Two Jesuit Responses to Galileo’s Science of Motion: Honore Fabri and Pierre le Cazre

Palmerino, Carla Rita

doi:10.1007/978-94-017-0361-1_4

Cited by 14 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Later Jesuits were involved in controversies with Galileo about heliocentrism, as for instance Christoph Scheiner (1575-1650) who argued that the sunspots were satellites revolving around the Sun. The reception of Galileo's thought is symptomatic of the Jesuit twofold strategy of dealing with his scientific novelties: Galileo's science of motion, developed in the Discorsi, is "domesticated" within a broader tradition of questions on natural philosophy, while at the same time, the results of the Discorsi are divorced from the Copernican cosmology of the Dialogo (Raphael 2017; see also Palmerino 2003). More generally, the Jesuits' reaction to Galileo are representative of the difficulties of reconciliating the ambition to remain at the cutting edge of the science of the day with the necessity of maintaining the Aristotelian framework, and most of all, the disciplinary divisions between physics, mathematics, and metaphysics.…”

Section: Three Waves Of Jesuit Philosophymentioning

confidence: 99%

Jesuit Philosophy

Anfray¹,

Schmutz²

2020

Encyclopedia of Early Modern Philosophy and the Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Three Waves Of Jesuit Philosophymentioning

confidence: 99%

Jesuit Philosophy

Anfray¹,

Schmutz²

2020

Encyclopedia of Early Modern Philosophy and the Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This debate has been discussed in detail by numerous authors; seeClark (1963),Drake (1975b),Galluzzi (2001), andPalmerino (2002Palmerino ( , 2004.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

How Galileo dropped the ball and Fermat picked it up

Roberts

2009

Synthese

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. This paper introduces a little-known episode in the history of physics, in which a mathematical proof by Pierre Fermat vindicated Galileo's characterization of freefall. The first part of the paper reviews the historical context leading up to Fermat's proof. The second part illustrates how a physical and a mathematical insight enabled Fermat's result, and that a simple modification would satisfy any of Fermat's critics. The result is an illustration of how a purely theoretical argument can settle an apparently empirical debate.

show abstract

“…2 This aspect of Fabri's thought has been relatively extensively researched. See, for instance,Drake 1974, Drake 1975a, Drake 1975b, Lukens 1979, Palmerino 2003 In theorem 62 of the first book of Fabri's Tractatus physicus de motu locali (1646) he explains that a force applied on a leaden ball will move it slower than the same force applied to a much lighter ivory ball (with the same diameter) because of some "laziness of matter" (inertia materiae) which inhibits motion: "sit globus plumbeus 12 librarum, sit eburneus eiusdem diametri 2 librarum, v.g. haud dubie eadem potentia producet intensiorem impetum in eburneo, ut patet experientia, & ratio constat ex dictis; quasi vero sit aliqua materiae inertia, quae motum respuat"(Fabri 1646, 40).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Honoré Fabri and the Trojan Horse of Inertia

Elazar

2008

Sci Context

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ArgumentThis paper discusses the theory of motion of the philosopher Honoré Fabri (1608–1688), a senior representative of early modern Jesuit scientists. It argues that the consensus prevailing among historians – according to which Fabri's theory of impetus is diametrically opposed to Galileo's or Descartes' concept of inertia – is false. It shows: that Fabri carefully constructed his concept of impetus in order to easily incorporate the principle of linear conservation of motion (designated here as “limited inertia”), by adopting formal (rather than efficient) causality between impetus and motion and by allowing impetus to act only along straight lines; that he explicitly deemed Aristotle's famous “inertial paradox” not as a paradox at all; and that linear conservation of motion was not limited to “counterfactual” circumstances but played a significant part in his discrete theory of free fall and constituted an integral component of his general physical (and even mathematical) philosophy. However, the paper also shows that Fabri's notion of inertia was restricted to one dimension only, and therefore should indeed be considered “limited.” In his analysis of horizontal projectiles, Fabri explicitly rejected Galileo's important principle of superposition, and thus revealed significant constraints to his “inertial” thinking.

show abstract

Two Jesuit Responses to Galileo’s Science of Motion: Honore Fabri and Pierre le Cazre

Cited by 14 publications

References 22 publications

Jesuit Philosophy

Jesuit Philosophy

How Galileo dropped the ball and Fermat picked it up

Honoré Fabri and the Trojan Horse of Inertia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About