Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T10:57:53.680Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inferences from Phenomena in Gravitational Physics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

William Harper and
Robert Disalle
William Harper
Affiliation:
University of Western Ontario
Robert Disalle
Affiliation:
University of Western Ontario
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Newton's methodology emphasized propositions “inferred from phenomena.” These rest on systematic dependencies that make phenomena measure theoretical parameters. We consider the inferences supporting Newton's inductive argument that gravitation is proportional to inertial mass. We argue that the support provided by these systematic dependencies is much stronger than that provided by bootstrap confirmation; this kind of support thus avoids some of the major objections against bootstrapping. Finally we examine how contemporary testing of equivalence principles exemplifies this Newtonian methodological theme.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

†

This paper has benefitted from useful criticism of an earlier draft by Alan Hajek, Peter Vanderschraaf, and James Woodward.

‡

Department of Philosophy, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario Canada N6A 3K7.

References

Braginsky, V. B. and Panov, V. I. (1972), “Verification of the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass”, Soviet Physics JETP 34: 463–466.Google Scholar
Christensen, D. (1983), “Glymour on Evidential Relevance”, Philosophy of Science 50: 471–481.10.1086/289130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, D. (1990), “The Irrelevance of Bootstrapping”, Philosophy of Science 57: 644–662.Google Scholar
Damour, T. (1995), “Was Einstein 100% Right?”, in Proceedings of the Seventh Marcel Grossmann Conference on General Relativity and Gravitation (in press).Google Scholar
Dicke, R. H. (1964), The Theoretical Significance of Experimental Relativity. New York: Gordon and Breach.Google Scholar
Dickey, et al. (1994), “Lunar Laser Ranging: A Continuing Legacy of the Apollo Program”, Science, Vol. 265, 482–490.Google Scholar
DiSalle, R., Harper, W. L., and Valluri, S. R. (1994), “Reasoning from Phenomena in General Relativity.” Proceedings of the Fifth Canadian Conference on General Relativity and Relativistic Astrophysics, pp. 209–214. World Scientific.Google Scholar
DiSalle, R. W. L. (1995). “Empirical Success and General Relativity”, in Proceedings of the 7th Marcel Grossman Conference on General Relativity and Gravitation (in press).Google Scholar
Drever, R. W. P. (1961), “A search for anisotropy of inertial mass using a free precession technique”, Philosophical Magazine 6: 683–687.10.1080/14786436108244418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earman, J. (ed.) (1983), Testing Scientific Theories. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. X. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Earman, J. and Glymour, C. (1988), “What Revisions Does Bootstrap Testing Need? A Reply”, Philosophy of Science 55: 260–264.10.1086/289431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forster, M. and Sober, E. (1994), “How to Tell When Simpler, More Unified, or Less Ad Hoc Theories Will Provide More Accurate Predictions”, in British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 45: 1–37.10.1093/bjps/45.1.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glymour, C. (1980a), Theory and Evidence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Glymour, C. (1980b), “Bootstraps and Probabilities”, Journal of Philosophy 77: 691–699.10.5840/jphil198077118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1989), Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Harper, W. L. (1991), “Newton's Classic Deductions from Phenomena”, PSA 1990, Vol. 2. East Lansing: The Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 183–196.Google Scholar
Harper, W. L. (1996), “Isaac Newton on Empirical Success and Scientific Method”, in Earman, J. and Norton, J. (eds.), The Cosmos of Science. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. (In press.)Google Scholar
Horwich, P. (1980), “The Dispensibility of Bootstrapping”, Journal of Philosophy 77:699–702.Google Scholar
Hughes, V. W., Robinson, H. G., and Beltran-Lopez, V. (1960), “Upper limit for the anisotropy of inertial mass from nuclear resonance experiments”, Physical Review Letters 4: 342–344.10.1103/PhysRevLett.4.342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huygens, C. (1968), The Pendulum Clock. Tr. R. J. Blackwell. Ames: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. (1962), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (2nd edition, 1970).Google Scholar
Newton, I. (1726), Principia mathematica philosophia naturalis. Third Edition. Tr. I.B. Cohen and A. Whitman. Forthcoming, University of California Press.Google Scholar
Nordtvedt, K. Jr.. (1968), “Testing relativity with laser ranging to the moon”, Physical Review 170: 1186–1187.10.1103/PhysRev.170.1186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roll, P. G., Krotkov, R., and Dicke, R. H. (1964), “The equivalence of inertial and passive gravitational mass”, Annals of Physics 26: 442–517.10.1016/0003-4916(64)90259-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Will, C. (1993), Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511564246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zytkow, J. (1986), “What Revisions Does Bootstrap Testing Need?”, Philosophy of Science 53: 101–109.10.1086/289294CrossRefGoogle Scholar