The Scientific Achievement of the Middle Ages

Dales, Richard C.

doi:10.9783/9780812292282

Cited by 29 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…According to R.C. Dales, in this treatise, written shortly after 1220, the main features of Grosseteste's scientific method are clearly in evidence, so that it strongly differentiates from similar works of the twelfth century [6]. Let us note that in this and in several other treatises written by Grosseteste, there is a constant referring to experiments.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 81%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Robert Grosseteste and the Four Elements

Sparavigna¹

2013

ijSciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:De Impressionibus Elementorum is a treatise written by Robert Grosseteste, English scientist and philosopher, shortly after 1220 AD. In this treatise we can find a discussion of some phenomena involving the four classical elements (air, water, fire and earth), in the framework of an Aristotelian physics of the atmosphere. For its referring to experiments, this treatise strongly differentiates from similar previous works. Moreover, it contains some descriptions of phase transitions which are rather interesting, in particular when Grosseteste is discussing of bubbles.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 81%

“…Here, there is not this sentence: it means that the treatise was written before 1235, in fact shortly after 1220 [6].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Robert Grosseteste and the Four Elements

Sparavigna¹

2013

ijSciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another metaphysical presupposition of Descartes' theory was that the law of refraction was due to light traveling faster in a denser medium (e.g. water) than it does in air (Dales, 1973). (Many have puzzled over the consistency of this presupposition with Descartes' assumption that the speed of light is not finite!)…”

Section: Reflections and Refractions On Explanatory Perspectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Realism and Explanatory Perspectives

Saatsi¹

2019

Understanding Perspectivism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter defends a (minimal) realist conception of progress in scientific understanding in the face of the ubiquitous plurality of perspectives in science. The argument turns on the counterfactual-dependence framework of explanation and understanding, which is illustrated and evidenced with reference to different explanations of the rainbow. 1. Introduction A realist portrayal of science should accommodate the fact that science describes the world from numerous 'perspectives'. The nature of these perspectives and their interrelationships have for long been the bread and butter of history and philosophy of science. Realists continue grappling with challenges arising from the contingencies of grand theoretical perspectives (or 'paradigms') and the ever-increasing plurality of models used for predicting and explaining various phenomena. These challenges turn on the inconsistencies that science seems to harbor, threatening the realist credo that science successfully works by virtue of 'getting things right about the world'. A natural realist hope is that these inconsistencies can be accommodated through an apt notion of 'perspective', which is compatible with the basic realist credo. What notion of 'scientific perspective' should realism incorporate then? Answering this question helps with understanding scientific realism, and it is further instigated by recently developed perspectivist foils to more traditional realism by Ronald Giere, Paul Teller, and Michela Massimi. 3 These self-proclaimed 'perspectival realists' have developed and defended views about the perspectival nature of scientific knowledge that put emphasis on it "being situated" in historical and modelling contexts (Massimi 2018b, 164). Thus, perspectivists characterize scientific knowledge as "the inevitable product of the historical period to which those scientific representations, modeling practices, data gathering, and scientific theories belong," and as being embedded in "a prevailing cultural tradition in which those scientific representations, modeling practices, data gathering, and scientific theories were formulated." (ibid.) I am doubtful that realist's optimism and commitment towards scientific progress and theorizing (especially in the fundamental sciences) are best captured in terms of scientific knowledge. Articulating a different vision for realism is a book-length project. The limited aim of this chapter is to present an alternative, realist-friendly notion of scientific perspective that does not concern knowledge. In particular, I wish to focus on (what I call) 'explanatory perspectives' in relation to a (minimally) realist commitment to accumulating scientific understanding. Shifting the 1 Forthcoming in M. Massimi and C.D. McCoy (eds.), Understanding Perspectivism: Scientific Challenges and Methodological Prospects, Routledge. 2 I would like to thank Callum Duguid, Steven French, Kareem Khalifa, Rob Knowles, Michela Massimi, and Alice Murphy for very helpful comments on an earlier draft.

show abstract

“…Discussion Other published translations of De Calore Solis are at [14,16,17]. In the first part of this treatise, Grosseteste is talking of the phenomenon of disgregation, "disgregatio" in the Latin text, as the source of heat.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%