LECTURE

Lecture 16: The Mechanical Philosophy (3/20)I. Gassendi's Alternative Mechanical Philosophy A. Pierre Gassendi (1592-1655) B. His Christianized AtomismII. Science, Magic, and Religion A. Magic, Mechanical Arts, and Mechanical Philosophy B. 'Occult Qualities' in Aristotelian Philosophy C. Malinowski, Thomas, Mersenne D. Elite versus PopularIII. From Renaissance to Rebellion (and Disenchantment) A. In Praise of Novelty B. A 'New Method' for the 'New Science' C. A New Image & New Ideology of Scientific Knowledge

[References: Boas 1952; Eamon 1983; Henry 1986; Horton 1970; Houghton 1942; Hutchison 1982; Hutchison 1983; Mendelsohn 1977; Millen 1985; Schuster 1990; Thorndike 1951; Webster 1982]

I. GASSENDI'S ALTERNATIVE MECHANICAL PHILOSOPHY

A. PIERRE GASSENDI (1592-1655)

I SPOKE LAST TIME ABOUT THE MECHANICAL PHILOSOPHY OF

RENÉ DESCARTES

HE BELIEVED THAT HE WAS ABLE TO ERECT A SYSTEM OF

NATURE BASEDON A VERY SPARSELY POPULATED ONTOLOGY;

NAMELY, FIRST, SECOND,AND THIRD MATTER; VORTICES;

RECTALINEAR INERTIA, AND CONSERVATION OF MOTION

BY RELYING ON STRICTLY MECHANICAL INTERACTIONS; THAT IS,

ON THEMOTIONS, COLLISIONS, AND VIBRATIONS OF MATTER,

DESCARTES BELIEVES HE IS ABLE TO CONSTRUCT

EXPLANATIONS FOR ALL THE PHENOMENA OF THE NATURAL

WORLD

AND BY REDUCING NATURE TO ITS GEOMETRIC ESSENCE -- THAT

IS, TO JUST THOSE PROPERTIES THAT CAN BE REPRESENTED

GEOMETRICALLY -- DESCARTES HAS ACHIEVED WHAT HE SET

OUT TO DO; CONSTRUCT A NATURAL PHILOSOPHY BASED ON

CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE

I ALSO SUGGESTED THAT THE ESSENTIALS OF HIS NATURAL

PHILOSOPHYCOULD BE REDUCED TO THREE BASIC

CHARACTERISTICS:

1) FIRST, HE BELIEVED THAT ALL NATURAL PHENOMENA COULD

BE REDUCED TO MATTER IN MOTION

2) SECOND, ALL CAUSATION MUST OCCUR THOUGH CONTACT

BETWEENMATERIAL BODIES -- IN OTHER WORDS, THERE CAN BE

NO OCCULT, OR HIDDEN, AGENCIES IN NATURE

THE ONLY FORM OF EXPLANTION ACCEPTABLE TO DESCARTES IS

ONE THAT RESTS ON CLEAR AND DISTINCT IDEAS OF THE

GEOMETER

3) THIRD, THERE EXISTS A FUNDAMENTAL DISTINCTION

BETWEEN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY QUALITIES

AND IC ONCLUDED BY STATING THAT ONE COULD REJECT

VIRTUALLY ALL THE DETAILS OF DESCARTES MECHANICAL

EXPLANATIONS AND STILLBE A MECHANICAL PHILOSOPHER BY

ADHERING TO THESE THREE POINTS

AN EXAMPLE OF AN ALTERNATIVE MECHANICAL PHILOSOPHY

COMES FROM A FRENCHMAN AND CONTEMPORARY OF

DESCARTES, NAMED PIERRE GASSENDI

GASSENDI WAS BORN IN 1592 IN SOUTHERN FRANCE, THUS

MAKING HIM ONLY 4 YEARS OLDER THAN DESCARTES

HE WAS ALSO EDUCATED BY JESUITS, WAS A CHILD PRODIGY,

AND ADVANCED THROUGH THE ACADEMIC SYSTEM SO RAPIDLY

THAT HE RECEIVED HIS DOCTORATE IN THEOLOGY FROM THE

UNIVERSITY OF AVIGNON AT THE AGE OF 22 -- THE MORE

TYPICAL AGE WAS AROUNF 35

IN 1616 HE TOOK HOLY ORDERS AND BECAME A SECULAR

PRIEST -- THAT IS, HE WAS A CLERIC BUT UNATTACHED TO ANY

FORMAL RELIGIOUS ORDER

FROM 1617 UNTIL 1623, GASSENDI WAS A TEACHER OF

PHILOSOPHY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF AIX-EN-PROVENCE IN

SOUTHERN FRANCE

B. HIS CHRISTIANIZED ATOMISM

IN THE COURSE OF HIS STUDIES, GASSENDI BECAME

FASCINATED WITH THE THEORIES OF THE ANCIENT GREEK

ATOMISTS

AS A MATURE AND ERUDITE SCHOLAR, GASSENDI SET OUT TO

REVIVE AND MODIFY ANCIENT ATOMISM AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO

HERMETICISM

LIKE DESCARTES, GASSENDI DISLIKED THE HEREMTIC

PHILOSOPHER'S UNSATISFYING RECOURSE TO OCCULT POWERS

AND HIDDEN FORCES TO EXPLAIN THE WORKINGS OF NATURE

THE DETAILS OF GREEK ATOMISM HAD BEEN AVALIABLE IN

EUROPE FORAT LEAST 150 YEARS PRIOR TO GASSENDI'S WORK,

BUT ITS ACCEPTANCE AS A GENERAL NATURAL PHILOSOPHY

HAD BEEN IMPEDED BY TWO OBSTACLE

1) FIRST, ARISTOTLE HAD CAREFULLY SUMMARIZED AND

ROUNDLY CONDEMNED THE IDEAS OF DEMOCRITUS, THE BEST-

KNOWN OF THE ANCIENT GREEK ATOMISTS

2) THE THE ATOMIC THEORY WAS THOROUGHLY MATERIALISTIC

AND THUS CARRIED WITH IT THE STIGMA OF ATHEISM

THE ANCIENT GREEK ATOMISTS HAD NO PLACE FOR GREEK

GODS IN THEIR UNIVERSE; THERE EXISTED FOR THEM ONLY

ATOMS, THE VOID, ANDMOTION

AND A NATURAL PHILOSOPHY THAT HAD NO PLACE FOR

SPIRITUAL ENTITIES WAS WHOLLY UNACCEPTABLE TO

CHRISTIAN SCHOLARS

AND, THOUGH WESTERN SCHOLARS KNEW OF GREEK ATOMISM

THROUGH THE NEGATIVE ACCOUNTS OF ARISTOTLE FROM THE

13TH CENTURY ONWARD, ALMOST NO PHILOSOPHER HAD EVER

TRIED TO EMPLOY ATOMISM AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO

ARISTOTELIAN MATTER THEORY

BUT GASSENDI CLEARLY SAW THE POTENTIAL OF ATOMISM AS A

SYSTEMOF MECHANICAL EXPLANATION AND SOUGHT TO

REMOVE THE TAINT OFATHEISM

GASSENDI SUCCEEDS IN 'CHRISTIANIZING' ANCIENT ATOMISM

BY MAKING THE CHRISTIAN GOD THE CREATOR OF ATOMS, THUS

DENYING THE ANCIENT PREMISE THAT ATOMS ARE UNCREATED

AND ETERNAL

IN HIS VIEW, THE EXISTENCE OF ATOMS IN THE ABSENCE OF

GOD IS IMPOSSIBLE

AND, NOT SUPRISINGLY, HE ADDS TO THE STARK ONTOLOGY OF

ATOMISM, THE EXISTENCE OF A NON-MATERIAL SUBSTANCE,

THE HUMANSOUL

ALTHOUGH THIS MAY NOT BE A PROFOUND RE-WORKING OF

ANCIENT ATOMISM, IT IS SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE IT GIVES

ATOMISTIC IDEAS A CURRENCY AND LEGITIMACY THEY DID NOT

PREVIOUSLY POSSESS

WHAT ESPECIALLY APPEALED TO GASSENDI, WAS THE

POSSIBLITY OF USING ATOMISM TO WORK OUT STRICTLY

MECHANICAL EXPLANATIONS OFNATURAL PHENOMENA

IN THIS SENSE, BOTH GASSENDI AND DESCARTES WERE

PURSUING THE SAME ENDS; AND IN GENERAL THEY AGREED

UPON THE THREE POINTS MENTIONED EARLIER

HOWEVER, GASSENDI DENIED SEVERAL OF THE BASIC

ELEMENTS OF THECARTESIAN MECHANICAL PHILOSOPHY

1) FIRST, HE DID NOT ACCEPT THE IDENTITY OF MATTER AND

EXTENSION

2) SECOND, HE REJECTED THE PLENUM AND ALSO THE

VORTICES

3) AND THIRD, HE DENIED THAT MATTER WAS INFINITELY

DIVISIBLE

IN OTHER WORDS, HE ACCEPTED THE FUNDAMENTAL PRECEPT

OF ATOMIC THEORY; THAT THE SMALLEST CHUNKS OF MATTER,

ATOMS, ARE A PRIORI INDIVISIBLE

NOW GASSENDI'S ATOMS, LIKE THE ATOMS OF DEMOCRITUS,

WERE TINY IMMUTABLE PIECES OF MATTER OF VARIOUS SHAPES

AND SIZES

THEY POSSES ONLY THE PROPERTIES OF SHAPE, HARDNESS,

IMPENETRABILITY, AND INDIVISIBILITY

ALTHOUGH THE ATOMS THEMSELVES ARE NOT SUBJECT TO ANY

PHYSICAL CHANGE EXCEPT CHANGE OF PLACE -- THAT IS, THEY

MOVE --, THEIR CONFIGURATIONS AND MOTIONS ACCOUNT FOR

ALL THE PHENOMENA OF THE NATURAL WORLD

UNLIKE DESCARTES' SWIRLING MASS OF MATTER, GASSENDI'S

ATOMS MOVE IN A VOID: AN INFINITELY EXTENDED, THREE-

DIMENSIONAL, PERFECTLY EMPTY EUCLIDEAN SPACE

VOID SPACE EXISTS WHETHER OR NOT ANYTHING RESIDES 'IN'

IT

INDEED, GASSENDI OFFERS ONE OF THE FIRST STATEMENTS OF

WHAT, INTHE MIND OF NEWTON, WOULD BE COME TO BE

CALLED ABSOLUTE TIME AND ABSOLUTE SPACE

FOR BOTH GASSENDI AND NEWTON, SPACE POSSESSED AN

EXISTENCE QUITE INDEPENDENT OF THE EVENTS THAT OCCUR

WITHIN IT

GASSENDI COULD EXPLAIN THE VARYING DEGREES OF

HARDNESS, SOFTNESS, AND DENSITY OF OBJECTS IN THE

NATURAL WORLD THROUGHAPPROPRIATE MIXTURES OF ATOMS

OF VARIOUS SHAPES AND THE VOID SPACE BETWEEN ATOMS

REMEMBER, ONE OF THE OBJECTIONS I RAISE AGAINST

CARTESIAN MATTER THEORY WAS THAT IT IS DIFFICULT TO

UNDERSTAND HOW ANY COMBINATION OF CARTESIAN MATTER

(FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD) CAN ACCOUNT FOR OBJECTS OF

DIFFERENT DENSITIES SINCE ALL THREE TYPESOF MATTER ARE

OF THE SAME DENSITY

INDEED, TO GASSENDI'S WAY OF THINKING, THE VERY ACT OF

MOTION INTHE CARTESIAN WORLD IN IMPOSSIBLE

FOR IN ORDER TO MOTION TO COMMENCE IN THE CARTESIAN

PLENUM ALL THE MATTER IN THE UNIVERSE WOULD HAVE TO

BEGIN MOVING AT EXACTLY THE SAME INSTANT -- AND THAT

WOULD REQUIRE AN ABSURDLYLARGE INITIAL FORCE

MOTION IN THE ATOMIC WORLD IS EASY SINCE ATOMS MOVE

EFFORTLESSLY THROUGH A NON-RESISTING VOID SPACE

AT A MORE MUNDANE LEVEL OF EXPLANATION, GASSENDI CAN

EXPLAINWHY IT IS THAT ADDING SALT TO A GLASS OF WATER

DOES NOT RAISE THE LEVEL OF THE WATER

IT IS BECAUSE THE ATOMS OF SALT SETTLE INTO THE EMPTY

SPACES BETWEEN THE ATOMS THAT MAKE UP THE WATER

HOW CAN DESCARTES EXPLAIN THIS? IN HIS WORLD, THERE

ARE NO PLACES FOR THE SALT TO HIDE IN THE WATER

BY POSTULATING ATOMS OF VARIOUS SIZES AND SHAPES, AND

BY ARRANGING THEM ACORDING TO VARIOUS SPATIAL

CONFIGURATIONS, GASSENDI CAN EXPLAIN A WIDE RANGE OF

PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPOERTIES

OPAGUE AND RIGID OBJECTS RESULT FROM PACKING ATOMS

CLOSELY TOGETHER AND GIVING THEM SHAPES THAT ALLOW

THEM TO INTERLOCK,LIKE PIECES OF A JIG-SAW PUZZLE

SOUR TASTING FOODS ARE COMPOSED OF SHARP, POINTED

ATOMS; SWEET FOODS FROM SMOOTH, SPHERICAL ATOMS

ONE COULD EASILY MULTIPLY EXAMPLES, BUT THERE IS NO

NEED; I THINK GASSENDI'S PRINCIPLE OF EXPLANATION IS

CLEAR

GASSENDI MUST ESTABLISH A ONE-TO-ONE CORRESPONDENCE

BETWEENA DATUM OF SENSE-EXPERIENCE AND A CERTAIN

GEOMETRIC PROPERTYOR CONFIGURATION OF ATOMS

HIS EXPLANATIONS ARE SIMPLY THE IDENTIFICATION OF A

ATOM OF A PARTICULAR SHAPE -- OR GROUP OF ATOMS OF A

PARTICULAR CONFIGURATION -- WITH A PARTICULAR

PHENOMENON OR SENSATION

YET EXACTLY HOW THE SHAPES AND CONFIGURATIONS OF

ATOMS GIVE RISE TO SENSATION IS NEVER DIRECTLY

ADDRESSED

AND SINCE OUR SENSATIONS CONSIST OF SECONDARY

QUALITIES AND THE ATOMS THEMSELVES OF PRIMARY

QUALITIES, IT WOULD SEEM THAT WE ARE PERMANENTLY CUT

OFF FROM THE WORLD OF ESSENCES

INDEED, THIS IS ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL CONCLUSIONS

THAT GASSENDI HIMSELF ACCEPTED

THERE IS A DEFINITE LIMIT TO THE ABILITY OF THE HUMAN

MIND TO APPREHEND ULTIMATE REALITY

HE ADMITS THAT HE DOES NOT KNOW WHAT THE ESSENCE OF

MATTER IS;HE CLAIMS TO BE ABLE TO APPREHEND SOME OF ITS

PROPERTIES, BUT HEDOES NOT PRETEND TO KNOW ESSENCES

THE HUMAN MIND, IN GASSENDI'S VIEW, IS INCAPABLE OF

PENETRATINGTO THE UNDERLYING REALITY

CONTRAST THIS, FOR A MOMENT, WITH DESCARTES' CLAIMS

FOR DESCARTES, MATTER IS EXTENSION, THUS HE BELIEVES

THAT HE UNDERSTANDS THE VERY ESSENCE OF MATTER

INDEED, IT WAS PRECISLE BECAUSE THE EQUATION, MATTER =

EXTESNION, PRESENTED ITSELF CLEARLY AND DISTINCTLY TO

HIS MIND THAT HE KNOWS IT IS TRUE

AND IT IS UPON THIS INDUBITIBLE AXIOM THAT HE IS ABLE TO

CONSTRUCT A COMPLETE NATURAL PHILOSOPHY FOUNDED

UPON CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE

GASSENDI DENIED THE TRUTH OF THAT EQUATION AND THUS

FOR HIM ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY CANNOT BE ACHIEVED

HE HAS ACCEPTED, AT LEAST PARTIALLY, THE CONCLUSIONS OF

SKEPTICISM; OR MORE PRECISELY, HE HAS ACCEPTED WHAT

HAS BEEN CALLED "MITIGATED SKEPTICISM"

THE TENETS OF MITIGATED SKEPTICISM MAINTAIN THAT THE

QUEST FORCERTAINTY IS DOOMED TO FAILURE

BUT GASSENDI DOES NOT GIVE UP THE QUEST FOR KNOWLEDGE

ALTOGETHER, AS THE EXTREME SKEPTIC WOULD

IN THE ABSENCE OF THE CERTAINTY OF RATIONAL KNOWLEDGE,

SENSE PERCEPTIONS TAKE ON A NEW IMPORTANCE

ALTHOUGH THE SENSE MAY NOT BE INFALLIBLE, THEY ARE THE

BEST ACCESS WE HAVE TO THE PROPERTIES OF NATURE, AND

SO WE MUST USE THEM CAREFULLY

AND ALTHOUGH SENSE PERCEPTIONS CANNOT LEAD US TO THE

ESSENCEOF NATURE -- TO THE UNDERLYING REALITY -- THEY

CAN PROVIDE US WITH SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO GAIN A

USEFUL UNDERSTANDING OF THE WORKINGS OF NATURE

THUS GASSENDI IS NOT ONLY POSULATING A NEW ATOMIC

THEORY, HE IS ALSO POSTULATING A NEW GOAL FOR THE

SCIENTIFIC ENTERPRISE

GASSENDI WRITES:

THE SOUNDING LINE OF MAN'S REASON IS MUCH TOO SHORT

TO [PLUMB]THE DEPTHS OF THAT IMMENSE OCEAN,

NATURE. . . . IT CANNOT [EVEN] ATTAIN TO THE BOTTOM OF HER

SHALLOWS. . . . FOR IN AS MUCH AS THE TRUE IDEA OF NATURE

IS PROPERLY KNOWN ONLY TO THE ETERNAL INTELLECT, WHICH

FIRST CONCEIVED IT; IT CANNOT BE BUT ONE OF THE HIGHEST

DEGREES OF MADNESS FOR DULL AND UNEQUAL MAN TO

PRETEND TO AN EXACT OR ADEQUATE COMPREHENSION

THEREOF"

INSTEAD OF PLUMBING THE DEPTHS AND SEEKING AFTER

ESSENCES, MAN MUST CONTENT HIMSELF WITH THE SURFACE

PHENOMENA; THAT IS,WITH WHAT HIS SENSES TELL HIM ABOUT

THE WORLD

IN THIS NEW GOAL OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE, EMPIRICISM

BECOMES CENTRAL

II. OCCULT QUALITIES IN THE MECHANICAL PHILOSOPHY

THE ALTERNATIVE AIM OF GASSENDI'S NATURAL PHILOSOPHY

RAISES A NUMBER OF INTERESTING POINTS ABOUT THE

EPISTEMOLOGICAL IMPACTOF THE MECHANICAL PHILOSOPHY

ON EARLY MODERN SCIENCE

THESE POINTS CONCERN THE TRANSITION FROM THE

ARISTOTELIAN TO THE MECHANICAL MODE OF EXPLANATION

A. ARISTOTELIAN VS. MECHANICAL PHILOSOPHY

IN THE ARISTOTELIAN SCHEME OF THINGS, THE IDEAS OF

FORMS AND QUALITIES WERE OF CENTRAL IMPORTANCE IN

EXPLAINING THE NATURALWORLD

ARISTOTLE CONCEIVED OF MATTER AS AN UNDIFFERENTIATED,

UNIVERSAL, PRIMARY STUFF OR SUBSTANCE

HOWEVER, WE NEVER SEE THIS PRIMARY SUBSTANCE IN THIS

UNDIFFERENTIATED STATE; WE ONLY SENSE OR EXPERIENCE

SUBSTANCE ACCOMPANIED BY FORM

AS THEIR NAMES IMPLY, THE ARISTOTELIAN IDEAS OF

'SUBSTANTIAL FORMS' AND 'REAL QUALITIES' WERE REAL

ENTITIES ATTACHED TO MATTER

THESE FORMS AND QUALITIES ARE WHAT GIVE

UNDIFFERENTIATED MATTER ITS DISTINCTIVENESS

ACCORDING TO ARISTOTELIAN EPISTEMOLOGY, SINCE THESE

FORMS AND QUALITIES CAN BE IMMEDIATELY PERCEIVED BY

OUR SENSES, THEYCONSTITUTE WHAT CAN BE KNOWN ABOUT

THE NATURAL WORLD

THINK FOR A MOMENT OF THE FOUR ARISTOTELIAN ELEMENTS

-- EARTH,WATER, AIR, AND FIRE -- ALL ARE COMPOSED OF THE

SAME SORT OF SUBSTANCE BUT EACH IS DIFFERENTIATED

FROM ALL THE OTHERS BY REASON OF THE DIFFERING

COMBINATIONS OF QUALITIES

THUS EARTH IS SUBSTANCE ATTENDED BY THE QUALITIES OF

DRYNESS AND COLDNESS; WATER BY THE QUALITIES OF

COLDNESS AND MOISTNESS; AIR BY MOISTNESS AND HOTNESS;

AND FIRE BY HOTNESS AND DRYNESS

[DIAGRAM]

THIS DIAGRAM NOT ONLY SHOWS THE SYMMETRIES OF

ARISTOTELIAN MATTER THEORY, IT ALSO MAKES CLEAR HOW

TRANSMUTATION CAN TAKE PLACE

THE SUBSTITUTION, SAY, OF THE QUALITY OF DRYNESS FOR THE

MOISTNESS OF WATER RESULTS IN THE TRANSMUTATION OF

WATER TO EARTH; JUST AS THE SUBSTITUTION OF HOTNESS FOR

COLDNESS RESULTS IN THE TRANSMUTATION OF WATER TO AIR

OR VAPOR

BUT OF COURSE THERE WERE MANY MORE SUBSTANTIAL

FORMS AND REAL QUALITIES THAN THESE FOUR; FORMS AND

QUALITIES WERE POSTULATED FOR COLOR, SOLIDITY, TASTE,

VOLATILITY, CORROSIVENESS,AND SO ON

IN FACT, ALMOST ALL DISCRETE ELEMENTS OF PERCEPTION

WERE ASSOCIATED WITH A CERTAIN FORM OR QUALITY -- OR

PUTTING THIS THE OTHER WAY AROUND, FORMS AND

QUALITIES ARE JUST THOSE PROPERTIES OF MATTER THAT CAN

EXCITE SENSATION

AND SINCE THESE WERE THOUGHT TO BE REAL, INNATE

COMPONENTS OF PHYSICAL BODIES, THEY WERE EMPLOYED AS

THE FINAL EXPLANATION OF THE PROPERTIES OF MATTER

BECAUSE QUALITITES, IN THE ARISTOTELIAN SENSE, ARE THE

CAUSES OFATTRIBUTES OF MATTER, AND BECAUSE THEY ARE

IMMEDIATELY ACCESSIBLE TO THE SENSES, THERE IS NO NEED

TO LOOK ANY FURTHER FOR EXPLANATIONS

IF I PUT MY FINGER IN A GLASS OF WATER, I SENSE

IMMEDIATELY AND DIRECTLY THE ESSENTIAL NATURE OF THE

WATER; NAMELY, ITS COLDNESS AND MOISTNESS; IF I PLACE MY

HAND NEAR A FLAME, I AGAINSENSE DIRECTLY ITS REAL

QUALITIES -- HOTNESS AND DRYNESS

THERE IS NOTHING MORE TO EXPLAIN ABOUT MY SENSE

PERCEPTIONS OR THE PROPERTIES OF THE BODIES UNDER

QUESTION SINCE I AM IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH ESSENCES OF

THOSE BODIES

HOWEVER, THE PROPERTIES OF NATURE ARE NOT ALWAYS AS

ACCESSIBLE OR TRANSPARENT TO OUR SENSES AS A GLASS OF

WATER

IN FACT, QUALITIES WERE DIVIDED INTO TWO BROAD

CATEGORIES; MANIFEST AND OCCULT

'MANIFEST' QUALITIES ARE SIMPLY THOSE THAT ARE SENSIBLE,

OR DIRECTLY PERCEIVED BY OUR SENSES

'OCCULT' QUALITIES ARE INSENSIBLE, OR NOT REVEALED BY

OUR SENSES

ALTHOUGH THESE WERE VALID ARISTOTELIAN CATEGORIES,

CHRISTIAN ARSITOTELIANISM, AS IT DEVELOPED IN THE LATIN

WEST AFTER THE 13TH CENTURY, TENDED TO DENY THE

EXISTENCE OF OCCULT QUALITIES

SINCE OCCULT QUALITIES WERE INSENSIBLE AND FELL

OUTSIDE THE RANGE OF HUMAN SENSES, THEY WERE

UNKNOWABLE, AND THUS COULDNOT BE PART OF THE WORLD

OF INTELLIGIBLE DISCOURSE

HERE WE MIGHT RECALL THE OLD ARISTOTELIAN MAXIM THAT

THERE ISNOTHING IN THE MIND THAT WAS NOT FIRST IN THE

SENSES

NOW THE CONVERSE OF THIS SUGGESTS THAT WHAT WE

CANNOT SENSECANNOT BE PART OF OUR MIND; WE CANNOT

KNOW IT

IF ONLY THE SENSIBLE IS INTELLIGIBLE, THEN THE INSENSIBLE

MUST BEUNINTELLIGIBLE

THUS OCCULT QUALITIES WERE UNCOMFORTABLE ENTITIES

FOR SCHOLASTIC ARISTOTELIANS; THOUGH THEY MIGHT EXIST,

THEY COULD NOT BECOME PART OF THE UNIVERSE KNOWABLE

TO THE HUMAN MIND

INDEED, THE WORD 'OCCULT' STILL CARRIES WITH IT SOME OF

THESE NEGATIVE CONNOTATIONS

IN ITS SIMPLEST SENSE, 'OCCULT' MEANS HIDDEN, CONCEALED,

NOT EXPOSED TO VIEW; BUT IT ALSO HAS THE SENSE OF NOT

APPREHENDED BYTHE MIND, BEYOND THE RANGE OF

UNDERSTANDING OR ORDINARY KNOWLEDGE

YET THE SENSE OF 'OCCULT' THAT MOST READILY COMES TO

MIND FOR MOST OF US IS THAT OF SOMETHING HIDDEN OR

SECRET, SOMETHING COMMUNICATED ONLY TO THE INITIATED

AND, MORE PARTICULARLY, WE THINK OF 'OCCULT' IN

CONNECTION WITH THOSE SCIENCES, LIKE MAGIC, ALCHEMY,

ASTROLOGY, WHICH INVOLVE THE KNOWLEDGE OR USE OF

AGENCIES OF A SECRET OR MYSTERIOUS NATURE

PUT SIMPLY SCHOLASTIC ARISTOTELIAN SCIENCE WAS THE

SCIENCE OF 'MANIFEST' QUALITIES WHILE THE 'OCCULT'

SCIENCES INVOLVED THE USEOF OCCULT, OR INSENSIBLE

PROPERTIES

AND BECAUSE THEY WERE INSENSIBLE, THEY WERE ALSO

UNINTELLIGIBLE AND, BY EXTENSION, ILLEGITIMATE SINCE

THEY CAN ONLY BE KNOWN IMPERFECTLY OR THROUGH

SUPERNATURAL AGENCIES

THUS MUCH OF THE MEDIEVAL AND RENAISSANCE

UNDERSTANDING OFMAGIC DEPENDED ON THE ARISTOTELIAN

DISTINCTION BETWEEN MANIFEST AND OCCULT PROPERTIES

THE MAGICIAN DID NOT REALLY UNDERSTAND -- THAT IS, HE

DID NOT REALLY HAVE SENSE EXPERIENCE OF -- OCCULT

QUALITIES, NOR WAS IT HE WHO PERFORMED WONDERS;

RATHER HE WAS ABLE TO MANIPULATE FORCES HE DID NOT

UNDERSTAND THROUGH THE AGENCY OF SOME SUPERNATURAL

AND TYPICALLY DIABOLICAL SPIRIT

AND THIS, OF COURSE, WAS NOT TRUE KNOWLEDGE, BUT

ILLEGITIMATE KNOWLEDGE, AND HENCE DAMNABLE

NOW THINK HOW ALL THIS CHANGES WITH THE ADVENT OF THE

MECHANICAL PHILOSOPHIES OF DESCARTES AND GASSENDI

ONE OF THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL ASPECTS OF THE

MECHANICAL PHILOSOPHY WAS THAT ITS EXPLANATIONS WERE,

IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, PICTUREABLE -- ONE CAN VISUALIZE

THE EXPLANATORY MECHANISM IN TERMS OF THE MOTIONS,

SHAPES, OR COLLISIONS OF LITTLE CORPUSCLES OF MATTER

IN THE ARISTOTELIAN EXPLANATION, ONE NEVER HAS A CLEAR

VISUAL IMAGE OF QUALITIES OR FORMS -- INDEED, MOST OF

THE ARISTOTELIAN QUALITIES ARE RELATED MORE TO THE

SENSE OF TOUCH THAN TO SIGHT

THE FOUR QUALITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOUR ELEMENTS

ARE ALL THINGS YOU CAN SENSE THROUGH YOUR FINGERS -- IN

FACT YOUR FINGERIS IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH REAL

QUALITIES AND SUBSTANTIAL FORMS

THE MECHANICAL EXPLANATIONS DESCARTES AND GASSENDI

GIVE FOR THE PROPERTIES OF MATTER, ON THE OTHER HAND,

ARE THINGS THAT CANBE PICTURED IN THE MIND'S EYE BUT

NOT DIRECTLY TOUCHED OR SENSED

THAT IS PRECISELY THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DISTINCTION

BETWEEN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY QUALITIES

SECONDARY QUALITIES, THE THINGS WE EXPERIENCE DIRECTLY

THROUGH OUR SENSES, ARE EPIPHENOMENA THAT ARISE IN

THE ACT OF PERCEPTION AND HAVE NO INDEPENDENT

EXISTENCE IN MATTER

AND WHAT DOES HAVE OBJECTIVE EXISTENCE, NAMELY THE

PRIMARY QUALITIES, ARE NOT IMMEDIATELY ACCESSIBLE TO

OUR SENSE OF TOUCHOR EVEN TO OUR SENSE OF SIGHT --

THOUGH VISUALIZABLE, PRIMARY QUALITIES ARE NOT VISIBLE,

OWING TO THE MICROSCOPIC NATURE OF THE POSTULATED

MECHANISMS

YET -- FOR THE MECHANICAL PHILOSOPHER -- SIZE, SHAPE,

CONFIGURATION, AND MOTION ARE WHAT ARE REALLY EXIST

AND ARE WHAT REALLY CAN BE KNOWN

THUS WE HAVE A CURIOUS INVERSION OF THE ONTOLOGY OF

THE KNOWLABLE; FOR WHAT DESCARTES AND GASSENDI

POSTULATE AS KNOWABLE ARE INSENSIBLE AND THUS, IN

PROPER ARISTOTELIAN TERMINOLOGY, OCCULT

AND WHAT THE ARISTOTELIANS HAD POSTULATED AS

KNOWABLE, NAMELY THE MANIFEST, SENSIBLE QUALITIES,

THEY DISMISS AS ILLUSIONS

IRONICALLY, BY DENYING THAT ANY QUALITY OR PROPERTY OF

NATURECOULD EVER BE DIRECTLY PERCEIVED, MECHANICAL

PHILOSOPHERS EXPANDED THE RANGE OF NATURAL

PHENOMENA THAT COULD BE LEGITIMATELY INVESTIGATED BY

ALLOWING INSENSIBLE QUALITIES INTONATURAL PHILOSOPHY

FOR MECHANICAL PHILOSOPHERS, INSENSIBLE NO LONGER

MEANT UNINTELLIGIBLE SINCE THE INSENSIBILITY OF PRIMARY

QUALITIES DID NOT PREVENT THEM FROM KNOWING, OR AT

LEAST INVESTIGATING AND EXPLAINING, HOW THE WORLD

WORKS

AND THUS, WHEN MECHANICAL PHILOSOPHERS CONDEMNED

THE OCCULT QUALITIES OF THE ARISTOTELIANS, WHAT THEY

CONDEMNED WAS NOT THE IDEA OF QUALITIES BEING HIDDEN

FROM THE HUMAN SENSES -- FOR PRIMARY QUALITIES WERE

NECESSARILY OCCULT -- BUT THE ARISTOTELIANS' RELUCTANCE

TO TREAT OCCULT QUALITIES AS LEGITMATE

IN OTHER WORDS, BY INVERTING TRADITIONAL EPISTEMOLOGY,

MECHANICAL PHILOSOPHERS OPENED THE DOORS TO THE

INVESTIGATION OF A RANGE OF PHENOMENA THAT BEFORE

HAD BEEN DEEMED ILLEGITIMATE

AND THEY CHASTIZED SCHOLASTIC ARISTOTELIANS FOR

RESTING CONTENT WITH THE MERE LABELLING OF INSENSIBLE

QUALITIES AS UNINTELLIGIBLE AND NEGLECTING TO PURSUE

THEIR INVESTIGATION ANY FURTHER

PERHAPS NOTHING CHARACTERIZES THIS SHIFT IN

EPISTEMOLOGY MORECLEARLY THAN A 17TH-CENTURY

MEANING OF THE TERM 'OCCULT' THATHAS SINCE FALLEN OUT

OF USAGE

THE OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY TELLS US THAT, IN THE

17TH AND EARLY 18TH CENTURIES, THE WORD OCCULT HAD THE

FOLLOWING MEANING:

"APPLIED IN EARLY SCIENCE OR NATURAL PHILOSOPHY TO

PHYSICAL QUALITIES NOT MANIFEST TO DIRECT OBSERVATION

BUT DISCOVERABLE ONLY BY EXPERIMENT; [QUALITIES] . . .

WHOSE NATURE WAS UNKNOWN OR UNEXPLAINED; [THE]

TREATING OF SUCH QUALITIES EXPERIMENTAL[LY]"

THUS, IN THE MINDS OF MECHANICAL PHILOSOPHERS,

ARISTOTELIANS DESEREVED THEIR SCORN NOT BECAUSE THEY

BELIEVED IN OCCULT QUALITIES, BUT BECAUSE THEY WOULD

NOT TAKE THEM SERIOUSLY ENOUGH TO EXPERIMENT ON THEM

B. HERMETIC VS. MECHANICAL PHILOSOPHY

IF OCCULT QUALITIES WERE NOW A LEGITIMATE PART OF THE

MECHANICAL PHILOSOPHER'S WORLD OF THE INTELLIGIBLE,

THEN HOW DID THIS AFFECT THE STATUS OF THE 'OCCULT

SCIENCES,' OF SECRET KNOWLEDGE, AND THE MANIPULATION

OF SUPERNATURAL AGENCIES?

WEREN'T THE CHIEF FOUNDERS OF THE MECHANICAL

PHILOSOPHER, DESCARTES AND GASSENDI, CONSCIOUSLY AND

VIGOROUSLY OPPOSED TO THE ANIMISTIC WORLD OF THE

HERMETIC PHILOSOPHERS?

DIDN'T THEY DELIBERATELY SEEK AN ONTOLOGY OF PRIMARY

QUALITIES THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO DISPOSE OF THE

PSYCHIC REDUCTIONISM OF THE MAGUS?

AND DIDN'T THEY ATTEMPT TO SHOW THAT ALL OF NATURE'S

OPERATIONS WERE OPEN TO THE HUMAN MIND, THAT THERE

ARE NO SECRETS OF NATURE THAT CANNOT BE ACCOUNTED

FOR IN TERMS OF THECLEAR AND DISTINCT GEOMETRIC

PROPERTIES OF MATTER AND MOTION?

ALTHOUGH WE CAN JUSTLY ANSWER EACH OF THESE

QUESTIONS IN THEAFFIRMATIVE, I DON'T THINK WE CAN

SIMPLY SAY -- AS MANY HISTORIANS OF SCIENCE HAVE -- THAT

THE RISE OF THE MECHANICAL PHILOSOPHY WAS THE CAUSE,

OR LED DIRECTLY TO, THE DECLINE OF MAGIC

THE HISTORICAL PROBLEMS OF THE INTERACTION BETWEEN

SCIENCE AND MAGIC DO NOT ALLOW FOR SUCH AN EASY

EQUATION AS THIS, WHERE THE MAJOR TERMS STAND IN A

SIMPLE INVERSE RELATIONSHIP TOONE ANOTHER

THOUGHOUT MOST OF THE HIGH MIDDLE AGES, SCHOLASTIC

ARISTOTELIANS HAD RELEGATED OCCULT QUALITIES TO THE

ILLEGITIMATE OR QUASI-LEGITIMATE DOMAIN OF ASTROLOGY,

ALCHEMY,AND MAGIC

HOWEVER, IN THE 16TH CENTURY, THE AUTHORITY ENJOYED BY

THE HERMETIC CORPUS AND ACCEPTANCE OF RENAISSANCE

ANIMISTIC NATURAL PHILOSOPHIES GAVE THE SCIENCES OF

THE OCCULT GREATER CURRENCY AND LEGITIMACY THAN THEY

HAD EVER OBTAINED IN THE SCHOOLS

AND, THE RENAISSANCE MAGI HAD ALSO LINKED THE MAGICAL

WORLDVIEW TO AN ACTIVE EXPERIMENTAL ATTITUDE TOWARD

NATURE

FOR IF YOU CANNOT SENSE OR UNDERSTAND THE HIDDEN

POWERS OF NATURE, YOU MIGHT AT LEAST ARRIVE AT THE

PROPER TECHNIQUE OR METHOD NECESSARY TO CONTROL

THOSE POWERS THROUGH TRIAL AND ERROR, THROUGH

EMPIRICAL EFFORTS, AND EXPERIMENTATION

THEN, IN THE 17TH CENTURY, THE MECHANICAL PHILOSOPHY

COMES ALONG WITH A NEW ONTOLOGY AND A NEW

EPISTEMOLOGY: OCCULT QUALITIES, THOUGH STILL

INSENSIBLE, ARE NOW PART OF THE INTELLIGIBLE WORLD AND

THUS A LEGITIMATE PART OF ORTHODOX NATURAL PHILOSOPHY

THIS NEW IMAGE OF LEGITIMATE KNOWLEDGE ALLOWED FOR

THE WHOLESALE APPROPRIATION OF LARGE CHUNKS OF THE

OCCULT WORLDOF THE RENAISSANCE MAGUS AND THE

SUBSUMPTION OF MAGICAL TECHNIQUES AND IDEAS INTO THE

MECHANICAL PHILOSOPHY

PERHAPS THE MOST SIGNIFICANT EXAMPLE OF SUBSUMPTION

WAS THE BRINGING OF THE EMPIRICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL

ATTITUDES OF THE MAGUS UNDER THE GOALS AND PRINCIPLES

OF THE MECHANICAL PHILOSOPHY

THE EXPERIMENTALISM OF THE MAGUS WAS TO ENABLE HIM TO

MANIPULATE HIDDEN POWERS HE DID NOT FULLY

UNDERSTAND; WHEREAS THE EXPERIMENTS OF THE

MECHANICAL PHILOSOPHER WAS DESIGNED TO HELP HIM

DECIDE AMONG VARIOUS POSSIBLE MECHANICAL MODELS --

MODELS WHOSE MECHANICAL PRINCIPLES HE BELIEVED HE

UNDERSTOOD THOROUGHLY

THUS, IN THEIR ACTS OF APPROPRIATION AND SUBSUMPTION,

GASSENDI AND DESCARTES SUBSTITUTED MECHANICAL

REDUCTIONISM FOR THE PSYCHIC REDUCTIONISM OF THE

MAGUS AS THEIR PREFERRED MODE OF EXPLANATION

IN THE HERMETIC UNDERSTANDING OF THINGS, THE ANCIENT

MAGUS WHO BROUGHT A STATUE TO LIVE WAS ABLE TO DO SO

BECAUSE HE COULD MANIPULATE THE VITAL FORCES OF THE

STARS AND CHANNEL THEM INTO AN INANIMATE OBJECT

DESCARTES APPROPRIATES THIS VERY IMAGE AND INVERTS IT;

THE ANIMATE BEING -- EITHER THE HUMAN BODY DEPRIVED OF

SOUL OR, MORE PERFECTLY, A SOULESS ANIMAL -- IS DENIED

ANY SPECIAL ANIMATING PRINCIPLE AND IS REDUCED TO AN

INANIMATE OBJECT, A MACHINE CONSISTING OF STRINGS,

PULLEYS, HYDRAULIC TUBES, AND INFLATIBLE MUSCLES

HE TAKES THE OCCULT POWERS OF THE MAGNET AND REDUCES

THEM TO A STREAM OF INSENSIBLY SMALL -- BUT EMINENTLY

PICTUREABLE -- CORKSCREW-SHAPED PARTICLES HURLING

THROUGH THE AIR AND BORING INTO THE PROPERLY THREADED

PORES OF IRON

THERE WERE EVEN FOLLOWERS OF DESCARTES WHO

CONTRIVED A MECHANCIAL EXPLANATION FOR THE

ASTROLOGICAL AFFECTS OF THE STARS ON HUMAN

PERSONALITIES

EVERY STAR IN THE SKY RADIATES PARTICLES OF A DISTINCT

SHAPE, ANDAS THE UNIQUE MIXTURE OF STELLAR PARTICLES

IMPINGES ON THE HEART AND BODY OF THE NEWBORN BABY AT

THE MOMENT OF ITS BIRTH,THEY LEAVE AN IMPRINT OF THEIR

SHAPES AND THUS SET THE PATTERN FOR ITS SUBSEQUENT

DELEVOPMENT

FOR EVERY PHENOMENON THERE IS A MECHANICAL

EXPLANATION

AND, BECAUSE THE ONTOLOGY OF THE NEW MECHANICAL

PHILOSOPHYGRANTED LEGITIMACY TO OCCULT QUALITIES,

MANY OF THE PHENOMENA OF TYPICALLY ASSOCIATED WITH

THE OCCULT SCIENCES WERE ALSO ACCEPTED AS LEGITIMATE

AND SUBJECTED TO MECHANICAL EXPLANATION

THIS IS NOT TO SAY, HOWEVER, THAT MECHANICAL

PHILOSOPHERS WEREREALLY MAGICIANS IN DISGUISE, OR THAT

THEY WERE SIMPLY USING A NEW BAG OF MECHANICAL TRICKS

TO EXPLAIN THE MAGICAL WORLD THEY STILL BELIEVED IN

BY APPROPRIATING CERTAIN ELEMENTS FROM THE WORLD OF

THE MAGUS, THE MECHANICAL PHILOSOPHER BROUGHT THOSE

ELEMENTS UNDER A NEW PRINCIPLE AND RULE

AND BY PLACING THEM IN A RADICALLY DIFFERENT

EPISTEMOLOGICAL CATEGORY, HE GAVE THOSE ELEMENTS A

NEW MEANING AND A NEW CONTEXT

AND THIS MODEL OF APPROPRIATION IS APPLICABLE NOT ONLY

TO THE HERMETIC PHILOSOPHER BUT ALSO TO THE

SCHOLASTIC ARISTOTELIAN

FOR DESPITE THE OVERT CRITICISM AND DELIBERATE

RENUNCIATION OFARISTOTELIAN PHILOSOPHY BY BOTH

DESCARTES AND GASSENDI -- ANDWE COULD WELL THROUGH IN

GALILEO AND BACON -- THEY STILL TOOKMUCH FROM THE

SCHOLASTICS

IT WAS TRUE FOR BOTH THE ARISTOTELIAN AND THE HERMETIC

PHILOSOPHER, THAT WHAT ONE KNOWS BEST IS WHAT IS MOST

FAMILIAR; THE DIRECT SENSE IMPRESSION OF THE

ARISTOTELIAN'S FINGERS AND THEPSYCHIC PROCESSES OF THE

HERMETIC PHILSOPHER'S OWN MIND

THE ARISTOTELIAN KNOWS AND UNDERSTANDS THE WORLD

BECAUSE HE TRUSTS HIS SENSES TO GIVE HIM DIRECT ACCESS

TO THE REAL QUALITIES AND SUBSTANTIAL FORMS OF MATTER;

WHEREAS THE HERMETIC MAGUS GAINS A SYMPATHETIC

UNDERSTANDING -- IF NOT A STRICTLY RATIONAL KNOWLEDGE --

OF THE WORLD BECAUSE HE TRUSTS THAT THE PSYCHIC

PROCESSES OF HIS OWN MIND PROVIDE HIM WITH A SET OF

RELIABLE ANALOGIES FOR THE OPERATIONS OF NATURE

FOR DESCARTES, WHAT ONE KNOWS BEST IS WHAT IS MOST

CERTAIN; NAMELY, THE CLEAR AND DISTINCT IDEAS OF

GEOMETRY

AND WHEN HE THOUGHT THAT HE HAD SUCCEEDED IN

TRANSFERRING THE IDEAS OF GEOMETRY TO HIS ONTOLOGY OF

MATTER, HE FELT HE HADTHE FOUNDATIONS FOR A NEW

NATURAL PHILOSOPHY

-- A PHILOSOPHY BASED NOT ON THE FAMILIARITY OF SENSE

PERCEPTIONS AND MENTAL PROCESSES, BUT ON THE

CERTAINTY OF GEOMETRIC DEMONSTRATION

III. FROM RENAISSANCE TO REBELLION

A. A NEW IMAGE OF KNOWLEDGE

LET ME STOP AND STAND BACK FROM THIS EXTENDED ANALYSIS

OF THEMECHANICAL PHILOSOPHY AND TRY TO GIVE A BIT OF A

SUMMARY OF WHAT WE HAVE THUS FAR COVERED

THIS, I THINK, WILL HELP PLACE THE MECHANICAL PHILOSOPHY

IN THE CONTEXT OF THE 'NEW SCIENCE' OF THE 17TH CENTURY

SO FAR WE HAVE ONLY LOOKED AT DEVELOPMENTS IN TWO OR

THREE SCIENTIFIC TRADITIONS; ASTRONOMY, NATURAL

PHILOSOPHY BROADLY DEFINED, AND THE SCIENCE OF MOTION

(OR MECHANICS)

IF WE TRY TO COMPARE THE CHARACTER OF THE

TRANSFORMATION IN ASTRONOMY WITH THOSE IN NATURAL

PHILOSOPHY OR MECHANICS, WE FIND SOME SIMILARITIES AND

SOME DIFFERENCE

YET IN NO CASE DO WE FIND -- AT LEAST I DO NOT SEE -- THE

CLEAR PATTERN OF CHANGE THAT KUHN CHARACTERIZED AS A

SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION

AS WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN, THE TRANSFORMATIONS IN

ASTRONOMY -- FROM PTOLEMAIC TO COPERNICAN, FROM

COPERNICAN TO TYCHONIC, AND FROM COPERNICAN TO

KEPLERIAN -- ARE HARD TO CAST IN THE KUHNIAN MODEL

ALTHOUGH ONE MAY IDENTIFY SOMETHING LIKE A CRISIS

STATE IN 16THCENTURY ASTRONOMY, IT WAS A CRISIS OF

AESTHETICS THAT CAME INTOEXISTENCE WITH THE BIRTH OF

THE PTOLEMAIC THEORY ITSELF AND WAS NOT GENERATED ON

THE EVE OF COPERNICUS' BIRTH THROUGH THEGRADUAL

ACCUMULATION OF ANOMALY

TYCHO'S TRANSFORMATION OF THE COPERNICAN PLANETARY

PARADIGMDOES NOT SEEM TO FIT THE REVOLUTIONARY

PATTERN IN ANY RESPECT, SINCE IT SEEMS IN ESSENCE TO

HAVE BEEN A SOLUTION PREMISED ON COMPROMISE AND NOT

ON RADICAL INNOVATION

KEPLER, OF COURSE, DISREGARDED THE TYCHONIC SYSTEM

FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, AND SOUGHT INSTEAD TO

IMPROVE THE COPERNICAN SYSTEM

THUS IT MIGHT SEEM THAT HE SAW HIMSELF AS ENGAGING IN

NORMAL COPERNICAN SCIECNE; THAT IS, WORKING OUT THE

DETAILS OF THE PARADIGM COPERNICUS HAD ALREADY

ESTABLISHED

YET IT WOULD BE HARD TO DENY THAT KEPLER WROUGHT MORE

CHANGES IN THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF PLANETARY

ASTRONOMY THAN COPERNICUS HIMSLEF

HE ABANDONNED EPICYCLES, ECCENTRICS, AND EQUANTS AND

EVEN REJECTED THE ANCIENT PRINCIPLE OF UNIFORM

CIRCULAR MOTION

HE INTRODUCED A WORKABLE -- IF IMAGINATIVE -- CELESTIAL

PHYSICS AND DISPLAYED A GREATER FIDELITY TO

OBSERVATIONAL DATA THAN ANY ASTRONOMER WHO EVER

WORKED BEFORE HIM

AND HE SET HIS BEAUTIFULLY SIMPLE PLANETARY LAWS IN A

METAPHYSICAL FRAMEWORK WHICH CONTEMPORARIES

REJECTED ALMOST AS SOON AS THEY READ IT

THOUGH ONE CANNOT DENY THE IMPACT AND INFLUENCE OF

THE KEPLERIAN REVOLUTION IN ASTRONOMY, IT IS DIFFICULT

TO SEE HOW WECAN SPEAK MEANIGFULLY OF THE IMPACT OF

THE KEPLERIAN PARADIGM -- SINCE HIS PARADIGM OF

GEOMETRIC HARMONIES WAS ADOPTED BY NO ONE

AND WHAT GAVE HELIOCENTRISM GREATER CURRENCY IN THE

FIRST THIRD OF THE 17TH CENTURY WAS NOT THE

THEORETICAL TRIUMPHS OF KEPLER BUT THE SENSATIONAL --

BUT ESSENTIALLY AMBIVALENT -- TELESCOPIC OBSERVATIONS

OF GALILEO

YET AT THE SAME TIME, GALILEO'S NEW MECHANICS WAS

DEVELOPED IN CONSCIOUS OPPOSITION TO ARISTOTELIAN

MECHANICS AND DESIGNED EXPLICITLY FOR THE MOVING

EARTH OF THE UNADULTERATED COPERNICAN SYSTEM

ALTHOUGH TYCHO KNEW COPERNICUS' STUDENTS; AND

ALTHOUGH KEPLER PERSONALLY KNEW AND WORKED FOR

TYCHO; AND ALTHOUGH GALILEO AND KEPLER WERE FELLOW-

COPERNICANS AND CORRESPONDED, IT WOULD SEEM THAT

NONE OF THEM EVER GOT IT TOGETHER INTELLECTUALLY

TYCHO REJECTS COPERNICUS OUTRIGHT;

KEPLER REJECTS TYCHO AND DRASTICALLY ALTERS ALMOST ALL

THE BASIC ASSUMPTIONS OF THE COPERNICAN SYSTEM EXCEPT

ITS HELIOCENTRICITY;

GALILEO REJECTS BOTH TYCHO AND KEPLER AND RETURNS TO A

SIMPLER -- AND NOW OUT-DATED -- VERSION OF

COPERNICANISM:

AND THEN WE ARE ASKED TO ACCEPT THE NOTION THAT THEY

ARE ALL WORKING UNDER THE SAME COPERNICAN PARADIGM

AND WE MIGHT ADD THAT CONSENSUS ON THE MATTER OF THE

COPERNICAN-KEPLERIAN-GALILEAN PLANETARY THEORY WAS

SLOW TO BUILD, AND THAT IT WAS THE TYCHONIC SYSTEM THAT

WON THE ALLEGIANCE OF MOST 17TH-CENTURY ASTRONOMERS

IN OTHER WORDS, THERE WAS CONFUSION REGARDING THE

'TRUE FORM'OF THE COPERNICAN PARADIGN -- WHAT WITH

KEPLER'S ELLIPTICAL ORBITS ANF GALILEO'S CIRCULAR

INTERTIA -- AND THE SIMULTANEOUS EXISTENCE OF AT LEAST

TWO MUTUALLY INCOMPATIBLE, AND PRESUMABLY MUTUALLY

INCOMMENSURABLE, THEORIES OF PLANETARYMOTION

AND PLEASE KEEP IN MIND, THIS SITUATION ENDURED FOR

VERY NEARLY A CENTURY: FROM THE TIME OF TYCHO'S

PUBLICATION OF HIS THEORY IN 1588 UNTIL ROUGHLY THE

TIME OF NEWTON'S PRINCIPIA PUBLISHED IN 1687

AND DON'T FORGET THAT THIS WAS IN ONE OF THE MORE

MATURE AND WELL-DEVELOPED DISCIPLINES OF EARLY

MODERN SCIENCE

WHAT ABOUT NATURAL PHILOSOPHY?

HOW DO THE TRANSFORMATIONS HERE FIT THOSE OUTLINED

BY KUHN?

A FAIR-MINDED DEFENDER OF KUHN MIGHT PROTEST THAT

NATURAL PHILOSOPHY, AS REPRESENTED BY SCHOLASTIC

ARISTOTELIANISM, HERMETIC ANIMISM, AND THE MECHANICAL

PHILOSOPHY REALLY DON'THAVE THE SORT OF TIGHT

THEORETICAL STRUCTURE REQUIRED BY KUHN'S MODEL AND

THUS OUGHT NOT TO BE SUBJECTED TO KUHNIAN ANALYSIS

I WOULD BE INCLINED TO CONCEDE THIS POINT; THE HERMETIC

CORPUSAND THE MECHANICAL PHILOSOPHY OF DESCARTES

AND THE ATOMISMOF GASSENDI AREN'T PARADIGMS IN THE

KUHNIAN SENSE AND THE TRANSFORMATION FROM ONE TO

ANOTHER CANNOT BE PROPERLY CHARACTERIZED AS PARADIGM

SHIFTS

YET AS SOON AS WE CONCEDE THIS, WE ALSO CONCEDE THAT

KUHN HASLITTLE TO SAY ABOUT ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT

CONCEPTUAL SHIFTS OF THE 17TH CENTURY

THE PROBLEM IS, OF COURSE, THAT THE MECHANICAL

PHILOSOPHY IS NOT A THEORY IN ANY REGULAR SENSE

IT IS A SET OF LOOSELY DEFINED CRITERIA FOR THE

EVALUATION OF ACCEPTABLE EXPLANATIONS OF NATURAL

PHENOMENA

OR, TO CAST THIS IN TERMS OF THE THREE CATEGORIES OF

SCIENCE I REPRESENTED A WHILE BACK, THE MECHANICAL

PHILOSOPHY IS NOT PART OF THE BODY OF KNOWLEDGE, BUT A

PART OF THE IMAGE OF KNOWLEDGE

NOW AT FIRST HEARING THIS MAY STRIKE YOU AS A STRANGE

THING TO ARGUE SINCE MECHANICAL PHILOSOPHERS SEEM TO

DO NOTHING BUT MAKE EXPLICIT CLAIMS ABOUT THE

STRUCTURE AND OPERATION OF THE NATURAL WORLD

AND THIS OF COURSE IS PRECISELY THE DEFINITION I GAVE FOR

THE BODY OF KNOWLEDGE

BUT KEEP IN MIND THAT THE PARTICULAR MECHANICAL

EXPLANATIONSPROVIDED BY DESCARTES OR BY GASSENDI ARE

IN THEMSELVES ALMOST MEANINGLESS

THAT IS, ONE CAN ACCEPT OR REJECT PARTICULAR

MECHANICAL MODELS AND STILL BE A MECHANCIAL

PHILOSOPHER

DESCARTES HIMSLEF SAID THAT ONE MUST RESORT TO

EXPERIMENT TO DECIDE AMONG A NUMBER OF POSSIBLE

MECHANICAL EXPLANATIONS

THIS IN TURN SUGGESTS THAT THE REAL HEART OF THE

MECHANICAL PHILOSOPHY DOES NOT LIE IN THE PARTICULAR

MODEL THAT IS BEING PUT FOREWARD TO EXPLAIN A

PARTICULAR PHENOMENON

RATHER, IT IS THE UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES OF EXPLANATION

WHAT THE MECHANICAL PHILOSOPHY REALLY DOES IS TO

PROVIDE AN ONTOLOGY OF MATTER AND MOTION AND TO

IMPOSE CLEAR EPISTEMOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS

IN OTHER WORDS, ALTHOUGH THE MECHANICAL PHILOSOPHY

MAKES CLAIMS ABOUT THE OPERATIONS OF NATURE, ITS REAL

THRUST IS IN ESTABLISHING NEW CRITERIA FOR ACCEPTABLE

KNOWLEDGE AND SETTING THE STANDARDS FOR NEW MODES

OF EXPLANATION

THUS THE MOST IMPORTANT CONTRIBUTION OF THE NEW

MECHANICAL PHILOSOPHY WAS A SET OF CRITERIA FOR

JUDGING WHAT CONSTITUTED ALEGITIMATE EXPLANATION:

IF THE EXPLANATION OF A PHENOMENON COULD BE CAST IN

TERMS OF THE SHAPE, SIZE, CONFIGURATION, OR MOTION OF

INERT, DEAD, AND PASSIVE MATTER, THEN IS WAS DEEMED A

LEGITIMATE EXPLANATION

ON THE OTHER HAND, EXPLANATIONS THAT WERE NOT

MECHANICAL -- LIKE ARISTOTELIAN FORMS AND HERMETIC

OCCULT POWERS -- WERE CONSIDERED SUSPECT

THE NEW EPISTEMOLOGY RESTED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT A

PICTUREABLE EXPLANATION WAS MORE CERTAIN THAN EITHER

THE 'SENSIBLE' EXPLANATION OF THE ARISTOTELIANS OR THE

'PSYCHIC' ANALOGIES OF THE MAGI

B. IN PRAISE OF NOVELTY

AGAINST THE BACKDROP OF HERMETICISM AND

ARISTOTELIANISM, THEMECHANICAL PHILOSOPHY REPRESENTS

A NEW SORT OF NATURAL PHILOSOPHY; JUST AS COPERNICUS

REPRESENTS A NEW SORT OF ASTRONOMY

IN FACT THE IDEA OF NEWNESS OR NOVELTY IS ONE OF THE

MOST STRIKING FEATURES OF EARLY MODERN SCIENCE

AND THIS OPENNESS TO THE NEW IS NOWHERE MORE EVIDENT

THAN IN THE TITLES OF SCIENTIFIC BOOKS

THERE IS THE 'NEW ASTRONOMY' OF KEPLER AND THE 'TWO

NEW SCIENCES' OF GALILEO

BOTH DESCARTES AND BACON CLAIMED TO HAVE COME UP

WITH A NEWMETHOD FOR DOING NATURAL PHILOSOPHY; AND

BACON EVEN ENTITLED HIS NEW SYSTEM THE 'NEW ORGANUM'

-- 'ORGANUM' BEING THE TITLE GIVEN TO ARISTOTLE'S

TREATISES ON LOGIC

AND OF COURSE THERE WERE SEVERAL TREATISES BY MANY

AUTHORS ON THE 'NEW STAR' OF 1572 AND AGAIN ON THE 'NEW

STAR' OF 1604

IN 1651 A JESUIT NAMED RICCIOLI PUBLISHED A WORK CALLED

THE 'NEWALMEGEST'

AND SEVERAL OF RICCIOLI'S FELLOW-JESUITS HAD PUBLISHED

WORKS ON THE 'NEW HEAVENS' A 'NEW METHOD' FOR

INVESTIGATING MAGNETISM, ON 'NEW STARS AND COMETS', ON

THE 'NEW ASTRONOMY' --INCLUDING A 'NEW DEMONSTRATION'

OF THE IMMOBILITY OF THE EARTH

THERE WERE EVEN TITLES PROCLAIMING A "NEW ASTROLOGY"

THROUGHOUT THE 17TH CENTURY THERE APPEARED BOOKS ON

A "NEW THEORY OF LIGHT," ON A "NEW THEORY OF VISION,"

AND ON A "NEW THEORY OF COMETS,"

THERE WERE TITLES PROCLAIMING A "NEW MEDICINE," A "NEW

SURGURY," AN A "NEW ANATOMY"

IN MATHEMATICS THERE WERE WORKS ON A "NEW ALGEBRA"

AND A "NEW TREATMENT OF CONIC SECTION"

THERE WAS ALSO A "NEW NATURAL HISTORY OF MEXICAN

PLANTS," "NEW EXPERIMENTS CONCERNING THE NATURE OF

VIPERS," A "NEW METHOD FOR CLASSIFYING PLANTS," A "NEW

THEORY OF THE EARTH"

AND IN TECHNOLOGY THERE WERE BOOKS ON "NEW

MACHINES," "NEW INSTRUMENTS," AND "NEW INVENTIONS"

THE LIST COULD BE EXTENDED ALMOST INDEFINITELY; IN FACT,

ONE HISTORIAN OF SCIENCE COMPILED A LIST OF OVER 150

WORKS -- ALL TREATING TOPICS IN SCIENCE, MEDICINE, OR

TECHNOLOGY -- WITH THE WORD 'NEW' IN THE TITLE

WHAT IS ESPECIALLY INTERESTING IS THAT ALMOST ALL OF

THESE WORKS DATE FROM AFTER 1550 AND THE VAST MAJORITY

OF THOSE FROMAFTER 1600

CLEARLY THERE IS AN ELEMENT OF FASHION IN HOW AUTHORS

CHOOSETITLES TO ADVERTISE THEIR BOOKS

BUT WHAT THIS TREND TOWARD THE USE OF 'NEW' IN TITLES

OF SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS SIGNIFIES IS NOT SIMPLY A

PASSING FADE, BUTA FUNDAMENTAL SHIFT IN THE VALUES AND

IDEALS OF THE SCIENTIFIC ENTERPRISE

GIVEN THE VENERATION IN WHICH HUMANIST SCHOLARS HELD

ANTIQUITY, THE SUDDEN EMERGENCE AND ACCEPTANCE OF

'THE NEW' INTHE TITLES OF BOOKS REPRESENTS A

REMARKABLE SHIFT IN SENSIBILITIES

AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME AS THE SUDDEN GROWTH IN THE USE

OF THEWORD 'NEW' IN BOOK TITLES, AUTHORS BEGAN

REFERRING TO THE 'NEWSCIENCE' OR 'NEW PHILOSOPHY'

WHAT WAS MEANT BY THIS VARIED CONSIDERABLY; BUT WHAT

SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN A CONSTANT FEATURE WAS THAT THIS

WAS NOT A PEJORATIVE LABEL

NOVELTY WAS NOT A BAD THING, INDEED IT SEEMS TO HAVE

BEEN A SIGN OF A VERY GOOD THING

NOW IF WE THINK ABOUT THE CHARATER OF MODERN SCIENCE

-- that is, science in the 20th century -- CERTAINLY ONE OF THE

MOST STRIKING ASPECTS IS THE OVERWHELMING PRESSURE

PLACED ON RESEARCHERS TO PRODUCE SOMETHING NEW

IN FACT, WE TEND TO THINK THAT IF IT IS NOT NEW, IT CANNOT

BE SCIENCE -- OR AT LEAST NOT GOOD SCIENCE

IN ALMOST ALL SCIENTIFIC FIELDS CHANGE IS RAPID, AND SO

WHAT IS NEWEST -- TECHNIQUES, DISCOVERIES, THEORIES, OR

WHAT HAVE YOU -- ISUNDERSTOOD TO BE THE BEST, THE MOST

ADVANCED, THE MOST ENCOMPASSING

INDEED, THE ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY

IS DESIGNED TO FASCILITE THE MOST RAPID DISSEMINATION OF

INFORMATION POSSIBLE SINCE THE NEWEST INFORMATION IS

THE MOST CRUCIAL

NOW THIS TREMENDOUS INSTITUTIONALIZED THRIST FOR

NOVELTY HADTO COME FROM SOMEWHERE; AND I THINK WE

BEGIN TO SEE THE EMERGENCE OF THIS IN THE LATE 16TH AND

ESPECIALLY IN THE EARLY 17TH CENTURIES

I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT THE OPENNESS OF THE 'NEW

SCIENCE' TO NOVELTY IS ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT

TRANSFORMATIONS IN THEVALUES AND IDEALS OF THE

SCIENTIFIC ENTERPRISE

WHAT EMERGES IS A SET OF VALUES, REINFORCED BY

INSTITUTIONAL AND SOCIAL STRUCTURES, THAT REWARD THE

NATURAL PHILOSOPHER FOR THE CREATION OF NEW

KNOWLEDGE

CONTRAST THE VALUES OF THE 'NEW SCIENCE' WITH THE

VALUES OF EITHER THE SCHOLASTIC OR THE HUMANIST

THE SCHOLASTIC ENTERPRISE WAS DEDICATED ALMOST

ECLUSIVELY TOMASTERING A CANON OF CLASSICAL TEXTS;

ANCIENT TEXTS; TEXTS THATHAD BEEN AROUND FOR A LONG

TIME

THE HUMANIST, WHILE DESPISING THE CORRUPTIONS

INTRIDUCED BY ILL-TRAINED SCHOLASTICS, ALSO SORT TO

RECOVER THE LOST WISDOM OF THE PAST

IN BOTH CASES, THE CENTRAL THRUST OF SCHOLARSHIP WAS

DIRECTED TOWARD THE PRESERVATION OF THE OLD AND NOT

THE GENERATION OF NOVELTY

C. A NEW PROGRAMME FOR THE 'NEW SCIENCE'

YET WE MUST BE CAREFUL WITH THE NOTION OF THE 'NEW

SCIENCE', FOR EVEN IN THE 17TH CENTURY IT WAS STILL A

QUITE DISPARATE ENTERPRISE

THE NEW SCIENCE CERTAINLY INCLUDED THE 'NEW

ASTRONOMY' BUT ITWAS NOT CLEAR IF THAT REFERRED TO THE

ASTRONOMY OF COPERNCIUS, TYCHO, OR KEPLER

BACON CALLS REPEATEDLY FOR A NEW NATURAL PHILOSOPHY

AND PRESENTS HIS NEW METHOD OF INVESTIGATION

YET THE SCIENCES HE HAS IN MIND IS NOT THE "NEW

ASTRONOMY" OF KEPLER OR THE "NEW MECHANICS" OF

GALILEO

GALILEO, ON THE OTHER HAND, STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE

"NEW ASTRONOMY" OF COPERNICUS BUT SEEMS TO HAVE

IGNORED THE "NEW ASTRONOMY" OF KEPLER

AND HE SEEMS NOT TO HAVE BEEN AWARE OF BACON'S "NEW

ORGANON"

NOW IT WOULD SEEM THAT THE ONLY THING ALL OF THESE

"NEW SCIENCES" SHARED WAS THEIR RELATIVELY RECENT

ORIGIN

BUT SINCE THEY LACKED ANY KIND OF CONCEPTUAL

COHESIVENESS, ITMAY SEEM DIFFICULT TO JUSTIFY CALLING

THEM PARTS OF THE SAME "NEW SCIENCE"

YET THERE IS ONE CHARACTERISTIC THAT IS COMMON TO EACH

OF THESE PARTS -- AND THAT IS A BROADLY EMPIRICAL

APPROACH

KEPLER'S THEORETICAL BREAKTHROUGH IN ASTRONOMY

DEPENDED IN A FUNDAMENTAL WAY ON TYCHO'S EXTENSIVE

OBSERVATIONAL RECORD

GALILEO, THOUGH NOT QUITE THE 'FATHER OF EXPERIMENTAL

PHYSICS'HE IS SOMETIME CLAIMED TO BE, NEVERTHELESS SAW

HOW EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE COULD BE USED RHETORICALLY

TO CONVINCEHIS AUDIENCE

FOR THE RATIONALIST DESCARTES, EXPERIMENT WAS TO BE

EMPLOYED AS A MEANS OF TESTING AND DECIDING AMONG

SEVERAL POSSIBLE MECHANICAL EXPLANATIONS

AND FOR BACON, EXPERIMENTAL, OBSERVATION, AND THE

GATHERING AND COLLECTING OF FACTS WERE TO FORM THE

BASIS OF HIS REFORM OFALL NATURAL PHILOSOPHY

EMPIRICAL EFFORT WAS THE KEY INGREDIENT IN HIS FORMULA

FOR THELABOR-INTENSIVE REDEMPTION OF MANKIND

NOW EVEN THOUGH 'EXPERIMENT' AND 'EMPIRICISM' MEANT

SOMETHING DIFFERENT FOR EACH OF THESE MEN, THEY ARE

ENOUGH ALIKE TO FORM A POSSIBLE UNIFYING FRAMEWORK

FOR ALL THESE VARIOUS AND DISCONNECTED ACTIVITIES

IT SEEMS THAT THE NOTION OF 'THE EXPERIMENTAL METHOD'

RENDERED ITS GREATEST SERVICE AS A BANNER UNDER WHICH

COULD BE UNITED A VARIETY OF DISTINCT ACTIVITIES

AND PROCLAIMING ADHERENCE TO THE "EMPIRICAL METHOD"

WAS A MEANS OF PROCLAIMING YOUR MEMBERSHIP IN THE

NASCENT SOCIAL GROUPINGS ASSOCIATED WITH THE NEW

SCIENCEIN OTHER WORDS, THE 'EXPERIMENTAL PHILOSOPHY' HELPED

DESIGNATE A NEW PROGRAM OF UTILITARIAN, PRACTICAL, COOPERATIVE,AND OFTEN 'ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT' SCIENTIFIC

PRACTICES