was a defining moment in the discussions and consequently made universal gravitation the most credible and generally accepted explanation. This paper investigates the aftermath of Newton’s discovery and demonstrates how his understanding of tidal motion crowded out competing theories within a broader European context. My main point of reference is Roger Boscovich’s De aestu maris (1747). In his work, the leading Jesuit scholar of the time contrasted Newton’s interpretation to those of other major authorities, namely Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, and René Descartes, and went on to claim the superiority of the British scientist’s achievements over anything written prior to the Principia. As this essay argues, alongside a significant body of literature produced under the umbrella of the Jesuit order, Boscovich’s De aestu maris subsequently contributed to the formation of the popular image of Newton as a “scientific hero.”","PeriodicalId":19867,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Science","volume":"40 1","pages":"1042-1064"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Discussing Tides Before and After Newton: Roger Joseph Boscovich’s De aestu maris\",\"authors\":\"O. Akopyan\",\"doi\":\"10.1162/posc_a_00567\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The causes of tidal motions were widely debated from antiquity up to the eighteenth century. These discussions got a second wind in the early modern period, in the wake of a growing number of cosmological alternatives that challenged the dominant Aristotelian-Ptolemaic stance. The 1687 publication of Isaac Newton’s Principia Mathematica was a defining moment in the discussions and consequently made universal gravitation the most credible and generally accepted explanation. This paper investigates the aftermath of Newton’s discovery and demonstrates how his understanding of tidal motion crowded out competing theories within a broader European context. My main point of reference is Roger Boscovich’s De aestu maris (1747). In his work, the leading Jesuit scholar of the time contrasted Newton’s interpretation to those of other major authorities, namely Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, and René Descartes, and went on to claim the superiority of the British scientist’s achievements over anything written prior to the Principia. As this essay argues, alongside a significant body of literature produced under the umbrella of the Jesuit order, Boscovich’s De aestu maris subsequently contributed to the formation of the popular image of Newton as a “scientific hero.”\",\"PeriodicalId\":19867,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Perspectives on Science\",\"volume\":\"40 1\",\"pages\":\"1042-1064\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Perspectives on Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1162/posc_a_00567\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives on Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/posc_a_00567","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

潮汐运动的原因从古代一直争论到18世纪。在现代早期,随着越来越多的宇宙学替代方案挑战亚里士多德-托勒密的主导立场,这些讨论获得了第二股风。1687年艾萨克·牛顿的《数学原理》的出版是讨论中的一个决定性时刻,从而使万有引力成为最可信、最被普遍接受的解释。本文调查了牛顿发现的后果,并展示了他对潮汐运动的理解如何在更广泛的欧洲背景下排挤竞争理论。我的主要参考点是罗杰·博斯科维奇(Roger Boscovich)的《De aestu maris》(1747)。在他的著作中,这位当时领先的耶稣会学者将牛顿的解释与其他主要权威,即约翰内斯·开普勒、伽利略·伽利莱和雷诺·笛卡尔的解释进行了对比,并继续声称这位英国科学家的成就比《原理》之前的任何著作都要优越。正如本文所述,在耶稣会的保护伞下产生了大量的文学作品,博斯科维奇的《论科学》随后促成了牛顿作为“科学英雄”的流行形象的形成。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Discussing Tides Before and After Newton: Roger Joseph Boscovich’s De aestu maris
Abstract The causes of tidal motions were widely debated from antiquity up to the eighteenth century. These discussions got a second wind in the early modern period, in the wake of a growing number of cosmological alternatives that challenged the dominant Aristotelian-Ptolemaic stance. The 1687 publication of Isaac Newton’s Principia Mathematica was a defining moment in the discussions and consequently made universal gravitation the most credible and generally accepted explanation. This paper investigates the aftermath of Newton’s discovery and demonstrates how his understanding of tidal motion crowded out competing theories within a broader European context. My main point of reference is Roger Boscovich’s De aestu maris (1747). In his work, the leading Jesuit scholar of the time contrasted Newton’s interpretation to those of other major authorities, namely Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, and René Descartes, and went on to claim the superiority of the British scientist’s achievements over anything written prior to the Principia. As this essay argues, alongside a significant body of literature produced under the umbrella of the Jesuit order, Boscovich’s De aestu maris subsequently contributed to the formation of the popular image of Newton as a “scientific hero.”
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Perspectives on Science
Perspectives on Science Arts and Humanities-History and Philosophy of Science
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
48
×
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