The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science

by Edwin Arthur Burtt

Book Overview

This classic in the philosophy of science describes and analyzes the profound change from the philosophy of the Middle Ages to the modern view of humanity's less central place in the universe. It... This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Mass Market Paperback
• ISBN: B002JARXL8
• Release Date: January 1954
• Publisher: Doubleday Anchor
• Weight: 0.45 lbs.

Customer Reviews

What it really means to be modern!

Page 238 of this book will always be memorable to me. Like a "stretto" in a final fugue, all relevant themes for a proper understanding of what it really means to be "modern", carefully laid out across the book by following the vision of Galileo, Descartes, and Boyle (and to a lesser degree, Hobbes, More and Barrow) collapse, as it needs to be, in the towering figure of Sir Isaac Newton. For to me it was just like this: an instant flash, in which I could "see" just at once, what it means, and the wonder of being, modern. In sum, a revelation! So, if you really want, without prejudices, to really understand, or even "face" this problem, this is THE book to read.

Superb

A superb account of the development of the physical model of the Universe culminating in the Newtonian framework. What sets this book apart from others is how Burtt attacks the interplay between the philosophical, social, and religious worldviews characteristics of the time period. Burtt overthrows some of the conceptions still held today that the religious paradigm was the overrdiding impediment to the acceptance of the Copernican framework among the scientific community. Burtt demonstrates how the scientific community of the time had no need to revise the epicycles and deferrents of the ptolemaic scheme. It was only through the argument of greater simplicity and the appeal to the neo-platonic mathematical ideals that it became more widely accepted. A must read for any student of science interested in the complex interplay of ideas that eventually led to the rationale for and acceptance of Newtonian mechanics and the resulting metaphysical framework.

Clear, focused and enlightening, even 80+ years after it was written.

I'm usually disappointed in books on the philosophy of science written by theologians, but this one is a refreshing, delightful and informative exception. It has taken me a week of focused study to read and absorb, so it's definitely not a light, quick read. But it is very clearly and thoughtfully written, and I can't recommend it strongly enough for the reader who seeks to understand where the basic concepts of classical Newtonian physics came from, what they replaced, and how they fit together.

A Must Read for Philosophy of Science

I can only second Bob Meyer's excellent review. I found this book fascinating and informative, and likely overlooked. I recommend it highly.

The Classic Work on the Foundations of Science

Many books that were well received when originally published ultimately fail the test of time and seem hopelessly outdated, or even silly to future generations. Occasionally, a book seen as a solid effort when it was written is found later to be the definitive work on the subject. The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science by Edwin Arthur Burtt is such a book. Burtt investigates the origins of the modern scientific world view, a view that today appears to be ancient but is, in fact, only a few centuries old. The concepts that we use to describe the modern world -- mass, velocity, energy, time etc -- form the substratum of so many modern ideas that their very ubiquity has made it hard to imagine that any other view ever existed. With these ideas woven into all of our thought how does one separate these ideas from all others in order to better appreciate and understand them? Burtt attacks this problem by tracing the evolution of modern scientific concepts from their origins in Copernicus and Kepler through to their highest development in Isaac Newton. It may come as a surprise that Copernicus and Kepler were not motivated by empirical evidence. In fact, the empirical evidence was stacked against their view that the sun, not the earth, was at the center of the planetary system. Anyone could see how solid the earth felt and how steady it was. If it were moving then its motion could be felt. The idea that something as large and solid as the earth could be flung through space was obviously ridiculous. Nor were they motivated by a desire for greater accuracy since the Ptolemaic system that they would soon replace was every bit as accurate as their sun centered system with regards to predicting eclipses and positions of the planets in the sky. Their motivation was essentially a desire for a mathematically elegant way to express planetary motion, a simpler way that could reduce the dozens of epicycles to a comparatively small number of circles. For these men, mathematics was not the key to nature, mathematics was nature and the simpler mathematical expressions that they found were true because nature was parsimonious and would not accomplish by complicated means (the epicycles) what could be accomplished more simply with circular orbits. A mathematical nature would reduce the phenomena much as a mathematician would reduce complex equations to a smaller number of simple equations. Kepler's shock upon discovering that the planets did not orbit in circles, but in ellipses was genuine. The smooth constant motion of the planets was thought by Kepler to reflect the constancy of God himself. Only when Kepler discovered that equal areas were swept out by the planets in equal times was his faith restored in the mathematical universe that was held together by God. In Galileo we see the beginnings of dualism. On one hand Galileo the empiricist laughs at his colleagues who refuse to look through his telescope and see the evidence of moons orbiting