• Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.

Milestones

Go to CruxDreams.com
What exactly were the 'two new sciences'?
Mecanica & Movimenti Locali, Mechanics and Local Movement. In Galileo's time "mechanics" meant only statics and strength of materials, the fore-bearer of modern material engineering; The motion of objects was the fore-bearer of modern kinematics).
 
Very interesting. I wonder whether Galileo's usage was taken up in succeeding generations (in Italian or Latin) -
also, what he might have listed as 'old' sciences. Clearly mechanics and motion are different from the quadrivium:
mathematics, geometry, astronomy and music (yes, music), I guess that's probably what he was contrasting them with.
But the concept of 'science', as a general term for a distinctive way of interpreting the world, of course developed during the 17th century,
and the distinction from '(liberal) arts' and 'humanities' (which were originally distinct from theology) only emerged gradually.
(And is still a problem for folk like me for whom linguistics is very much a hard science, but is lumped together with arts/ humanities)
 
But I think he would have called it Natural Philosophy (Philosophia Naturalis, Filosofia Naturale),
Two New Sciences
Actually , Eul, your error and subsequent question cut to the heart of Galileo. When the Church first considered moving after him, one Cardinal objected, saying something like, "You can't condemn without excellent cause, the most famous and respected Natural Philosopher in the World!"

The terms used are of utmost importance. At Galileo's time and for centuries after, many regarded the work as a kind of philosophy. Speculation and discussion of ideas. Galileo, as I said above, rejected speculation and demanded hard evidence of observation and experiment. He didn't just drop balls from the Tower if Pisa, he did years of experiment, rolling balls on inclines and measuring collisions (even before we had Barb's driving to observe these). He KNEW how things moved, he didn't just suppose it!
 
Actually , Eul, your error and subsequent question cut to the heart of Galileo. When the Church first considered moving after him, one Cardinal objected, saying something like, "You can't condemn without excellent cause, the most famous and respected Natural Philosopher in the World!"

The terms used are of utmost importance. At Galileo's time and for centuries after, many regarded the work as a kind of philosophy. Speculation and discussion of ideas. Galileo, as I said above, rejected speculation and demanded hard evidence of observation and experiment. He didn't just drop balls from the Tower if Pisa, he did years of experiment, rolling balls on inclines and measuring collisions (even before we had Barb's driving to observe these). He KNEW how things moved, he didn't just suppose it!
Isn't William of Occam generally considered the one who first proposed empirical testing as the gold standard? Not to neglect various Arab, Indian and Chinese thinkers who may have propounded similar ideas.
 
Very interesting. I wonder whether Galileo's usage was taken up in succeeding generations (in Italian or Latin) -
also, what he might have listed as 'old' sciences. Clearly mechanics and motion are different from the quadrivium:
mathematics, geometry, astronomy and music (yes, music), I guess that's probably what he was contrasting them with.
But the concept of 'science', as a general term for a distinctive way of interpreting the world, of course developed during the 17th century,
and the distinction from '(liberal) arts' and 'humanities' (which were originally distinct from theology) only emerged gradually.
(And is still a problem for folk like me for whom linguistics is very much a hard science, but is lumped together with arts/ humanities)
Titles often lag the work. Think of Adam Smith, who studied social philosophy at the University of Glasgow and at Balliol College, Oxford, where he was one of the first students to benefit from scholarships set up by fellow Scot John Snell. We call him an economist, but his teaching title was Moral Philosophy.
 
Isn't William of Occam generally considered the one who first proposed empirical testing as the gold standard? Not to neglect various Arab, Indian and Chinese thinkers who may have propounded similar ideas.
And Roger Bacon, who was certainly a pioneer of experimental method.
 
Isn't William of Occam generally considered the one who first proposed empirical testing as the gold standard? Not to neglect various Arab, Indian and Chinese thinkers who may have propounded similar ideas.
True, many others talked about the idea of empiricism. But Galileo did it and in a completeness that established a whole body of knowledge. It was his work along with Johannes Kepler (who used the observations of Tycho Brahe) that Newtons used to develop his laws of Motion and Unirversal Gravitation.
 
Titles often lag the work. Think of Adam Smith, who studied social philosophy at the University of Glasgow and at Balliol College, Oxford, where he was one of the first students to benefit from scholarships set up by fellow Scot John Snell. We call him an economist, but his teaching title was Moral Philosophy.
Well, Adam Smith also wrote his 'Theory of Moral Sentiments', and indeed his concern was primarily with what makes for 'polite and civilised society', wrenching his economic thinking from its moral foundations has been the disastrous heresy of neoliberals claiming to follow his teachings.
 
True, many others talked about the idea of empiricism. But Galileo did it and in a completeness that established a whole body of knowledge. It was his work along with Johannes Kepler (who used the observations of Tycho Brahe) that Newtons used to develop his laws of Motion and Unirversal Gravitation.
When Newton said, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." he was specifically referring to Kepler and Galileo. Kepler the consummate mathematician and Galileo the consummate experimenter.

And, yes, Newton was paraphrasing Bernard of Chartres.
 
And tastes damn good too!

Idiot :rolleyes:


***********

Seriously, one learns so much here on CF! :)

There's an interesting article in the Washington Post today about an assassination attempt on Washington, instigated by the Loyalist governor of New York and which involved traitors among Washington's own personal bodyguards. You never see that recorded in the history books.:confused:
 
he was one of the first students to benefit from scholarships set up by fellow Scot John Snell
The first Snell Exhibitions were awarded in 1699, Smith's was in 1740. They still continue to this day, nowadays for Glasgow University graduates usually to work for a DPhil.
 
Idiot :rolleyes:


***********

Seriously, one learns so much here on CF! :)

There's an interesting article in the Washington Post today about an assassination attempt on Washington, instigated by the Loyalist governor of New York and which involved traitors among Washington's own personal bodyguards. You never see that recorded in the history books.:confused:
Some books. But I read of it in Ron Chernow's Alexander Hamilton (basis of the musical) a few years ago. Hamilton was a young Captain in the Continental Army in NYC. He also wrote articles for a newspaper in St. Croix. He sent several dispatches concerning the plot and the hanging of the principal traitor, which he witnessed personally.
 
Some books. But I read of it in Ron Chernow's Alexander Hamilton (basis of the musical) a few years ago. Hamilton was a young Captain in the Continental Army in NYC. He also wrote articles for a newspaper in St. Croix. He sent several dispatches concerning the plot and the hanging of the principal traitor, which he witnessed personally.

But nothing happened to the New York Governor or the other conspirators.
 
Back
Top Bottom