On the Jesuit Edition of Newton’s Principia. Science and Advanced Researches in the Western Civilization

Bussotti, Paolo; Pisano, Raffaele

doi:10.4236/ahs.2014.31005

Cited by 14 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 113 publications

(64 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The development of this new way of thinking about physics brought welldefined reflexes in the construction of machinery, in technical improvements, in geographic discoveries, in the capitalist economy. The Principia were both a foundational and innovative work (Bussotti & Pisano, 2014). The French considered Newton a hero because he established that the movement of the planets obeyed the same terrestrial laws in enunciating the law of universal gravitation and because England was known as the place of freedom of thought, according to Hankins (1985).…”

Section: First Hypothesis: the Newtonianismmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Kuhnian Analysis of Why, even after Euler’s Contributions, the Fundamental Principle of Motion is still “Newton’s Second Law”

Sitko

Silva

2021

Acta Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The F = ma principle was produced by Euler, between 1752 and 1776, and not by Newton in 1687, as is usually brought up in the physics manuals. It took over sixty years of conceptual and mathematical developments to develop this fundamental principle of mechanics. Still, after all this time, the principle continues to be called “Newton’s law”. Objectives: This paper seeks to discuss the possible reasons that led to the omission of Euler’s contributions to the elaboration of the fundamental principle of mechanics. Design: The study fits as documentary analysis, followed by a philosophical analysis of the researched material. Data collection and analysis: Historical research was carried out, using primary and secondary sources, regarding the reasons that led to such omission. After that, four main hypotheses were listed. Thomas Kuhn’s philosophical structure was applied to these hypotheses to support the explanation of the historical omission. Results: From the Kuhnian analysis, the Newtonian paradigm was presented and discussed, of which the principle formulated by Euler is part. Conclusions: The principle remains “Newton’s,” due to being within the Newtonian paradigm; and the conclusion that the principle ought to remain Newtonian matches the image of science within the baselines of the field of science teaching.

show abstract

Section: First Hypothesis: the Newtonianismmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Principia were a theoretical work. However, as Bussotti and Pisano (2014) stressed, Newton always mentioned the practical importance of his elaborations.…”

Section: First Hypothesis: the Newtonianismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Kuhnian Analysis of Why, even after Euler’s Contributions, the Fundamental Principle of Motion is still “Newton’s Second Law”

Sitko

Silva

2021

Acta Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The knoweledge of various methods could help them in their possible research activity, too. In contrast to this, the general knoweledge how Newton used mathematics in his Principia is a problem that goes beyond the cultural and theoretical horizon of the university students and that can be perhaps proposed to the PhD students in history of mathematics or of physics, but that is still a subject of reserach (as to this, see Bussotti-Pisano 2013a, Bussotti-Pisano 2013b.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Possible Role for History of Mathematics and Science in Mathematics and Science Education

Bussotti¹

2013

JBSE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

My research fields are history of mathematics and science, mainly physics and astronomy. I have also published some works on mathematics and physics education (as to these works see Bussotti 2012a; Bussotti 2012b; Pisano-Bussotti, 2012; Bussotti 2013). I have often wondered which role history of science can have inside science education, basically referring to high school and university students. This subject dates back at least at the second half of the 19th century when an important debate took place in Europe as to the most appropriate manner to teach Euclidean geometry. There were various positions: scholars who thought Euclid (fl. 300 BC) had to be completely abandoned, others who believed that the Elements had to be almost literally taught and, between these two opposite extreme opinions, a series of intermediate ones existed (for this problems see Bussotti, 2012a, where a series of references is presented, too). The discussion on the role of history of science/mathematics inside science/mathematics teaching is hence a long period debate and I have no pretension to provide an answer, but only to point out some questions and to develop a reasoning around them.

show abstract

Historical and Methodological Details on the De Motu Gravium Naturaliter Descendentium in Torricelli’s Opera Gometrica (1644)

Pisano,

Bussotti

2024

Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On the Jesuit Edition of Newton’s Principia. Science and Advanced Researches in the Western Civilization

Cited by 14 publications

References 113 publications

Kuhnian Analysis of Why, even after Euler’s Contributions, the Fundamental Principle of Motion is still “Newton’s Second Law”

Kuhnian Analysis of Why, even after Euler’s Contributions, the Fundamental Principle of Motion is still “Newton’s Second Law”

A Possible Role for History of Mathematics and Science in Mathematics and Science Education

Historical and Methodological Details on the De Motu Gravium Naturaliter Descendentium in Torricelli’s Opera Gometrica (1644)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About