You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Newton’s Methodology and Mercury’s Perihelion Before and After Einstein
Philosophy of Science
Vol. 74, No. 5, Proceedings of the 2006 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science AssociationPart I: Contributed PapersEdited by Cristina Bicchieri and Jason Alexander (December 2007), pp. 932-942
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/525634
Page Count: 11
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Planetary orbits, Phenomena, Sun, Precession, Perihelions, Planets, Kinetics, Gravitation theory, Newtons method, Lunar orbits
Were these topics helpful?See something inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
Newton’s methodology is significantly richer than the hypothetico‐deductive model. It is informed by a richer ideal of empirical success that requires not just accurate prediction but also accurate measurement of parameters by the predicted phenomena. It accepts theory‐mediated measurements and theoretical propositions as guides to research. All of these enrichments are exemplified in the classical response to Mercury’s perihelion problem. Contrary to Kuhn, Newton’s method endorses the radical transition from his theory to Einstein’s. The richer themes of Newton’s method are strikingly realized in a challenge to general relativity from a new problem posed by Mercury’s perihelion.
Copyright 2007 by the Philosophy of Science Association. All rights reserved.