THE SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION AND THE ORIGINS THE MODERN SCIENCE WHAT WE MEAN BY "SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION"
THE SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION AND THE ORIGINS
THE MODERN SCIENCE
WHAT WE MEAN BY "SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION"
The term "scientific revolution" was used to indicate that
period of European history between the mid-sixteenth and the end of
Eighteenth century, during which the foundations were laid conceptual
institutional and methodological modern science. Although yet
this expression is now in common use, the problem of determining
exactly the period in question continues to raise not less
disagreement that is connected to the precise nature of this revolution.
The fact that the scientific revolution lends itself to various and divergent
interpretations, indicates unequivocally that it is mainly
a historiographical category, a concept that is a function that performs
merely descriptive and denotative, and that, like other categories
(Middle Ages, Renaissance, Enlightenment, etc.), Is used to denote
certain events of the past. In the present case, a whole series of
events, which are developed on a plurality of floors - but which,
different ways, have helped to change the way of thinking and
see the world, offering an image of nature and man,
as well as their relationship, new and different than the times
previous - helps to define that specific object which is precisely the
Scientific Revolution, which gave birth to modern science.
The concept of "scientific revolution" appears therefore as a
term of convenience, conventional (and to some extent and then arbitrary),
that they use to historians to indicate that complex historical reality
called modern science. This, however, does not mean that it is a
their imagination, something that in fact does not find any
reflected in the facts.
It is undoubtedly true that between mid-1500 and the end of 1700 reached
maturing ideas and themes, inextricably linked to modern science,
that meant the world to change appearance, and it was perceived that
known in a new way, so as not to appear more recognizable to
the next generation. From this point of view, the concept of
scientific revolution may well be regarded as a real
process of radical change. And if you want to understand the nature and
the cause of this great change, it is necessary to analyze the
issues and problems that confronted the main protagonists
of modern science.
Mathematization OF NATURE OF ASTRONOMY
COPERNICUS
The mathematization of nature was seen as one of the characteristics
most significant and important of the scientific revolution. The idea of a
nature conceived in mathematical terms is usually traced back to the
establishment of a metaphysical perspective different from that which had
dominated medieval culture. To determine this change in
perspective would be two orders of factors, however, strictly
related to the deep intellectual transformation introduced
Humanism: 1) the end of the authority of Aristotle, which was based on all
the philosophical-scientific education; 2) the revival of
Pythagorean-Platonic tradition. The triumph of metaphysics
would then permit the emergence of a vision
quantitative nature of a cosmos that is built according to the principles
mathematical order, unthinkable within the categories
Aristotelian concept.
More relevant to the historical reality turns out to be another way of
see the question: which is to place the emphasis rather on the different
epistemological status of mathematics begins to acquire the origins
of modern science. What is essential is in fact the changed
attitude about the application of mathematics to the phenomena
natural. During the scientific revolution, in an attitude
instrumentalist, predominant in previous centuries, it takes over
one markedly more realistic. The proper role of mathematics
so it's not that, purely hypothetical, to provide the tools for
facilitate the calculations and predict phenomena, as it was understood in the past,
but to reveal and describe the real nature of things. The adoption of
a point of view so decidedly realistic manifests itself, with all its
force, astronomy of Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543).
For a long tradition dating back to antiquity,
astronomy was part of the so-called "mixed sciences", ie was
composed of a mathematical part and a physical part. the task
astronomer is therefore to reconcile the construction
mathematics, through which they calculated the motions of the planets, with the
physical explanations about the cause of the motion of the planets, their
composition, which is why occupy a given space.
Towards the end of antiquity, however, the difficulties to unify in a single
system, these two requirements, led to a clear separation, which
would be more pronounced among astronomy physics and astronomy
mathematics.
In Aristotelian cosmology, the world was conceived as a large
system of concentric spheres at the center, still, was the Earth.
From the sphere of the Moon, to the outer limits of the sphere of
the fixed stars, which contained the cosmos, the bodies were composed of a
fifth element, the ether, which, unlike the four terrestrial elements,
was, incorruptible, and subject only to a type of
movement, the circular uniform. The planets and the stars were
set in large spheres, which are also in the air, circling the
center of the universe, the Earth. Although such a representation
the universe might seem impressive, actually had significant limitations,
which prevented to explain various phenomena common, such as, for example,
the variation of the apparent brightness of the planets.
In an attempt to account for these phenomena, the unexplained
Aristotelian cosmology, the later Greek astronomers devised various systems,
the most important of which was formulated by Ptolemy in the second century. C.
The work in which he described his theory of Ptolemy, Almagest, would
dominated unchallenged Western astronomical thought, at least in
its mathematical aspect, until the time of Copernicus.
Ptolemy was using a mathematical technique according to which
each planet moved uniform motion of a small circle
(the epicycle) whose center in turn was moving more and motion
uniform, on a larger circle (the deferent) .This model was
able to provide a very accurate description of the
variations both speed both brightness of the planets. There remained,
however, a problem: comparing the motion predicted by the model
epicycle-different with the actual observation, it was found
not always the planet was caught in the exact location provided by
theoretical model. Ptolemy had therefore come up with another
mathematical trick, the equant, the center of an epicycle
not moving uniformly around the center of the deferent or
that of Earth, but around a third point, the equant, chosen
to reproduce precisely the speed apparently not
uniform on the planet.
Although Ptolemy was a realist, that is, was convinced that the models
Mathematical he used could be traced to physical structures
Actual, real real components of the universe, the theory
planet came to be regarded as a geometric hypothetical,
completely incompatible with the system of cosmology and physics of Aristotle.
As early as the sixth century AD. C., and then throughout the Middle Ages,
4
then it became common practice to distinguish between physical astronomy,
whose objective was to describe the actual events, and
mathematical astronomy, and calcolistica purely hypothetical, that
needed to account for the observed phenomena, that is, to "save the
appearances ". The possible conflict between the mathematical and physical
astronomy was so resolved in a somewhat ingenious, ie
keeping in mind the principles of these two separate disciplines.
At the time of Copernicus, the terms of the issue were
essentially unchanged: astronomy remained a field of activity
for mathematicians, and had not yet nothing to do with the
cosmology and physics of celestial bodies. One thing, however, was certain: the
age-old astronomical system of Ptolemy, which was based on the image
universe that Copernicus was faced, now showing its
limits, making it increasingly unable to reconcile with sufficient
precise empirical observations with calculations. The limit certainly
most visible and embarrassing the Ptolemaic theory was applied to the
its failure to grant the calendar year with the lunar year, which
descended the inability to predict with accuracy the fall of
festivals consecrated as Easter. The need to solve this
problem, which had long labored Church, was,
among others, one of the reasons that led Copernicus to think
a new astronomical system. When, in fact, in 1514 the problem
the reform of the calendar was brought before the Council
Lateran, Copernicus, called upon to give its opinion, had
suggested not to take any determination, since the
final solution of the problem requiring, in reality, a depth
study of the motions of the Sun and the Moon, which is a comprehensive reform of the
astronomical theory.
Copernicus, who was a canon of the profession, in his free time
in fact devoted to the reform of astronomy. The result was the development
a new astronomical theory, which transferred the center of motion
Planetary from Earth to the sun. The sun thus became the central
around which all the planets revolved, which was now also
the Earth. With his theory of Copernicus not only overthrew the old
system in the world, but at the same time provided a model with
requirements of completeness and convenience equal to that drawn by Ptolemy and
its successors and medieval commentators. The system of Copernicus
allowed it to predict and calculate the movements of the heavenly
observable with the same operational effectiveness of the previous system.
The new heliocentric cosmology, though outlined in a short
treaty (the Commentariolus, probably composed shortly after 1510 and
spread in a few handwritten copies), was shown in full in the De
Revolutions orbium Coelestium, published in 1543, the same
year of the death of its author. The Revolutions is, without
no doubt, the most important scientific work of the whole life of
Copernicus, one in which is summarized in finished form and
fully developed, his astronomical system.
The reasons that led Copernicus to develop a new astronomy,
as has been said, arose from the observation that the model
mathematical law, the Ptolemaic, was not in accordance with the
observable phenomena. The primary objective of Copernicus, therefore, was
to reprocess the old data that was available in a new
mathematical and cosmological model. From this point of view, what
characterizes the work of Copernicus is not so much to bring in new
data, but rather the development of a new theory. It is
then a new cosmological system founded on the same
data of Ptolemaic astronomy. Copernicus, moreover, in their own
cosmology welcomes many elements of tradition: the reality
material of crystalline spheres (the same way as Aristotle, he believes
fact that the planets are embedded in large transparent spheres and
wheel as diamonds inserted in a ring); the idea of a cosmos
perfectly spherical and finite, enclosed in the sphere of the fixed stars,
although with a greater diameter than the Ptolemaic. also for
As regards the use of mathematical techniques, Copernicus
remains a Ptolemaic, that uses mathematical tools developed
Alexandrian astronomer. And if he refuses to use the equant point,
he does because he is convinced that it is in violation of the old axiom that the celestial motions
must be perfectly circular and uniform; this, however, does not
prevents the use of eccentrics, epicycles and deferent to solve
same problems of Ptolemy. Copernicus, finally, to justify
their astronomical system does not use hardly ever topics
derived from experience; the most significant of the thesis De
Revolutions, the motion of the planets and the immobility of the Sun, is
based on beliefs of aesthetic, moral and religious. The
planets revolve simply because they are spherical; to determine their
circular motion is their peculiar geometry: its mobility
Ball is in fact, according to the old axiom platonicopitagorico,
in turn in a circle. The centrality and immobility of the Sun
derives from its nature, Copernicus, based on themes drawn
literature Solar Renaissance Neoplatonism and tradition
tight, consider the most noble and divine celestial motion. The Sun
located in a central location and is the first in the "dignity" for the function
that is attributed to it: to illuminate and enlighten the world,
which gives life and movement.
On the basis of considerations of this kind, has prevailed a tendency to
Copernicus be considered not as a revolutionary but as a
moderate reformer, a conservative. It has been argued that
the Copernican system, in fact, was not the overcoming of
old cosmology, but a modification. The Revolutions
that would remain as part of the traditional astronomy and
cosmological, because it meant the same structure, operating
only one variant: the exchange of roles between the Earth and the sun. In this
sense, De revolutionibus more than a text would be quite revolutionary
a text which causes a revolution. Its revolutionary
reside, most recently, in the future outcomes that are not provided by the
Copernicus, would determine, by other thinkers (Kepler
Galileo and Newton), a complete and radical break with tradition
old.
Without a doubt, Copernicus, but this is too obvious, it was
man of his time, and then shared the outlook of the bottom of the
old intellectual world in which he was born and in which it was formed.
It is not surprising, therefore, that he was a reformer
interested in conservation, which aimed to regain the balance of the
natural philosophy, astronomy and mathematics based on the principle
ever that all motions are uniform and circular, dimodoché all
balls must rotate in a uniform manner around their centers. It is also
true, however, that Copernicus should be seen as an innovator
radical, for he claims that the Earth is a planet like the others,
Referring to the arguments of the mathematical part
astronomy. In this way, the geometry Copernicus gives a
heuristic power, that to know the physical reality, which transforms the role
same astronomer. The task of the astronomer, the second
Copernicus, is not to provide mathematical hypotheses aimed at
"Save the phenomena", but in the search for the true structure
the universe. With Copernicus, therefore, the astronomer begins to have
a new role: that of the natural philosopher.
The real intentions of Copernicus, however, ended up being
betrayed by the exceptional circumstances surrounding the
publication of De revolutionibus. Although Copernicus had indeed
completed the preparation of the work already in 1531, he agreed to do
published only at the end of his life. To convince him it was a
young professor of mathematics, Georg Joachim Rheticus (1514-1572),
who visited Copernicus University of Wittenberg, the center
academician of the Lutheran Reformation. Rheticus was allowed to be
publish a preliminary version of the heliocentric theory (the Narratio
first appeared in 1540), and to take care of the printing of De revolutionibus. do not
but having the time to oversee the work entrusted
by publishing the work to a colleague Lutheran Andreas Osiander
(1498-1552). The latter, without the permission of Copernicus nor
Rheticus added an anonymous preface to the text, entitled The reader
on the assumptions of this work, in which he stated the purely hypothetical
of the new theory, as all the astronomical theories in general.
The original position of Copernicus, however, appears, without the possibility of
doubt, in the dedicatory letter to Pope Paul III foreword to De
Revolutions, which has just the right system as a
hypothesis among the many possible, but as the true representation
the universe. And that's not all. Copernicus, in fact, not only places the Earth
among the other planets, and so clearly contrary to the teachings of the
Aristotelian physics, the scriptures and common sense, but does so on
the basis of arguments that most of his contemporaries
considered illegitimate. As the motion of the Earth it may appear
contrary to natural philosophy, it insists Copernicus, must be
true, because it requires mathematics. For the era in which he lived
Copernicus, such a statement was certainly revolutionary.
Nor must we forget that the admission of the motion of the Earth, as well as
result in a reversal of the structure of astronomy and
physics, posed a series of troubling questions about the place and the
meaning in the universe. The destruction of the centuries-old
scalzava image of the universe in fact the man from his position
Central and peripheral placed him on a planet in motion; for the
first time, then, the man was no longer the center of the universe or, even
less, the ordered cosmos around him.
The developments in the Copernicus: And BRAHE
KEPLER
The subsequent history of matematimazzione nature shows
same orientation realistic. It is no coincidence that the main
protagonists of the scientific revolution were all interested in
epistemological status of mathematics. This approach is well
this work the Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe (1546-1601). a
Unlike Copernicus, Brahe was a careful and acute observer of
celestial phenomena; by far the largest to the naked eye of the observer
history of astronomy. It should also be noted that Brahe
contrary to what until then had been used to do, watching the planets
on a regular basis, following their comprehensive course through the heavens and
only when they were in a particular configuration
favorable.
Based on his careful observations, Brahe rejected the theory
Ptolemy, who considered affected by serious flaws. At the same time,
However, he also rejected the Copernican theory, and because it appeared
incompatible with Scripture (stating that the sun rose and
set and the earth rested on a solid foundation), and because in
Brahe seemed absurd that the body "fat and lazy" Earth
could move quickly in space. To overcome the difficulties and
objections they might incur these theories, Brahe proposed his
your system in the world, he must have the following characteristics:
"Agree with both mathematics is to physics, avoid censorship
theological, be in complete agreement with what was observed in the heavens. "
The result was the development of a system intermediate between those of
Ptolemy and Copernicus. In the theory of the Earth maintains a Brahe
building and central location, as in Ptolemy, but around it
rotate only the Moon and the Sun; the other five planets revolve instead
around the sun.
From the above it is quite clear that Brahe was a realist,
was convinced that his theory describing the motion of the actual
planetary and celestial movements. This, however, led Brahe to develop
a system so hybrid was, in addition to the belief that in it were
fully justified by the empirical data observed by him, for the purpose of
retain all the advantages of the two previous systems, discarding the
respective disadvantages. It should be noted that, from the point of view
mathematician, the system Brahe is entirely equivalent to that
Copernican; but, refusing the motion of the Earth, it eliminates all those
inconsistencies of a physical, cosmological and theological.
So the criticism that Brahe moved to the Copernican theory of the motion
terrestrial, as its compromise solution to the problem of
planets, confirmed that he was still bound to models
concept of the traditional type. It is also true, however, that beyond
undeniable restorer operation, the system of Brahe, based
it was a remarkable and accurate mass of observations, cracked
important aspects of the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic universe. We should not
forgotten that, by accepting the fundamental premise of the old
cosmology, according to which the earth had to be the center of all the
planetary motion, Brahe was to deny, in fact, that insider
attributed to the Earth since ancient times. Brahe's observations took place
However, an even more significant role for another reason:
the assertion of non-existence of crystalline spheres postulated by
Aristotle and accepted by the Copernicus. When in 1572 appeared
A new star in the constellation Cassiopeia, Brahe, due to its
observation techniques, showed that it had to be in the ball
of the fixed stars. That being the case, the only plausible explanation was
that in heaven immutable there had been a change, and as a result
a cornerstone of Aristotelian cosmology - that of the net
difference between the celestial and sublunary world - was
called into question. Brahe also was able to determine that the comet
appeared in 1577 was on the other side of the sun. Earlier, in agreement
with the Aristotelian conception, comets and meteors were seen
atmospheric phenomena, but Brahe remarked that this does not
correspond at all to the truth. Indeed, encroaching on the territory of
natural philosophy, he showed that the trajectory of the comet would
had to cross the celestial spheres solid, if they existed.
According Brahe, however, the crystalline spheres are not real, but they serve
only to make intelligible the motions of the planets. The sky is not a body
hard and impenetrable, composed of real spheres, but smooth and free, open
in all directions, so as not to put any obstacle to planetary motions,
which are governed only by "the wisdom regulator of God."
The denial of the existence of crystalline spheres had profound
implications. Eliminate the crystalline spheres and considering the planets as
independent bodies, it was necessary to determine what was the cause
physics that determined the motion of the planets and kept them in their
orbits. In the traditional cosmology such a problem does not
poses, since the planets do not move as such, but participate in the
motion of the spheres in which are embedded and from which they are transported. If you
abandon the postulate of material spheres, however, the problem
returns with the whole load of problems that flow from it. It was
this very basic problem - "What is it that moves the planets?" -
to provide the impetus and guide research of Johannes Kepler (1571-
1630).
Kepler was Brahe's assistant and at his death he was succeeded by
in the position of imperial mathematician. Unlike Brahe, however,
Kepler as a young man adheres to the heliocentric theory of Copernicus, the
which also shares the neo-Platonic setting. Even in the case of
Kepler, what characterizes his theoretical work is acceptance
a realistic point of view about the role of mathematics in
explanation of natural phenomena (it is not by chance that he was
Be the first to reject the interpretation that Osiander had given the
Copernican theory as a mere hypothesis), and the belief that
the astronomer must also be a natural philosopher. The title of his
astronomical work is crucial in this respect, very significant
and indicative of its orientations: Astronomia nova,
Aitiologetos, seu physica coelestis (1609), namely: New Astronomy, considered
causalisticamente, that celestial physics.
The importance of this work is at least twofold: 1) we Kepler states
the discovery of the first two laws of planetary, which still
bear his name, rejecting the axiom considered valid
two thousand years of the uniform circular motion of the planets; 2)
rejects the alleged incompatibility between mathematics and astronomy
physical astronomy.
The Astronomia nova is the synthesis of years of hard work
Kepler, on the basis of the observations of Brahe, devoted to the motion of Mars
to find the exact dimensions of its orbit and the speed of its
motion. In the traditional cosmology (and for Copernicus), as
is said, the circular motion was the only perfect and natural motion; and Kepler,
at first, did not bother at all to question
this axiom. As a result, he tried to reconcile the data collected by
Brahe, the motions of Mars with various circles (equants and epicycles) of Ptolemy
and Copernicus, but reaching only approximations
unsatisfactory: the planet Mars, in fact, seemed to move on its own
trajectory in a completely irregular. Trying to make the calculations for the
Earth, Kepler ascertained the same difficulty, namely that the Earth
did not move in uniform motion, but increased speed when it was
close to the Sun and decreased when it was receding. The mathematical calculations
were then emerge a fact in mind: the motion of the Earth
should be similar to that of the other planets. Kepler was convinced
therefore, that the general problem of the planets lay in finding
a mathematical expression that would give reason for the change in velocity
of the planet relative to its distance from the sun. In the end, without
difficulties and miscalculations, Kepler found the solution: each planet
moves in its orbit with non-uniform speed linearly, but
so that the radius vector joining the planet to the Sun sweeps in
equal time intervals equal areas (the so-called second law of
Kepler). The result achieved by Kepler was a fact and
a development of the traditional concept of uniformity: in contrast to
what was being said traditional astronomy, the motion of the Earth
and the other planets is really uneven, and not just in appearance.
Having established the non-uniformity of planetary motion, Kepler tried to
identify what the shape of the orbit of the planets. The difficulty of
maintain a circular orbit at Mars led him to consider whether the planets
could move to some other closed curve. Kepler tried with
the oval and noticed that the orbit of the planet was a special kind of
oval: The ellipse. This finding appears to Kepler as lighting
sudden since, in addition to being in agreement with the data
observation, fully satisfies the condition of the description of
equal areas in equal times (ie, the second law), since the Sun
are in one of the two foci of the ellipse. Here is the kit before
Kepler's law: each planet moves around the Sun on a trajectory
elliptical, with the Sun at one focus. The ellipse was a great
simplification through the abandonment of the circularity of the injury,
Kepler made it a clean sweep of the various complications of epicycles
eccentric and equants. To describe the orbit of each planet was
return only a closed curve, ellipse.
The Importance of Astronomy nova does not end in the discovery of
two planetary laws, but extends far beyond even this remarkable
result. Kepler was in fact among the first to be aware of the fact that
a mathematical description of the motion of the planets must necessarily
be based on a physical theory of the universe. Wondering what was
the physical cause of the motion of the planets, Kepler not only bordered on
territory of the natural philosopher, but made no plausible grounds to
old contrast between mathematics and astronomy astronomy physics.
The "celestial physics", which Kepler refers in the title of his work, not
opposes the "terrestrial physics", for the simple reason that it is not
two "physical", but only one. Both the celestial phenomena as those
land can and should be explained starting from the same
principles.
To explain the physical cause of the motion of the planets and their variation
speed, Kepler refers to the magnetic philosophy of William Gilbert
(1540-1603) and the Neo-Platonic tradition of the metaphysics of
light. The Sun, the "soul of the world," according to Kepler, has a
driving force or virtue that keeps the planets around it. It also
planets, including Earth, are equipped with a magnetic power. Turning
around its axis, the Sun emits a kind immaterial, similar to
that of light. This species spins in a vortex fast
carrying with it the planets; the driving force of the vortex, however,
decreases due to the distance of the planets: the more the planet
away from the Sun, the weaker is the effectiveness of such a force, and so
lower the speed of the planet. Each planet, also, whose axis
magnetic orientanto is always in the same direction, it is
alternately attracted and repelled by the Sun, since it is
imagined as a magnetic pole.
Among the extraordinary changes that have occurred in the history of astronomy
between Copernicus and Kepler, the item undoubtedly more
significant was the growing realization that the strict division
Aristotelian between celestial phenomena and terrestrial phenomena - according to which
all natural motions of the terrestrial world being straight, while those of 12
heavenly world are always circular - it was no longer sustainable. since the
central location and property was one of the pillars of the earth
upon which rested the entire system of physical and cosmological
Aristotle, removing the earth from the center of the universe, Copernicus
had in fact undermined the distinction between physics and celestial physics
the Earth. In addition, the denial of the reality of crystalline spheres, by
Brahe, in addition to depose the foundation of the traditional explanation
about the motion of the planets, it necessitated a new and more
plausible. These needs, Kepler gave an initial response, and
trying to identify what was causing it to assume charge of the physical motion
of the planets and the recognition that in celestial physics and physics of the earth there
was no opposition. So that definitely was imposed
the idea that the phenomena of terrestrial and astronomical go treaties
as interdependent and closely related, was however
need to wait for the work of Galileo and Newton.
mechanistic philosophy
The mathematization of nature is undoubtedly one of the
main features and, most significant of the scientific revolution.
It should however be noted that the emergence of a conception of nature
as a set of phenomena expressible and explained in mathematical terms,
considered not only in astronomy, but also involved the mechanical
namely the study of the motion of bodies [see Chaps. Galileo and
Newton]. Now, just the mechanics provided the role model for
the development of a new philosophy of nature which, in the course of
scientific revolution, replaced, in an almost final
image Aristotelian-scholastic universe. This view of
world found its full expression in the so-called mechanical philosophy, or
mechanism, which represented the new key to understanding all
aspects of the physical world, the propagation of light generation
of animals, from the pneumatic respiration, by chemical
astronomy. The mechanistic philosophy, from this point of view,
marks a break with the past and can be considered as
the theoretical result that lead all the factors of renewal, including
the mathematization of nature, brought about by the scientific revolution.
In a strict sense, what distinguishes the mechanical philosophy is
the adoption of a small number of explanatory principles. All phenomena
natural fact must be explained on the basis of the concepts used
in mechanics: shape, size, quantity and motion. such
privilege given to the mechanics finds its justification in the fact
that, by studying the motion of bodies in general, it offers the possibility of
abstracting from any other consideration, thereby allowing to bring
the analysis to the simpler conditions. In the explanatory logic adopted by the
Supporters of the mechanism, the basic principles of mechanics
assume a universal value, and therefore it is essential to be
a theory of causality conceived only in terms of action
for contact.
Closely related to the universal value of the mechanical
belief that the machines, which is attributed to a more
theoretical dimension, constitute powerful explanatory models. the
mechanical philosophy considers the processes of the natural world
analogy with the machine. The basic elements of the machine -
sprockets, chains, pulleys, drive systems, pumps, and so on. -
play a dual meaning: on the one hand, they serve to give substance and
visibility to the abstract principles of mechanics; on the other, facing a
new image of the natural world, in the way that make it more
rational, more predictable and, therefore, more manipulatable. The phenomena of
nature can be explained in terms of the mutual relations between the
bodies, on the mechanical model that governs the operation of a
clock made of cogs and balances, ie through the shock and the
transfer of motion from one body to another. The world conceived as
a large clock or a large machine, in which each element
gear performs a specific function and, above all, necessary
for its operation, undermines the foundations of the traditional image of
a world structured on the basis of phenomena hierarchy. the
new image of nature introduced by the mechanism does not
only affect that the idea that one of the phenomena we give hierarchies,
but excludes the possibility of explanations based on the active principles and
the final causes.
The ontology that is the basis of mechanism implies that the
immediate world of sense experience is not real. the
fundamental theoretical basis of this ontology is the
distinction between what constitutes the real properties of the
bodies (shape, size, motion, stillness) and those
purely subjective, caused by the first, such as color, odor,
taste, and so on. This doctrine, that the phraseology that was adopted by
Boyle and Locke will take the form of the famous distinction between
quality primary and secondary qualities, is present in a number of authors
(Galileo, Descartes, Hobbes, Mersenne, Gassendi) and is
one of the most important philosophical ideas for the foundation of
Modern science, as it descends the possibility of
consider the ontological structure of reality as a homogeneous,
and could therefore be analyzed according to reports
quantitative. The quality of Aristotelian philosophy are manifest
thus reduced to secondary qualities, due to the motion of small particles
invisible which make up the bodies. Also, the old distinction
Aristotle quality between overt and occult qualities is now devoid of
sense, as in the mechanistic philosophy all
explanations are reduced, ultimately, to the motions and interactions of
particles can not be perceived in the direct experience.
The interpretation of reality in terms of matter and motion
stems from the assumption that underlies the essential philosophy
mechanistic, that is, from taking the bodies of the natural world are
made up of small particles or corpuscles imperceptible.
The ontology that distinguishes the type of mechanism is then
Corpuscular: the material structure of the bodies consists of the parts so small
that are beyond the perception of the sense organs. But what is the nature of
these particles which make up the bodies? In the course of
scientific revolution prevailed mainly two approaches: some
they claimed that the smallest particles can not be further
divisible called atoms; others believed that the parties
up the matter are divisible without limit. Although so
all mechanical philosophers that matter was composed of
particles, not everyone was willing to sign that these particles
were the ultimate constituents of reality. The adoption of a perspective
corpuscular not necessarily imply adherence to a vision
atomistic reality. In fact, if all the atomists were corpuscolaristi,
not all corpuscolaristi were atomists, as is evident
from the different notion of the subject of Gassendi and Descartes.
Pierre Gassendi (1592-1655) was the main architect of the recovery
ancient atomism, of the materialist doctrine that is conceived that
the whole of reality in terms of atoms hard and impenetrable to the motion of
which was essential to the existence of the void. The goal of Gassendi
however, did not just blindly re-introduce the ancient doctrine of
Democritus and Epicurus. From a Catholic priest of unsuspected orthodoxy,
Gassendi is in fact proposed to amend the atomism those
implications atheistic to make it acceptable also from the point of view
theological. On the contrary to what was thought Epicurus, for example,
the universe and the atoms, according to Gassendi did not exist from eternity, but
had been created by God. The motion of the atoms, also was not ruled
by blind chance or by iron necessity, but it was controlled by the constant
God's intervention.
Except for these differences of theological,
however, the image of the universe Gassendi is quite similar to
one suggested by the ancient atomists. In the system of Gassendi, in fact,
every natural phenomenon is explained by resorting only to atoms and
their movements in space. The nature since atoms - which are
invisible, but no extension - is the impenetrability; is then
substances permanent and invariable, which do not differ in their
quality. The essential characteristics of the individual atoms are the size,
the shape and the weight or the principle of motion. Unlike Epicurus, however, the
weight starts to move the atoms according to one direction
defined, but acts as a driving force that intrinsic, imprinted to
atoms by God at the time of creation, allowing them to move in all
directions. In order, however, the movement appears possible is necessary
suppose the existence of the void. Gassendi thus assumes the existence of
a vacuum strewn between the interstitial spaces of the atoms, thanks to which
the latter can move and alter their course. The atoms then,
through movements and their specific form, aggregate in
molecules of different sizes. Consequently, the quality of the bodies more
large, such as strength, fluidity, etc., are due to quality
background of the individual atoms and the way in which they give rise to
cluster molecules.
While sharing a general framework of mechanistic explanation
natural phenomena and the idea that matter has a structure
corpuscular Descartes (1596-1650), as opposed to Gassendi, denied both
the existence of atoms is vacuum. For Descartes, the only ingredients that
constitute the natural world is matter and motion. the
fundamental characteristic of the matter is the geometric extension in three
dimensions (length, width and depth). And since the matter is
identical to the extension, it coincides with the space. The identification of
material, size and space implies that the universe is made up of anywhere
of the same matter, that matter is infinitely divisible and, for the same
reason, that the vacuum does not exist. The vacuum, in fact, should be one
space or extension does not contain any material, but the essence of
matter involving an extension, then the concept of emptiness is
contradictory and therefore impossible.
The Cartesian negation of the two constituent elements of atomism -
indivisibility of the parts breaking of matter (ie, atoms) and the existence
vacuum - maybe not exclude the particles in place of the body
extremely small and further divisible. Although, in fact,
Descartes postulates the existence of a single homogeneous material, however,
divided into three kinds or elements, which differ in
terms of mechanical properties. The first element, which are
made the sun and stars, is made up of tiny particles and
fast, which fill the interstices between the other parts of matter. the
particles of the second element have spherical shape and make the
heaven. The third element, which are constituted of the earth and the other
planets, is made of larger particles with a capacity of movement
lower than that of the other two elements.
Since the raw material, as an extension, is inert - ie devoid of
active - its variations must have some other cause beyond
the material itself. All of the properties of matter are reduced to
divisibility of parts and mobility of these parts. The motion of
large parts must therefore be the only explanation of the principle of
natural phenomena: each change of the material, in fact, as the whole
Unlike its forms, depends only on the local motion. The first
Because the motion is God himself, who at the beginning created matter
with a certain amount of stillness and motion, and further
it retains unchanging this amount. The fact that God
maintains a constant amount of motion in the universe, according to
Descartes comes the divine will: God, in fact,
unchangeable not only in itself, but also in every operation.
This quantity, although it remained constant, however, is
distributed unevenly in the matter; accordingly, the state
they are in the parts of matter is to change later
meeting or bump each other - changes in shape, size,
in the direction and speed - according to fundamental laws, which
Descartes called laws of nature established by God himself as causes
second of movements.
THE INVENTION OF NEW SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS
In the final phase of the scientific revolution, achieved in the seventeenth
century, a decisive role was played by the development of new tools,
which introduced new facts and new ways of looking at things and phenomena
already known.
The scientific instruments of antiquity and the Middle Ages - armillary spheres,
astrolabes, quadrants - were mostly observational tools
astronomical. And until the early sixteenth century, the situation remained
almost identical: the instruments were in fact exclusively related
astronomical observation or topographic survey. for centuries
therefore their shape and structure had undergone only a very slow
evolution, due to the refinement of manufacturing techniques.
During the seventeenth century, however, this rhythm is interrupted, so that the
evolution phase succeeded soon a phase of invention. A
signal a change so radical was the close relationship that was to
establishment of science and technology, bringing in the space of a century, the
realization of a whole series of new tools. The invention and
development of scientific instruments and apparatus opened new
scientific investigation unexpected possibilities. On the one hand, in fact,
they allowed the natural philosopher to make more observations
accurate than in the past, that is, to better see what he could already
see, but also to see objects that otherwise would not have been
directly perceptible to the sense organs. And on the other hand, allowed him to
study new phenomena or to reproduce under controlled conditions,
thus making it possible to justify the conclusions drawn about the
phenomena in question.
The role of these new tools was decisive, and it is not unreasonable
argue that they are a real watershed compared to
past, as are essential to the realization of that "method
experimental "which is one of the main features of
modern science. From the early decades of the seventeenth century,
the invention of a considerable number of instruments provides fact to the various
fields of science - astronomy, physics and science
natural - methods of detection hitherto unknown, and likely to expand
the horizons of knowledge of the natural world.
The telescope made it possible to observe celestial bodies far much better
how they could be seen with the naked eye, revealing literally
a new world in the sky: it was observed that the Moon was like the mountain
Earth, the Sun had spots and the sky was full of countless
stars. The microscope made possible the discoveries that only
the observation of the very small could afford to build,
as, for example, the existence of millions of living beings small and
imperceptible to the senses. The thermometer made it possible to observe and measure the
temperature changes, leading to the first time the temperature
under the rule of numbers. And the barometer took place the same function
for variations in atmospheric pressure. The air pump
created the opportunity to study the properties of the air conditions
controlled, thus changing the way we think the problem of
empty. The clock precision, finally, allowed us to measure small
intervals of time, transforming the measurement and consequently also
the sense of time.
The use of these new tools placed on a modern science
completely different level compared to previous eras. over
the scientific revolution scientific instrument acquires one
statute which before then had never been recognized. the
tool, in fact, designed to aid and strengthening of the senses, is
essential not only to observe but also to experimentation.
As a result, it comes with an investigating scientific
cognitive function and heuristics, as well as being home to the principles
theoretical incorporated in its structure, conditions and stimulates the same
theoretical elaboration. The recognition of this function and
the assignment of a positive value to the scientific instrument must
therefore be considered one of the main achievements of the revolution
science.
THE BIRTH OF SCIENTIFIC ACADEMIES
The conceptual upheaval that took place in the development of
scientific revolution took on an institutional level, in a different
organization of scientific research. As soon as the role of
universities as centers of intellectual activity, during the seventeenth century
witnessed the birth of the first academies and scientific societies that
became the privileged place of scientific production. these
new branches of scientific research developed in opposition
to universities, traditionally controlled by the power
ecclesiastical, almost without exception looked innovations
with extreme suspicion. It is therefore not surprising that, except
a few isolated cases, most of the scientists of the seventeenth century
not covered any university chair. In an attempt to
promote the emergence of new ideas, many scholars were organized
Therefore privately began to meet in clubs and associations,
to exchange information, coordinate research, discuss and implement
experiments, in a first time in spontaneous forms, following
structuring in a stable manner with the support of wealthy patrons, including
which did not fail princes and kings. It should however be emphasized that, although
since the objective of these institutions to promote and disseminate
new philosophical and scientific academies were also
propaganda tools, not only of scientific ideas, but sometimes
extra-scientific interests of the promoters.
The first organization of this kind was the Accademia dei Lincei,
founded by Prince Federico Cesi (1585-1630), which had among its
Galileo's most illustrious members. With an informal structure, which was inspired by the
philosophical and literary circles at that time common in Italy, the academy
represented a meeting place where people with similar interests
could discuss natural philosophy. Although equipped with a library,
a botanical garden and a cabinet of natural history in the academy
however, did not hold regular meetings and research group
dependent on your own initiative and energy of the
Prince Cesi. At his death, in fact, members of the Academy
dispersed, although its activity ceased in 1651.
Another similar group was organized in Florence under the patronage of
Grand Duke Ferdinando II de 'Medici. The Accademia del Cimento, however,
Despite the stereotypical image that the traditional historiography has
tried to accredit, not arose from the spontaneous free
Researchers, led by a rigorous experimentation, pursued in
full cooperation objectives. It was not a research institute
in the modern sense: it lacks a statute, with meetings not
had precise frequency without a permanent establishment and its own budget,
the academy depended in all respects by the patronage of the Prince
Leopold (1617-1675), brother of the Grand Duke, who made one cleverly
propaganda tool. The same way in which the academy
formed and made public the results of its research document,
unequivocally, its institutional instability and the absolute
subordination to Prince Leopold. The academy, which was never
officially inaugurated, he began his scientific activity in 1657,
recorded with some regularity experiments carried out in some
diaries. Not having asked any question relating to its institutional
opening, even more so there was no need for overriding the
Closed: quite simply, at some point the academy was no longer
met. Born therefore no precise rules and structures, the academy was
really a phenomenon of the court, which responded to the needs of targeted policy
culture, as evidenced by the publication of the Essays of natural experiments.
The work, published in 1667, collected the reports of
Experimental Academy; Paradoxically, however, the names of
academics were not even mentioned. To be cited only was
Secretary, Lawrence Magalotti (1637-1712), in fact alien to the whole
experimental work carried out by academics.
The suppression of the scientific contributions of individual members
the academy and the image of a group that had operated in full
harmony and collegiality were functional to make the central figure
Leopold, making it appear not only as a promoter of important
scientific, but also has great virtues of wisdom and
balance. The experiences were then presented without any context
theoretical and no conclusions or attempt to draw, the purpose of concealing
the philosophical differences of the members of the academy, as well as their
inability to reach a consensus on the interpretation appropriate to
to the experiments. With the publication of the Sages, the academy ceased
its activity. And besides, it could not be otherwise: once
reached the goal, Leopold was diminishing commitment and interest
for the academy.
Unlike the Accademia dei Lincei and the Accademia del Cimento, the
Royal Society was not born of the will of a patron: the license and the
official protection of King Charles II was granted only in 1662,
when there were already two decades spontaneous associations of scholars
who combined their efforts for the advancement and dissemination of the "philosophy
experimental. "One such group was formed in London around
1645 and held its meetings, although not exclusively, to
Gresham College. The main interest of this group - which has among its
main leaders counted John Wallis (1616-1703) and John Wilkins
(1614-1672) - was the "new philosophy or experimental philosophy" and
spectrum of their research was very wide: medicine, anatomy,
geometry, astronomy, navigation, statics, magnetism, chemistry,
mechanical and natural experiments. Starting from 1648, it was then formed
Oxford another group, in reality an extension of what London,
known as the Experimental Philosophy Club in Oxford, which in 1655 is
had joined Robert Boyle (1627-1691). The different intellectual heritage and
science of these and other groups came together in the constitution of the
Royal Society, the name legitimately adopted since 1662 when
was granted a Royal Licence, which came after two years of
, weekly meetings held at Gresham College in London. the Royal
Society adopted soon, especially by Boyle and Wilkins,
Baconian type of ideology, therefore aiming to improve
practical and experimental knowledge, in order to advance the science and the
universal good of mankind. In addition, the regularity of the meetings, the
continuous scientific exchanges, the establishment and verification of the public
experiments, the dissemination of results through the Philosophical
Transactions (published since 1665), the stimulus to discussion and
the competition among scientists contributed in a decisive way, to
transform the nature of scientific activity both in England and in
all over Europe.
In France, as early as the 40s of the seventeenth century,
operated under the auspices of individuals, groups of scientists and
intellectuals who gathered in academies and associations. a first
impulse in this direction was given by the monk Marin Mersenne less
(1588-1648), who through his extensive correspondence created a
international network of scientists (from Galileo to Descartes, from
Gassendi, Roberval, Hobbes, etc.) And the cell which, in the convent of
Minimum in Paris, became a meeting place for scholars and French
foreigners. The first major French scientific association, however,
was formed in 1654; meetings were held in the home of Habert de
Montmor, a wealthy amateur scientist who invited Gassendi in
chair the meetings. Discussions attended by several members of the
better society, then sign the new scientific conceptions were
become more respectable, even fashionable. Among the scientists who met in the home of Montmor or those of other
notables, there were notable scientific figures, as mathematicians Pascal
and Roberval. It was not unusual for these meetings and participate
were invited foreign scientists. Eager to emulate the Academy
Cimento and overestimating the munificence of Charles II to the Royal
Society recently established, the French scientists turned to the young king
Louis XIV to get official support. Colbert gained approval
the king and in 1666 was founded the Académie Royale des Sciences. the
academics receiving a salary, they could make use of the library
real and an astronomical observatory. To give prestige and prestige to
new institution were also called foreign scholars: Dutch
Christiaan Huygens (1629-1695), the Italian Gian Domenico Cassini
(1625-1715) and the Danish Ole Roemer (1644-1710). The Académie
was the first example of a scientific institution funded by
State, and this obviously meant a price to pay. In addition to
rather theoretical research, academics were also
deal of useful things, such as the design of hydraulic systems, the
evaluation of technological innovations, the practical effects of some
substances used in various different drugs, and so on.
In general, however, the scientific academies were not institutions
search when the time came discoveries of importance. They configurarono
as places of public debate, ie locations where scientists could
compare their experimental results with theoretical calculations or
other scientists. Played a major role in promoting and
in stimulating interest in scientific knowledge, leveraging
also on its consequences for practical use. The model which often
academies were based was in fact the New Atlantis (1627) of
Francis Bacon. In that work the Lord Chancellor described the House
Solomon as an institution in which scientists and engineers collaborated
together in order to "push the boundaries of human power to the
achievement of each objective as possible. "Scientific knowledge
was presented as something inseparable from its applications
practices, as a means to obtain the improvement of the condition
human and the end of physical fatigue.
THE MODERN SCIENCE
WHAT WE MEAN BY "SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION"
The term "scientific revolution" was used to indicate that
period of European history between the mid-sixteenth and the end of
Eighteenth century, during which the foundations were laid conceptual
institutional and methodological modern science. Although yet
this expression is now in common use, the problem of determining
exactly the period in question continues to raise not less
disagreement that is connected to the precise nature of this revolution.
The fact that the scientific revolution lends itself to various and divergent
interpretations, indicates unequivocally that it is mainly
a historiographical category, a concept that is a function that performs
merely descriptive and denotative, and that, like other categories
(Middle Ages, Renaissance, Enlightenment, etc.), Is used to denote
certain events of the past. In the present case, a whole series of
events, which are developed on a plurality of floors - but which,
different ways, have helped to change the way of thinking and
see the world, offering an image of nature and man,
as well as their relationship, new and different than the times
previous - helps to define that specific object which is precisely the
Scientific Revolution, which gave birth to modern science.
The concept of "scientific revolution" appears therefore as a
term of convenience, conventional (and to some extent and then arbitrary),
that they use to historians to indicate that complex historical reality
called modern science. This, however, does not mean that it is a
their imagination, something that in fact does not find any
reflected in the facts.
It is undoubtedly true that between mid-1500 and the end of 1700 reached
maturing ideas and themes, inextricably linked to modern science,
that meant the world to change appearance, and it was perceived that
known in a new way, so as not to appear more recognizable to
the next generation. From this point of view, the concept of
scientific revolution may well be regarded as a real
process of radical change. And if you want to understand the nature and
the cause of this great change, it is necessary to analyze the
issues and problems that confronted the main protagonists
of modern science.
Mathematization OF NATURE OF ASTRONOMY
COPERNICUS
The mathematization of nature was seen as one of the characteristics
most significant and important of the scientific revolution. The idea of a
nature conceived in mathematical terms is usually traced back to the
establishment of a metaphysical perspective different from that which had
dominated medieval culture. To determine this change in
perspective would be two orders of factors, however, strictly
related to the deep intellectual transformation introduced
Humanism: 1) the end of the authority of Aristotle, which was based on all
the philosophical-scientific education; 2) the revival of
Pythagorean-Platonic tradition. The triumph of metaphysics
would then permit the emergence of a vision
quantitative nature of a cosmos that is built according to the principles
mathematical order, unthinkable within the categories
Aristotelian concept.
More relevant to the historical reality turns out to be another way of
see the question: which is to place the emphasis rather on the different
epistemological status of mathematics begins to acquire the origins
of modern science. What is essential is in fact the changed
attitude about the application of mathematics to the phenomena
natural. During the scientific revolution, in an attitude
instrumentalist, predominant in previous centuries, it takes over
one markedly more realistic. The proper role of mathematics
so it's not that, purely hypothetical, to provide the tools for
facilitate the calculations and predict phenomena, as it was understood in the past,
but to reveal and describe the real nature of things. The adoption of
a point of view so decidedly realistic manifests itself, with all its
force, astronomy of Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543).
For a long tradition dating back to antiquity,
astronomy was part of the so-called "mixed sciences", ie was
composed of a mathematical part and a physical part. the task
astronomer is therefore to reconcile the construction
mathematics, through which they calculated the motions of the planets, with the
physical explanations about the cause of the motion of the planets, their
composition, which is why occupy a given space.
Towards the end of antiquity, however, the difficulties to unify in a single
system, these two requirements, led to a clear separation, which
would be more pronounced among astronomy physics and astronomy
mathematics.
In Aristotelian cosmology, the world was conceived as a large
system of concentric spheres at the center, still, was the Earth.
From the sphere of the Moon, to the outer limits of the sphere of
the fixed stars, which contained the cosmos, the bodies were composed of a
fifth element, the ether, which, unlike the four terrestrial elements,
was, incorruptible, and subject only to a type of
movement, the circular uniform. The planets and the stars were
set in large spheres, which are also in the air, circling the
center of the universe, the Earth. Although such a representation
the universe might seem impressive, actually had significant limitations,
which prevented to explain various phenomena common, such as, for example,
the variation of the apparent brightness of the planets.
In an attempt to account for these phenomena, the unexplained
Aristotelian cosmology, the later Greek astronomers devised various systems,
the most important of which was formulated by Ptolemy in the second century. C.
The work in which he described his theory of Ptolemy, Almagest, would
dominated unchallenged Western astronomical thought, at least in
its mathematical aspect, until the time of Copernicus.
Ptolemy was using a mathematical technique according to which
each planet moved uniform motion of a small circle
(the epicycle) whose center in turn was moving more and motion
uniform, on a larger circle (the deferent) .This model was
able to provide a very accurate description of the
variations both speed both brightness of the planets. There remained,
however, a problem: comparing the motion predicted by the model
epicycle-different with the actual observation, it was found
not always the planet was caught in the exact location provided by
theoretical model. Ptolemy had therefore come up with another
mathematical trick, the equant, the center of an epicycle
not moving uniformly around the center of the deferent or
that of Earth, but around a third point, the equant, chosen
to reproduce precisely the speed apparently not
uniform on the planet.
Although Ptolemy was a realist, that is, was convinced that the models
Mathematical he used could be traced to physical structures
Actual, real real components of the universe, the theory
planet came to be regarded as a geometric hypothetical,
completely incompatible with the system of cosmology and physics of Aristotle.
As early as the sixth century AD. C., and then throughout the Middle Ages,
4
then it became common practice to distinguish between physical astronomy,
whose objective was to describe the actual events, and
mathematical astronomy, and calcolistica purely hypothetical, that
needed to account for the observed phenomena, that is, to "save the
appearances ". The possible conflict between the mathematical and physical
astronomy was so resolved in a somewhat ingenious, ie
keeping in mind the principles of these two separate disciplines.
At the time of Copernicus, the terms of the issue were
essentially unchanged: astronomy remained a field of activity
for mathematicians, and had not yet nothing to do with the
cosmology and physics of celestial bodies. One thing, however, was certain: the
age-old astronomical system of Ptolemy, which was based on the image
universe that Copernicus was faced, now showing its
limits, making it increasingly unable to reconcile with sufficient
precise empirical observations with calculations. The limit certainly
most visible and embarrassing the Ptolemaic theory was applied to the
its failure to grant the calendar year with the lunar year, which
descended the inability to predict with accuracy the fall of
festivals consecrated as Easter. The need to solve this
problem, which had long labored Church, was,
among others, one of the reasons that led Copernicus to think
a new astronomical system. When, in fact, in 1514 the problem
the reform of the calendar was brought before the Council
Lateran, Copernicus, called upon to give its opinion, had
suggested not to take any determination, since the
final solution of the problem requiring, in reality, a depth
study of the motions of the Sun and the Moon, which is a comprehensive reform of the
astronomical theory.
Copernicus, who was a canon of the profession, in his free time
in fact devoted to the reform of astronomy. The result was the development
a new astronomical theory, which transferred the center of motion
Planetary from Earth to the sun. The sun thus became the central
around which all the planets revolved, which was now also
the Earth. With his theory of Copernicus not only overthrew the old
system in the world, but at the same time provided a model with
requirements of completeness and convenience equal to that drawn by Ptolemy and
its successors and medieval commentators. The system of Copernicus
allowed it to predict and calculate the movements of the heavenly
observable with the same operational effectiveness of the previous system.
The new heliocentric cosmology, though outlined in a short
treaty (the Commentariolus, probably composed shortly after 1510 and
spread in a few handwritten copies), was shown in full in the De
Revolutions orbium Coelestium, published in 1543, the same
year of the death of its author. The Revolutions is, without
no doubt, the most important scientific work of the whole life of
Copernicus, one in which is summarized in finished form and
fully developed, his astronomical system.
The reasons that led Copernicus to develop a new astronomy,
as has been said, arose from the observation that the model
mathematical law, the Ptolemaic, was not in accordance with the
observable phenomena. The primary objective of Copernicus, therefore, was
to reprocess the old data that was available in a new
mathematical and cosmological model. From this point of view, what
characterizes the work of Copernicus is not so much to bring in new
data, but rather the development of a new theory. It is
then a new cosmological system founded on the same
data of Ptolemaic astronomy. Copernicus, moreover, in their own
cosmology welcomes many elements of tradition: the reality
material of crystalline spheres (the same way as Aristotle, he believes
fact that the planets are embedded in large transparent spheres and
wheel as diamonds inserted in a ring); the idea of a cosmos
perfectly spherical and finite, enclosed in the sphere of the fixed stars,
although with a greater diameter than the Ptolemaic. also for
As regards the use of mathematical techniques, Copernicus
remains a Ptolemaic, that uses mathematical tools developed
Alexandrian astronomer. And if he refuses to use the equant point,
he does because he is convinced that it is in violation of the old axiom that the celestial motions
must be perfectly circular and uniform; this, however, does not
prevents the use of eccentrics, epicycles and deferent to solve
same problems of Ptolemy. Copernicus, finally, to justify
their astronomical system does not use hardly ever topics
derived from experience; the most significant of the thesis De
Revolutions, the motion of the planets and the immobility of the Sun, is
based on beliefs of aesthetic, moral and religious. The
planets revolve simply because they are spherical; to determine their
circular motion is their peculiar geometry: its mobility
Ball is in fact, according to the old axiom platonicopitagorico,
in turn in a circle. The centrality and immobility of the Sun
derives from its nature, Copernicus, based on themes drawn
literature Solar Renaissance Neoplatonism and tradition
tight, consider the most noble and divine celestial motion. The Sun
located in a central location and is the first in the "dignity" for the function
that is attributed to it: to illuminate and enlighten the world,
which gives life and movement.
On the basis of considerations of this kind, has prevailed a tendency to
Copernicus be considered not as a revolutionary but as a
moderate reformer, a conservative. It has been argued that
the Copernican system, in fact, was not the overcoming of
old cosmology, but a modification. The Revolutions
that would remain as part of the traditional astronomy and
cosmological, because it meant the same structure, operating
only one variant: the exchange of roles between the Earth and the sun. In this
sense, De revolutionibus more than a text would be quite revolutionary
a text which causes a revolution. Its revolutionary
reside, most recently, in the future outcomes that are not provided by the
Copernicus, would determine, by other thinkers (Kepler
Galileo and Newton), a complete and radical break with tradition
old.
Without a doubt, Copernicus, but this is too obvious, it was
man of his time, and then shared the outlook of the bottom of the
old intellectual world in which he was born and in which it was formed.
It is not surprising, therefore, that he was a reformer
interested in conservation, which aimed to regain the balance of the
natural philosophy, astronomy and mathematics based on the principle
ever that all motions are uniform and circular, dimodoché all
balls must rotate in a uniform manner around their centers. It is also
true, however, that Copernicus should be seen as an innovator
radical, for he claims that the Earth is a planet like the others,
Referring to the arguments of the mathematical part
astronomy. In this way, the geometry Copernicus gives a
heuristic power, that to know the physical reality, which transforms the role
same astronomer. The task of the astronomer, the second
Copernicus, is not to provide mathematical hypotheses aimed at
"Save the phenomena", but in the search for the true structure
the universe. With Copernicus, therefore, the astronomer begins to have
a new role: that of the natural philosopher.
The real intentions of Copernicus, however, ended up being
betrayed by the exceptional circumstances surrounding the
publication of De revolutionibus. Although Copernicus had indeed
completed the preparation of the work already in 1531, he agreed to do
published only at the end of his life. To convince him it was a
young professor of mathematics, Georg Joachim Rheticus (1514-1572),
who visited Copernicus University of Wittenberg, the center
academician of the Lutheran Reformation. Rheticus was allowed to be
publish a preliminary version of the heliocentric theory (the Narratio
first appeared in 1540), and to take care of the printing of De revolutionibus. do not
but having the time to oversee the work entrusted
by publishing the work to a colleague Lutheran Andreas Osiander
(1498-1552). The latter, without the permission of Copernicus nor
Rheticus added an anonymous preface to the text, entitled The reader
on the assumptions of this work, in which he stated the purely hypothetical
of the new theory, as all the astronomical theories in general.
The original position of Copernicus, however, appears, without the possibility of
doubt, in the dedicatory letter to Pope Paul III foreword to De
Revolutions, which has just the right system as a
hypothesis among the many possible, but as the true representation
the universe. And that's not all. Copernicus, in fact, not only places the Earth
among the other planets, and so clearly contrary to the teachings of the
Aristotelian physics, the scriptures and common sense, but does so on
the basis of arguments that most of his contemporaries
considered illegitimate. As the motion of the Earth it may appear
contrary to natural philosophy, it insists Copernicus, must be
true, because it requires mathematics. For the era in which he lived
Copernicus, such a statement was certainly revolutionary.
Nor must we forget that the admission of the motion of the Earth, as well as
result in a reversal of the structure of astronomy and
physics, posed a series of troubling questions about the place and the
meaning in the universe. The destruction of the centuries-old
scalzava image of the universe in fact the man from his position
Central and peripheral placed him on a planet in motion; for the
first time, then, the man was no longer the center of the universe or, even
less, the ordered cosmos around him.
The developments in the Copernicus: And BRAHE
KEPLER
The subsequent history of matematimazzione nature shows
same orientation realistic. It is no coincidence that the main
protagonists of the scientific revolution were all interested in
epistemological status of mathematics. This approach is well
this work the Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe (1546-1601). a
Unlike Copernicus, Brahe was a careful and acute observer of
celestial phenomena; by far the largest to the naked eye of the observer
history of astronomy. It should also be noted that Brahe
contrary to what until then had been used to do, watching the planets
on a regular basis, following their comprehensive course through the heavens and
only when they were in a particular configuration
favorable.
Based on his careful observations, Brahe rejected the theory
Ptolemy, who considered affected by serious flaws. At the same time,
However, he also rejected the Copernican theory, and because it appeared
incompatible with Scripture (stating that the sun rose and
set and the earth rested on a solid foundation), and because in
Brahe seemed absurd that the body "fat and lazy" Earth
could move quickly in space. To overcome the difficulties and
objections they might incur these theories, Brahe proposed his
your system in the world, he must have the following characteristics:
"Agree with both mathematics is to physics, avoid censorship
theological, be in complete agreement with what was observed in the heavens. "
The result was the development of a system intermediate between those of
Ptolemy and Copernicus. In the theory of the Earth maintains a Brahe
building and central location, as in Ptolemy, but around it
rotate only the Moon and the Sun; the other five planets revolve instead
around the sun.
From the above it is quite clear that Brahe was a realist,
was convinced that his theory describing the motion of the actual
planetary and celestial movements. This, however, led Brahe to develop
a system so hybrid was, in addition to the belief that in it were
fully justified by the empirical data observed by him, for the purpose of
retain all the advantages of the two previous systems, discarding the
respective disadvantages. It should be noted that, from the point of view
mathematician, the system Brahe is entirely equivalent to that
Copernican; but, refusing the motion of the Earth, it eliminates all those
inconsistencies of a physical, cosmological and theological.
So the criticism that Brahe moved to the Copernican theory of the motion
terrestrial, as its compromise solution to the problem of
planets, confirmed that he was still bound to models
concept of the traditional type. It is also true, however, that beyond
undeniable restorer operation, the system of Brahe, based
it was a remarkable and accurate mass of observations, cracked
important aspects of the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic universe. We should not
forgotten that, by accepting the fundamental premise of the old
cosmology, according to which the earth had to be the center of all the
planetary motion, Brahe was to deny, in fact, that insider
attributed to the Earth since ancient times. Brahe's observations took place
However, an even more significant role for another reason:
the assertion of non-existence of crystalline spheres postulated by
Aristotle and accepted by the Copernicus. When in 1572 appeared
A new star in the constellation Cassiopeia, Brahe, due to its
observation techniques, showed that it had to be in the ball
of the fixed stars. That being the case, the only plausible explanation was
that in heaven immutable there had been a change, and as a result
a cornerstone of Aristotelian cosmology - that of the net
difference between the celestial and sublunary world - was
called into question. Brahe also was able to determine that the comet
appeared in 1577 was on the other side of the sun. Earlier, in agreement
with the Aristotelian conception, comets and meteors were seen
atmospheric phenomena, but Brahe remarked that this does not
correspond at all to the truth. Indeed, encroaching on the territory of
natural philosophy, he showed that the trajectory of the comet would
had to cross the celestial spheres solid, if they existed.
According Brahe, however, the crystalline spheres are not real, but they serve
only to make intelligible the motions of the planets. The sky is not a body
hard and impenetrable, composed of real spheres, but smooth and free, open
in all directions, so as not to put any obstacle to planetary motions,
which are governed only by "the wisdom regulator of God."
The denial of the existence of crystalline spheres had profound
implications. Eliminate the crystalline spheres and considering the planets as
independent bodies, it was necessary to determine what was the cause
physics that determined the motion of the planets and kept them in their
orbits. In the traditional cosmology such a problem does not
poses, since the planets do not move as such, but participate in the
motion of the spheres in which are embedded and from which they are transported. If you
abandon the postulate of material spheres, however, the problem
returns with the whole load of problems that flow from it. It was
this very basic problem - "What is it that moves the planets?" -
to provide the impetus and guide research of Johannes Kepler (1571-
1630).
Kepler was Brahe's assistant and at his death he was succeeded by
in the position of imperial mathematician. Unlike Brahe, however,
Kepler as a young man adheres to the heliocentric theory of Copernicus, the
which also shares the neo-Platonic setting. Even in the case of
Kepler, what characterizes his theoretical work is acceptance
a realistic point of view about the role of mathematics in
explanation of natural phenomena (it is not by chance that he was
Be the first to reject the interpretation that Osiander had given the
Copernican theory as a mere hypothesis), and the belief that
the astronomer must also be a natural philosopher. The title of his
astronomical work is crucial in this respect, very significant
and indicative of its orientations: Astronomia nova,
Aitiologetos, seu physica coelestis (1609), namely: New Astronomy, considered
causalisticamente, that celestial physics.
The importance of this work is at least twofold: 1) we Kepler states
the discovery of the first two laws of planetary, which still
bear his name, rejecting the axiom considered valid
two thousand years of the uniform circular motion of the planets; 2)
rejects the alleged incompatibility between mathematics and astronomy
physical astronomy.
The Astronomia nova is the synthesis of years of hard work
Kepler, on the basis of the observations of Brahe, devoted to the motion of Mars
to find the exact dimensions of its orbit and the speed of its
motion. In the traditional cosmology (and for Copernicus), as
is said, the circular motion was the only perfect and natural motion; and Kepler,
at first, did not bother at all to question
this axiom. As a result, he tried to reconcile the data collected by
Brahe, the motions of Mars with various circles (equants and epicycles) of Ptolemy
and Copernicus, but reaching only approximations
unsatisfactory: the planet Mars, in fact, seemed to move on its own
trajectory in a completely irregular. Trying to make the calculations for the
Earth, Kepler ascertained the same difficulty, namely that the Earth
did not move in uniform motion, but increased speed when it was
close to the Sun and decreased when it was receding. The mathematical calculations
were then emerge a fact in mind: the motion of the Earth
should be similar to that of the other planets. Kepler was convinced
therefore, that the general problem of the planets lay in finding
a mathematical expression that would give reason for the change in velocity
of the planet relative to its distance from the sun. In the end, without
difficulties and miscalculations, Kepler found the solution: each planet
moves in its orbit with non-uniform speed linearly, but
so that the radius vector joining the planet to the Sun sweeps in
equal time intervals equal areas (the so-called second law of
Kepler). The result achieved by Kepler was a fact and
a development of the traditional concept of uniformity: in contrast to
what was being said traditional astronomy, the motion of the Earth
and the other planets is really uneven, and not just in appearance.
Having established the non-uniformity of planetary motion, Kepler tried to
identify what the shape of the orbit of the planets. The difficulty of
maintain a circular orbit at Mars led him to consider whether the planets
could move to some other closed curve. Kepler tried with
the oval and noticed that the orbit of the planet was a special kind of
oval: The ellipse. This finding appears to Kepler as lighting
sudden since, in addition to being in agreement with the data
observation, fully satisfies the condition of the description of
equal areas in equal times (ie, the second law), since the Sun
are in one of the two foci of the ellipse. Here is the kit before
Kepler's law: each planet moves around the Sun on a trajectory
elliptical, with the Sun at one focus. The ellipse was a great
simplification through the abandonment of the circularity of the injury,
Kepler made it a clean sweep of the various complications of epicycles
eccentric and equants. To describe the orbit of each planet was
return only a closed curve, ellipse.
The Importance of Astronomy nova does not end in the discovery of
two planetary laws, but extends far beyond even this remarkable
result. Kepler was in fact among the first to be aware of the fact that
a mathematical description of the motion of the planets must necessarily
be based on a physical theory of the universe. Wondering what was
the physical cause of the motion of the planets, Kepler not only bordered on
territory of the natural philosopher, but made no plausible grounds to
old contrast between mathematics and astronomy astronomy physics.
The "celestial physics", which Kepler refers in the title of his work, not
opposes the "terrestrial physics", for the simple reason that it is not
two "physical", but only one. Both the celestial phenomena as those
land can and should be explained starting from the same
principles.
To explain the physical cause of the motion of the planets and their variation
speed, Kepler refers to the magnetic philosophy of William Gilbert
(1540-1603) and the Neo-Platonic tradition of the metaphysics of
light. The Sun, the "soul of the world," according to Kepler, has a
driving force or virtue that keeps the planets around it. It also
planets, including Earth, are equipped with a magnetic power. Turning
around its axis, the Sun emits a kind immaterial, similar to
that of light. This species spins in a vortex fast
carrying with it the planets; the driving force of the vortex, however,
decreases due to the distance of the planets: the more the planet
away from the Sun, the weaker is the effectiveness of such a force, and so
lower the speed of the planet. Each planet, also, whose axis
magnetic orientanto is always in the same direction, it is
alternately attracted and repelled by the Sun, since it is
imagined as a magnetic pole.
Among the extraordinary changes that have occurred in the history of astronomy
between Copernicus and Kepler, the item undoubtedly more
significant was the growing realization that the strict division
Aristotelian between celestial phenomena and terrestrial phenomena - according to which
all natural motions of the terrestrial world being straight, while those of 12
heavenly world are always circular - it was no longer sustainable. since the
central location and property was one of the pillars of the earth
upon which rested the entire system of physical and cosmological
Aristotle, removing the earth from the center of the universe, Copernicus
had in fact undermined the distinction between physics and celestial physics
the Earth. In addition, the denial of the reality of crystalline spheres, by
Brahe, in addition to depose the foundation of the traditional explanation
about the motion of the planets, it necessitated a new and more
plausible. These needs, Kepler gave an initial response, and
trying to identify what was causing it to assume charge of the physical motion
of the planets and the recognition that in celestial physics and physics of the earth there
was no opposition. So that definitely was imposed
the idea that the phenomena of terrestrial and astronomical go treaties
as interdependent and closely related, was however
need to wait for the work of Galileo and Newton.
mechanistic philosophy
The mathematization of nature is undoubtedly one of the
main features and, most significant of the scientific revolution.
It should however be noted that the emergence of a conception of nature
as a set of phenomena expressible and explained in mathematical terms,
considered not only in astronomy, but also involved the mechanical
namely the study of the motion of bodies [see Chaps. Galileo and
Newton]. Now, just the mechanics provided the role model for
the development of a new philosophy of nature which, in the course of
scientific revolution, replaced, in an almost final
image Aristotelian-scholastic universe. This view of
world found its full expression in the so-called mechanical philosophy, or
mechanism, which represented the new key to understanding all
aspects of the physical world, the propagation of light generation
of animals, from the pneumatic respiration, by chemical
astronomy. The mechanistic philosophy, from this point of view,
marks a break with the past and can be considered as
the theoretical result that lead all the factors of renewal, including
the mathematization of nature, brought about by the scientific revolution.
In a strict sense, what distinguishes the mechanical philosophy is
the adoption of a small number of explanatory principles. All phenomena
natural fact must be explained on the basis of the concepts used
in mechanics: shape, size, quantity and motion. such
privilege given to the mechanics finds its justification in the fact
that, by studying the motion of bodies in general, it offers the possibility of
abstracting from any other consideration, thereby allowing to bring
the analysis to the simpler conditions. In the explanatory logic adopted by the
Supporters of the mechanism, the basic principles of mechanics
assume a universal value, and therefore it is essential to be
a theory of causality conceived only in terms of action
for contact.
Closely related to the universal value of the mechanical
belief that the machines, which is attributed to a more
theoretical dimension, constitute powerful explanatory models. the
mechanical philosophy considers the processes of the natural world
analogy with the machine. The basic elements of the machine -
sprockets, chains, pulleys, drive systems, pumps, and so on. -
play a dual meaning: on the one hand, they serve to give substance and
visibility to the abstract principles of mechanics; on the other, facing a
new image of the natural world, in the way that make it more
rational, more predictable and, therefore, more manipulatable. The phenomena of
nature can be explained in terms of the mutual relations between the
bodies, on the mechanical model that governs the operation of a
clock made of cogs and balances, ie through the shock and the
transfer of motion from one body to another. The world conceived as
a large clock or a large machine, in which each element
gear performs a specific function and, above all, necessary
for its operation, undermines the foundations of the traditional image of
a world structured on the basis of phenomena hierarchy. the
new image of nature introduced by the mechanism does not
only affect that the idea that one of the phenomena we give hierarchies,
but excludes the possibility of explanations based on the active principles and
the final causes.
The ontology that is the basis of mechanism implies that the
immediate world of sense experience is not real. the
fundamental theoretical basis of this ontology is the
distinction between what constitutes the real properties of the
bodies (shape, size, motion, stillness) and those
purely subjective, caused by the first, such as color, odor,
taste, and so on. This doctrine, that the phraseology that was adopted by
Boyle and Locke will take the form of the famous distinction between
quality primary and secondary qualities, is present in a number of authors
(Galileo, Descartes, Hobbes, Mersenne, Gassendi) and is
one of the most important philosophical ideas for the foundation of
Modern science, as it descends the possibility of
consider the ontological structure of reality as a homogeneous,
and could therefore be analyzed according to reports
quantitative. The quality of Aristotelian philosophy are manifest
thus reduced to secondary qualities, due to the motion of small particles
invisible which make up the bodies. Also, the old distinction
Aristotle quality between overt and occult qualities is now devoid of
sense, as in the mechanistic philosophy all
explanations are reduced, ultimately, to the motions and interactions of
particles can not be perceived in the direct experience.
The interpretation of reality in terms of matter and motion
stems from the assumption that underlies the essential philosophy
mechanistic, that is, from taking the bodies of the natural world are
made up of small particles or corpuscles imperceptible.
The ontology that distinguishes the type of mechanism is then
Corpuscular: the material structure of the bodies consists of the parts so small
that are beyond the perception of the sense organs. But what is the nature of
these particles which make up the bodies? In the course of
scientific revolution prevailed mainly two approaches: some
they claimed that the smallest particles can not be further
divisible called atoms; others believed that the parties
up the matter are divisible without limit. Although so
all mechanical philosophers that matter was composed of
particles, not everyone was willing to sign that these particles
were the ultimate constituents of reality. The adoption of a perspective
corpuscular not necessarily imply adherence to a vision
atomistic reality. In fact, if all the atomists were corpuscolaristi,
not all corpuscolaristi were atomists, as is evident
from the different notion of the subject of Gassendi and Descartes.
Pierre Gassendi (1592-1655) was the main architect of the recovery
ancient atomism, of the materialist doctrine that is conceived that
the whole of reality in terms of atoms hard and impenetrable to the motion of
which was essential to the existence of the void. The goal of Gassendi
however, did not just blindly re-introduce the ancient doctrine of
Democritus and Epicurus. From a Catholic priest of unsuspected orthodoxy,
Gassendi is in fact proposed to amend the atomism those
implications atheistic to make it acceptable also from the point of view
theological. On the contrary to what was thought Epicurus, for example,
the universe and the atoms, according to Gassendi did not exist from eternity, but
had been created by God. The motion of the atoms, also was not ruled
by blind chance or by iron necessity, but it was controlled by the constant
God's intervention.
Except for these differences of theological,
however, the image of the universe Gassendi is quite similar to
one suggested by the ancient atomists. In the system of Gassendi, in fact,
every natural phenomenon is explained by resorting only to atoms and
their movements in space. The nature since atoms - which are
invisible, but no extension - is the impenetrability; is then
substances permanent and invariable, which do not differ in their
quality. The essential characteristics of the individual atoms are the size,
the shape and the weight or the principle of motion. Unlike Epicurus, however, the
weight starts to move the atoms according to one direction
defined, but acts as a driving force that intrinsic, imprinted to
atoms by God at the time of creation, allowing them to move in all
directions. In order, however, the movement appears possible is necessary
suppose the existence of the void. Gassendi thus assumes the existence of
a vacuum strewn between the interstitial spaces of the atoms, thanks to which
the latter can move and alter their course. The atoms then,
through movements and their specific form, aggregate in
molecules of different sizes. Consequently, the quality of the bodies more
large, such as strength, fluidity, etc., are due to quality
background of the individual atoms and the way in which they give rise to
cluster molecules.
While sharing a general framework of mechanistic explanation
natural phenomena and the idea that matter has a structure
corpuscular Descartes (1596-1650), as opposed to Gassendi, denied both
the existence of atoms is vacuum. For Descartes, the only ingredients that
constitute the natural world is matter and motion. the
fundamental characteristic of the matter is the geometric extension in three
dimensions (length, width and depth). And since the matter is
identical to the extension, it coincides with the space. The identification of
material, size and space implies that the universe is made up of anywhere
of the same matter, that matter is infinitely divisible and, for the same
reason, that the vacuum does not exist. The vacuum, in fact, should be one
space or extension does not contain any material, but the essence of
matter involving an extension, then the concept of emptiness is
contradictory and therefore impossible.
The Cartesian negation of the two constituent elements of atomism -
indivisibility of the parts breaking of matter (ie, atoms) and the existence
vacuum - maybe not exclude the particles in place of the body
extremely small and further divisible. Although, in fact,
Descartes postulates the existence of a single homogeneous material, however,
divided into three kinds or elements, which differ in
terms of mechanical properties. The first element, which are
made the sun and stars, is made up of tiny particles and
fast, which fill the interstices between the other parts of matter. the
particles of the second element have spherical shape and make the
heaven. The third element, which are constituted of the earth and the other
planets, is made of larger particles with a capacity of movement
lower than that of the other two elements.
Since the raw material, as an extension, is inert - ie devoid of
active - its variations must have some other cause beyond
the material itself. All of the properties of matter are reduced to
divisibility of parts and mobility of these parts. The motion of
large parts must therefore be the only explanation of the principle of
natural phenomena: each change of the material, in fact, as the whole
Unlike its forms, depends only on the local motion. The first
Because the motion is God himself, who at the beginning created matter
with a certain amount of stillness and motion, and further
it retains unchanging this amount. The fact that God
maintains a constant amount of motion in the universe, according to
Descartes comes the divine will: God, in fact,
unchangeable not only in itself, but also in every operation.
This quantity, although it remained constant, however, is
distributed unevenly in the matter; accordingly, the state
they are in the parts of matter is to change later
meeting or bump each other - changes in shape, size,
in the direction and speed - according to fundamental laws, which
Descartes called laws of nature established by God himself as causes
second of movements.
THE INVENTION OF NEW SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS
In the final phase of the scientific revolution, achieved in the seventeenth
century, a decisive role was played by the development of new tools,
which introduced new facts and new ways of looking at things and phenomena
already known.
The scientific instruments of antiquity and the Middle Ages - armillary spheres,
astrolabes, quadrants - were mostly observational tools
astronomical. And until the early sixteenth century, the situation remained
almost identical: the instruments were in fact exclusively related
astronomical observation or topographic survey. for centuries
therefore their shape and structure had undergone only a very slow
evolution, due to the refinement of manufacturing techniques.
During the seventeenth century, however, this rhythm is interrupted, so that the
evolution phase succeeded soon a phase of invention. A
signal a change so radical was the close relationship that was to
establishment of science and technology, bringing in the space of a century, the
realization of a whole series of new tools. The invention and
development of scientific instruments and apparatus opened new
scientific investigation unexpected possibilities. On the one hand, in fact,
they allowed the natural philosopher to make more observations
accurate than in the past, that is, to better see what he could already
see, but also to see objects that otherwise would not have been
directly perceptible to the sense organs. And on the other hand, allowed him to
study new phenomena or to reproduce under controlled conditions,
thus making it possible to justify the conclusions drawn about the
phenomena in question.
The role of these new tools was decisive, and it is not unreasonable
argue that they are a real watershed compared to
past, as are essential to the realization of that "method
experimental "which is one of the main features of
modern science. From the early decades of the seventeenth century,
the invention of a considerable number of instruments provides fact to the various
fields of science - astronomy, physics and science
natural - methods of detection hitherto unknown, and likely to expand
the horizons of knowledge of the natural world.
The telescope made it possible to observe celestial bodies far much better
how they could be seen with the naked eye, revealing literally
a new world in the sky: it was observed that the Moon was like the mountain
Earth, the Sun had spots and the sky was full of countless
stars. The microscope made possible the discoveries that only
the observation of the very small could afford to build,
as, for example, the existence of millions of living beings small and
imperceptible to the senses. The thermometer made it possible to observe and measure the
temperature changes, leading to the first time the temperature
under the rule of numbers. And the barometer took place the same function
for variations in atmospheric pressure. The air pump
created the opportunity to study the properties of the air conditions
controlled, thus changing the way we think the problem of
empty. The clock precision, finally, allowed us to measure small
intervals of time, transforming the measurement and consequently also
the sense of time.
The use of these new tools placed on a modern science
completely different level compared to previous eras. over
the scientific revolution scientific instrument acquires one
statute which before then had never been recognized. the
tool, in fact, designed to aid and strengthening of the senses, is
essential not only to observe but also to experimentation.
As a result, it comes with an investigating scientific
cognitive function and heuristics, as well as being home to the principles
theoretical incorporated in its structure, conditions and stimulates the same
theoretical elaboration. The recognition of this function and
the assignment of a positive value to the scientific instrument must
therefore be considered one of the main achievements of the revolution
science.
THE BIRTH OF SCIENTIFIC ACADEMIES
The conceptual upheaval that took place in the development of
scientific revolution took on an institutional level, in a different
organization of scientific research. As soon as the role of
universities as centers of intellectual activity, during the seventeenth century
witnessed the birth of the first academies and scientific societies that
became the privileged place of scientific production. these
new branches of scientific research developed in opposition
to universities, traditionally controlled by the power
ecclesiastical, almost without exception looked innovations
with extreme suspicion. It is therefore not surprising that, except
a few isolated cases, most of the scientists of the seventeenth century
not covered any university chair. In an attempt to
promote the emergence of new ideas, many scholars were organized
Therefore privately began to meet in clubs and associations,
to exchange information, coordinate research, discuss and implement
experiments, in a first time in spontaneous forms, following
structuring in a stable manner with the support of wealthy patrons, including
which did not fail princes and kings. It should however be emphasized that, although
since the objective of these institutions to promote and disseminate
new philosophical and scientific academies were also
propaganda tools, not only of scientific ideas, but sometimes
extra-scientific interests of the promoters.
The first organization of this kind was the Accademia dei Lincei,
founded by Prince Federico Cesi (1585-1630), which had among its
Galileo's most illustrious members. With an informal structure, which was inspired by the
philosophical and literary circles at that time common in Italy, the academy
represented a meeting place where people with similar interests
could discuss natural philosophy. Although equipped with a library,
a botanical garden and a cabinet of natural history in the academy
however, did not hold regular meetings and research group
dependent on your own initiative and energy of the
Prince Cesi. At his death, in fact, members of the Academy
dispersed, although its activity ceased in 1651.
Another similar group was organized in Florence under the patronage of
Grand Duke Ferdinando II de 'Medici. The Accademia del Cimento, however,
Despite the stereotypical image that the traditional historiography has
tried to accredit, not arose from the spontaneous free
Researchers, led by a rigorous experimentation, pursued in
full cooperation objectives. It was not a research institute
in the modern sense: it lacks a statute, with meetings not
had precise frequency without a permanent establishment and its own budget,
the academy depended in all respects by the patronage of the Prince
Leopold (1617-1675), brother of the Grand Duke, who made one cleverly
propaganda tool. The same way in which the academy
formed and made public the results of its research document,
unequivocally, its institutional instability and the absolute
subordination to Prince Leopold. The academy, which was never
officially inaugurated, he began his scientific activity in 1657,
recorded with some regularity experiments carried out in some
diaries. Not having asked any question relating to its institutional
opening, even more so there was no need for overriding the
Closed: quite simply, at some point the academy was no longer
met. Born therefore no precise rules and structures, the academy was
really a phenomenon of the court, which responded to the needs of targeted policy
culture, as evidenced by the publication of the Essays of natural experiments.
The work, published in 1667, collected the reports of
Experimental Academy; Paradoxically, however, the names of
academics were not even mentioned. To be cited only was
Secretary, Lawrence Magalotti (1637-1712), in fact alien to the whole
experimental work carried out by academics.
The suppression of the scientific contributions of individual members
the academy and the image of a group that had operated in full
harmony and collegiality were functional to make the central figure
Leopold, making it appear not only as a promoter of important
scientific, but also has great virtues of wisdom and
balance. The experiences were then presented without any context
theoretical and no conclusions or attempt to draw, the purpose of concealing
the philosophical differences of the members of the academy, as well as their
inability to reach a consensus on the interpretation appropriate to
to the experiments. With the publication of the Sages, the academy ceased
its activity. And besides, it could not be otherwise: once
reached the goal, Leopold was diminishing commitment and interest
for the academy.
Unlike the Accademia dei Lincei and the Accademia del Cimento, the
Royal Society was not born of the will of a patron: the license and the
official protection of King Charles II was granted only in 1662,
when there were already two decades spontaneous associations of scholars
who combined their efforts for the advancement and dissemination of the "philosophy
experimental. "One such group was formed in London around
1645 and held its meetings, although not exclusively, to
Gresham College. The main interest of this group - which has among its
main leaders counted John Wallis (1616-1703) and John Wilkins
(1614-1672) - was the "new philosophy or experimental philosophy" and
spectrum of their research was very wide: medicine, anatomy,
geometry, astronomy, navigation, statics, magnetism, chemistry,
mechanical and natural experiments. Starting from 1648, it was then formed
Oxford another group, in reality an extension of what London,
known as the Experimental Philosophy Club in Oxford, which in 1655 is
had joined Robert Boyle (1627-1691). The different intellectual heritage and
science of these and other groups came together in the constitution of the
Royal Society, the name legitimately adopted since 1662 when
was granted a Royal Licence, which came after two years of
, weekly meetings held at Gresham College in London. the Royal
Society adopted soon, especially by Boyle and Wilkins,
Baconian type of ideology, therefore aiming to improve
practical and experimental knowledge, in order to advance the science and the
universal good of mankind. In addition, the regularity of the meetings, the
continuous scientific exchanges, the establishment and verification of the public
experiments, the dissemination of results through the Philosophical
Transactions (published since 1665), the stimulus to discussion and
the competition among scientists contributed in a decisive way, to
transform the nature of scientific activity both in England and in
all over Europe.
In France, as early as the 40s of the seventeenth century,
operated under the auspices of individuals, groups of scientists and
intellectuals who gathered in academies and associations. a first
impulse in this direction was given by the monk Marin Mersenne less
(1588-1648), who through his extensive correspondence created a
international network of scientists (from Galileo to Descartes, from
Gassendi, Roberval, Hobbes, etc.) And the cell which, in the convent of
Minimum in Paris, became a meeting place for scholars and French
foreigners. The first major French scientific association, however,
was formed in 1654; meetings were held in the home of Habert de
Montmor, a wealthy amateur scientist who invited Gassendi in
chair the meetings. Discussions attended by several members of the
better society, then sign the new scientific conceptions were
become more respectable, even fashionable. Among the scientists who met in the home of Montmor or those of other
notables, there were notable scientific figures, as mathematicians Pascal
and Roberval. It was not unusual for these meetings and participate
were invited foreign scientists. Eager to emulate the Academy
Cimento and overestimating the munificence of Charles II to the Royal
Society recently established, the French scientists turned to the young king
Louis XIV to get official support. Colbert gained approval
the king and in 1666 was founded the Académie Royale des Sciences. the
academics receiving a salary, they could make use of the library
real and an astronomical observatory. To give prestige and prestige to
new institution were also called foreign scholars: Dutch
Christiaan Huygens (1629-1695), the Italian Gian Domenico Cassini
(1625-1715) and the Danish Ole Roemer (1644-1710). The Académie
was the first example of a scientific institution funded by
State, and this obviously meant a price to pay. In addition to
rather theoretical research, academics were also
deal of useful things, such as the design of hydraulic systems, the
evaluation of technological innovations, the practical effects of some
substances used in various different drugs, and so on.
In general, however, the scientific academies were not institutions
search when the time came discoveries of importance. They configurarono
as places of public debate, ie locations where scientists could
compare their experimental results with theoretical calculations or
other scientists. Played a major role in promoting and
in stimulating interest in scientific knowledge, leveraging
also on its consequences for practical use. The model which often
academies were based was in fact the New Atlantis (1627) of
Francis Bacon. In that work the Lord Chancellor described the House
Solomon as an institution in which scientists and engineers collaborated
together in order to "push the boundaries of human power to the
achievement of each objective as possible. "Scientific knowledge
was presented as something inseparable from its applications
practices, as a means to obtain the improvement of the condition
human and the end of physical fatigue.
Comments
Post a Comment