DOCSLIB.ORG

New Perspectives on Galileo the University of Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
New Perspectives on Galileo the University of Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science NEW PERSPECTIVES ON GALILEO THE UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO SERIES IN PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE A SERIES OF BOOKS ON PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE, METHODOLOGY, AND EPISTEMOLOGY PUBLISHED IN CONNECTION WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE PROGRAMME Managing Editor J. 1. LEACH Editorial Board J. BUB, R. E. BUTTS, W. HARPER, J. HINTIKKA, D. J. HOCKNEY, C. A. HOOKER, 1. NICHOLAS, G. PEARCE VOLUME 14 NEW PERSPECTIVES ON GALILEO Papers Deriving from and Related to a Workshop on Gali/eo held at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1975 Edited by ROBERT E. BUTTS Department of Philosophy, the University of Western Ontario, London, Canada and JOSEPH C. PITT Department of Philosophy and Religion, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A. D. REIDEL PUBLISHING COMPANY DORDRECHT : HOLLAND / BOSTON: U.S.A. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Main entry under title: New perspectives on Galileo. (The University of Western Ontario series in philosophy of science ; v. 14) Bibliography: p. Includes index. 1. S cience-Methodology -Congresses. 2. Science-Philosophy-Congresses. 3. Galilei, Galileo,1564-1642. I. Butts, Robert E. II. Pitt, JosephC. Q174.N48 509 /.2'4 77-17851 ISBN-I3: 978-90-277-0891-5 e-ISBN: 978-94-009-9799-8 DOl: 10.1007/978-94-009-9799-8 Published by D. Reidel Publishing Company, P.O. Box 17, Dordrecht, Holland Sold and distributed in the U.S.A., Canada, and Mexico by D. Reidel Publishing Company,lnc. Lincoln Building, 160 Old Derby Street, Hingham, Mass. 02043, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved Copyright © 1978 by D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland Softcover reprint ofthe hardcover I st Edition 1978 No part of the material protected by this copyright notice may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any informational storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the copyright owner TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE vii ROBERT E. BUTTS and JOSEPH C. PITT/Introduction ix WINIFRED LOVELL WISAN/Galileo's Scientific Method: a Reexamina ti on ROBER T E.BUTTS/Some Tactics in Galileo'~ Propaganda for the Mathematization of Scientific Experience 59 WILLIAM A. WALLACE/Galileo Galilei and the Doctores Parisienses 87 WILLIAM R. SHEA!Descartes as Critic of Galileo 139 PETER MACHAMER/Galileo and the Causes 161 JOSEPH C. PITT/Galileo: Causation and the Use of Geometry 181 H. E. LE GRAND/Galileo's Matter Theory 197 ERNAN McMuLLIN/The Conception of Science in Galileo's Work 209 INDEX 259 PREFACE The essays in this volume (except for the contribution of Dr. Le Grand) are extremely revised versions of papers originally delivered at a workshop on Galileo held in Blacksburg, Virginia in October, 1975. The meeting was organized by Professor Joseph Pitt and sponsored by the Department of Philosophy and Religion, The College of Arts and Sciences, and the Division of Research of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. The papers that follow deal with problems OIf Galileo's philosophy of science, specific and general problems connected with his methodology, and with historical and conceptual questions concerning the relationship of his work to that of contemporaries and both earlier and later scientists. New perspectives take many forms. In this book the 'newness' has, for the most part, two forms. First, in the papers by Wisan, Shea, Le Grand and Wallace (the concerns will also appear in some of the other contributions), greatly enriched historical discoveries of how Galileo's science and its method­ ology developed are provided. It should be stressed that these papers are attempts to recapture a deep sense of the kind of science Galileo was creating. Other papers in the volume, for example, those by McMullin, Machamer, Butts and Pitt, underscore the importance of this historical venture by discussing various aspects of the philosophical background of Galileo's thought. The historical and philosophical evaluations and analyses compliment one another. We think it important that they should - Galileo's thOUght was much too complex, much too original and much too dependent upon earlier modes of enquiry to make the task of reconstructing his philosophy of science easy. No catalogue of historical details will do that task; nor will a systematic presenta­ tion by philosophers of the 'logic' of his methodology. The authors of the following essays remain faithful to the ambiguity that was characteristic of Galileo's work as a productive scientist. In this way they manage to instruct us best in the many dimensions of one of the seminal persons involved in creating modern science. All too frequently philosophers and historians are inclined to go their separate ways. It is our hope that the present volume will vii viii PREFACE be seen as a good example of what can be done in the difficult job of building a crossroad. This volume would not have been possible without the extraordinary cooperation of the authors of the papers, many of whom commented on and criticized portions of the papers of others involved in the workshop. The workshop itself was only possible because of the considerable support offered by Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University through the good offices of Associate Dean of Research for Arts and Sciences Thomas Gilmer, Dean of the Research Division Randal M. Robertson, and Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences William C. Havard. We thank them for that support. May, 1977 THE EDITORS INTRODUCTION The now classical works of Koyre and Crombie, works different in philosoph­ ical and historiographical approaches, provoked new scholarly interest in Galileo's science. The motivations of their work were, however, very similar. Both wanted a more detailed lq10wledge of Galileo's actual achievements in positive science, both sought to understand the contribution to scientific methodology generated by this major figure participating in 'the scientific revolution,' and both, by means of novel insights and conceptual combina­ tions of historical and philosophical materials in ways undreamed of by earlier scholars, introduced a whole new dimension to thought about science that can be called the 'metaphysics of science.' Students of the scientific revolution and the work of Galileo fully realize the importance of the contributions made by these two men. The point is that no one could have forecast the impact that their work - and that of others - would have on our attempt to understand the beginnings of modern ~cience. At the present writing, there is probably no issue that receives greater attention in thought about science than the attempt to understand scientific change, scientific progress, and like concepts. That attention, moreover, is beginning completely to overshadow interests that were once dominant, for example, problems of confirmation in science, the status of hypothetico-deductive explanation, or the 'meaning' of hypothetical constructs having to do with the empirically unobservable. We can of course mention others whose keen historical or philosophical sense has led us to think new thoughts and envision new possibilities: Kuhn and Burtt are only two. But this 'Introduction' is not the place to rehearse, even in a summary, the major eontributions that have been and are now changing the character of history of science and philosophy of science. How­ ever, it does suit the purposes of this volume to indicate that the present scholarly forms of interest in the science of Galileo exist in an enriched con­ text of a fairly widespread exploration of just those dimensions of Calileo's career exposed in an exciting way by Koyre and Crombie. In this connection it does seem appropriate to name some names (with apologies to those ix x INTRODUCTION neglected for reasons of space or because of simple oversight). There are three groups of contributors to mention. No one will deny that many of the most important studies of Galileo's positive scientific discoveries have been made by Stillman Drake. Equally important work has been done by William Shea, E. J. Aiton, A. Rupert Hall, Thomas B. Settle, and others. For many of these scholars the question of why Galileo accepted the conclusions he did transforms a reporting of what he actually says he did into an attempt to comprehend the methodology he is reputedly so famous for having developed. One important aspect of this methodological concern has to do with experiments and what Galileo thought they accomplished. It is one thing to ask whether or not he dropped the steel ball from the Tower of Pisa; it is quite another to ask why he would have thought it important to do so just in case he ever did. Drake has made meticu­ lous studies of the materials which appear to show that Galileo actually did perform experiments, others, for example, Settle, have tried to reproduce what they think must have been Galileo's experiments. Galileo's 'experimental method' is obviously an important feature of his science. Important as this method is, however, discussions of what experi­ ments he attempted and how he apparently construed the reputed results, do not rule out what are probably deeper considerations of method - considera­ tions we are quite prepared to call 'philosophical.' Just as questions of what actually was discovered blend into questions about what the discoveries mean, so questions about what the discoveries might mean blend into questions about how the discoverer conceived the universe in the very construction of his questions. This very complex blend of methodological and 'metaphysical' questions constitutes the third dimension of contemporary interest in the accomplishments of GalileD'. Indeed, it would be our contention that more important work has been offered in this area than in any other. We have mentioned the classical 20th-century thinkers who have contributed memoirs on the frontier of methodology-metaphysics.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Galileo's Assayer
    University of Nevada, Reno Galileo's Assayer: Sense and Reason in the Epistemic Balance A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in History. by James A Smith Dr. Bruce Moran/Thesis Advisor May 2018 c by James A Smith 2018 All Rights Reserved THE GRADUATE SCHOOL We recommend that the thesis prepared under our supervision by JAMES A. SMITH entitled Galileo's Assayer: Sense and Reason in the Epistemic Balance be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Bruce Moran, Ph.D., Advisor Edward Schoolman, Ph.D., Committee Member Carlos Mariscal, Ph.D., Committee Member Stanislav Jabuka, Ph.D., Graduate School Representative David W. Zeh, Ph.D., Dean, Graduate School May, 2018 i Abstract Galileo's The Assayer, published in 1623, represents a turning point in Galileo's philo- sophical work. A highly polemical \scientific manifesto," The Assayer was written after his astronomical discoveries of the moons of Jupiter and sunspots on a rotating sun, but before his mature Copernican work on the chief world systems (Ptolemaic versus Copernican). The Assayer included major claims regarding the place of math- ematics in natural philosophy and how the objects of the world and their properties can be known. It's in The Assayer that Galileo wades into the discussion about the ultimate constituents of matter and light, namely, unobservable particles and atoms. Galileo stressed the equal roles that the senses and reason served in the discovery of knowledge, in contradistinction to Aristotelian authoritarian dogma that he found to hinder the processes of discovery and knowledge acquisition.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Infinite in Leibniz's Philosophy
    On the Infinite in Leibniz's Philosophy Elad Lison Interdisciplinary Studies Unit Science, Technology and Society Ph.D. Thesis Submitted to the Senate of Bar-Ilan University Ramat-Gan, Israel August 2010 This work was carried out under the supervision of Dr. Ohad Nachtomy (Department of Philosophy), Bar-Ilan University. Contents א.……………………………….…………………………………………Hebrew Abstract Prologue…………………………………………………………...………………………1 Part A: Historic Survey Methodological Introduction…………………………………………………………..15 1. Aristotle: Potential Infinite………………………………………………………….16 2. Thomas Aquinas: God and the Infinite………………………………………..…….27 3. William of Ockham: Syncategorematic and Actual Infinite……………………..….32 4. Rabbi Abraham Cohen Herrera: Between Absolute Unity and Unbounded Multitude………………………………………………………………………..….42 5. Galileo Galilei: Continuum Constructed from Infinite Zero's………………………49 6. René Descartes: Infinite as Indefinite…………………………………………….…58 7. Pierre Gassendi: Rejection of the Infinite…………………………………………...69 8. Baruch Spinoza: Infinite Unity…………………………………………………...…73 9. General Background: Leibniz and the History of the Infinite……………………....81 Summary…………………………………………………………………………….…94 Part B: Mathematics Introduction…………………………………………………………………………….99 1. 'De Arte Combinatoria' as a Formal Basis for Thought: Retrospective on Leibniz's 1666 Dissertation………………………………………………………………....102 2. Leibniz and the Infinitesimal Calculus……………………………………….……111 2.1. Mathematical Background: Mathematical Works in 16th-17th Centuries…..111 2.2. Leibniz's Mathematical Development…………………………………….…127
    [Show full text]
  • A New Vision of the Senses in the Work of Galileo Galilei
    Perception, 2008, volume 37, pages 1312 ^ 1340 doi:10.1068/p6011 Galileo's eye: A new vision of the senses in the work of Galileo Galilei Marco Piccolino Dipartimento di Biologia, Universita© di Ferrara, I 44100 Ferrara, Italy; e-mail: [email protected] Nicholas J Wade University of Dundee, Dundee DD1 4HN, Scotland, UK Received 4 December 2007 Abstract. Reflections on the senses, and particularly on vision, permeate the writings of Galileo Galilei, one of the main protagonists of the scientific revolution. This aspect of his work has received scant attention by historians, in spite of its importance for his achievements in astron- omy, and also for the significance in the innovative scientific methodology he fostered. Galileo's vision pursued a different path from the main stream of the then contemporary studies in the field; these were concerned with the dioptrics and anatomy of the eye, as elaborated mainly by Johannes Kepler and Christoph Scheiner. Galileo was more concerned with the phenomenology rather than with the mechanisms of the visual process. His general interest in the senses was psychological and philosophical; it reflected the fallacies and limits of the senses and the ways in which scientific knowledge of the world could be gathered from potentially deceptive appearances. Galileo's innovative conception of the relation between the senses and external reality contrasted with the classical tradition dominated by Aristotle; it paved the way for the modern understanding of sensory processing, culminating two centuries later in Johannes Mu« ller's elaboration of the doctrine of specific nerve energies and in Helmholtz's general theory of perception.
    [Show full text]
  • Galileo Galilei by Beatrix Mccrea Galileo Galilei Was an Italian Physicist, Engineer, and Astronomer Bestknown for Disc
    3/24/2019 Galileo Galilei - Google Docs Galileo Galilei By Beatrix McCrea Galileo Galilei was an Italian physicist, engineer, and astronomer best­known for discovering the four largest moons on Jupiter and his theory of gravity. His theory of gravity stated that if a bowling ball and a feather dropped at the same time in space they would land at the same time. He also invented the thermometer and an astronomical telescope. Galileo Galilei was born to Vincenzo Galilei and Giulia Ammanniti in Piza, Italy on February 15, 1564. He was the first of six children. There were two things that happened which led Galileo to find that he loved math and science. On The Famous People the text states “the first incident happened in 1581 when he first noticed that a chandelier despite swinging in small and large arcs took almost the same time to return to the first position.” The other incident was when he accidentally attended a geometry lecture. Both these incidents made Galileo find his love for science. Galileo discovered the four largest moons on Jupiter. On Biography.com it says Galileo Galilei was best known for discovering Jupiter and it’s four biggest moons. The names were Io, Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto. They were discovered by Galileo in January of 1610. Galileo used a better version of the telescope that made him made to see the four moons. Galileo Galilei had a very popular theory of gravity, that if there was no air resistance (like in space) you would drop a bowling ball and a feather and they would land at the exact same time.
    [Show full text]
  • If You Were Not Here Last Week... Please Come to The
    http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo IF YOU WERE NOT HERE LAST WEEK... PLEASE COME TO THE FRONT OF THE CLASS AND SEE PROF. COTTON. http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” --Arthur C. Clarke, "Profiles of The Future", 1961 (Clarke's third law) English physicist & science fiction author (1917 – 2008) “The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go.” --Galileo Galilei “By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox.” --Galileo Galilei http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo The Scientific Method (continued) Supplementary Material for CFB3333/PHY3333 Professors John Cotton and Stephen Sekula January 23, 2012 Based on the following information on the web: http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/SciMeth http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo But first . some MAGIC! http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudoAA roundround ofof applauseapplause forfor .. .. .. SCALISE,SCALISE, ILIL MAGNIFICO!MAGNIFICO! Wonder at his powers of levitation! Gasp as he commands the elements of nature! http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo GLOSSARY OF CRITICAL DEFINITIONS http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo FACT ● The National Academy of Sciences definition of fact: ● An observation that has been repeatedly confrmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as true. "In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms." --Stephen Jay Gould EXAMPLE: At Standard Temperature and Pressure, lead is more dense than water.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond Aristotle: Indivisibles and Infinite Divisibility in the Later Middle Ages
    BEYOND ARISTOTLE: INDIVISIBLES AND INFINITE DIVISIBILITY IN THE LATER MIDDLE AGES John E. Murdoch The basic text for late medieval Latin atomism and its critics was Aristotle’s Physics, especially Book VI. Here the atoms or indivisibles he considered and combatted were extensionless, a conception that can be found in scholastic debate about atoms all the way to Galileo and his atomi non quanti.1 The medieval atomists were clustered in the fourteenth-century,2 as were their Aristotelian critics. Figure 1 provides the basic dramatis personae of the fourteenth-century atomists and their critics. The list of atomists is nearly complete, save for the followers of Wyclif. The list of their critics is naturally less complete, being made up of chiefl y those who name their atomist opponents. Yet even without such identifi cation, we can often tell other critics, such as John Buridan and his school, because they oppose specifi c identifi able atomist arguments. The question of the motives for the late medieval atomism is pretty murky. The motives for Greek atomism are, at least to some extent, an answer to Parmenides’s monism and center in attempts to explain natural phenomena (if not always totally successfully). Equally clear are the motives for the Arabic atomism of the Mutakallimun: namely, to put all causal relations into the hands of God through the mechanism of the doctrine of continuous creation. However, in the case of late medieval atomism there is not such a wholesale application to nature or to a God who creates the universe anew at every instant.
    [Show full text]
  • NY 9.09D the Scientific Revolution
    1. 3 One way in which the contributions of Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton are similar is that each 1. challenged the heliocentric theory of the universe 2. based his work on Enlightenment principles of social contract 3. practiced observation and experimentation in his work 4. supported the work of the Inquisition 2. 4 Base your answer to the question on the time line below and on your knowledge of social studies. Which historical period is most closely associated with these achievements? 1. Pax Romana 2. Age of Alexander the Great 3. European Middle Ages 4. Scientific Revolution 3. 3 Galileo Galilei and Sir Issac Newton are most closely associated with 1. initiating religious reforms 2. leading political revolutions 3. conducting investigative experiments 4. engaging in foreign conquests 4. 4 Base your answer to the question on the illustration below and on your knowledge of social studies. Which individual supported the theory represented in this illustration? 1.Socrates 3.Dante 2.Ptolemy 4.Galileo 5. 1 Vasco da Gama discovered an all-water route from Europe to India. Ferdinand Magellan’s crew circumnavigated the globe. Isaac Newton defined the forces of gravity. These events relate most directly to 1. revised understandings of natural surroundings 2. questioning the benefits of the mercantile system 3. increased suspicion between different religions 4. development of new manufacturing techniques 6. 2 Which pair of ideas were central to the Scientific Revolution? 1. social stability and economic self-sufficiency 2. observation and experimentation 3. technology and military expansion 4. scarcity and interdependence 7. 2 Which statement about the Scientific Revolution in Europe is accurate? 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Galileo's Construction of Idealized Fall in the Void
    Hist. Sci., xliii (2005) GALILEO’S CONSTRUCTION OF IDEALIZED FALL IN THE VOID Paolo Palmieri University of Pittsburgh 1. INTRODUCTION How did Galileo achieve his mathematical natural philosophy? How did he discover the times-squared law, the pendulum isochronism, the parabolic trajectory of projec- tiles — by experiment or by mathematical reasoning? Questions like these have long divided scholars into two camps: the advocates of experiment and the advocates of geometry. Is there an alternative to the two horns of this dilemma? I am convinced that there is indeed a viable alternative. Before substantiating my claim, however, I need to sketch the essential elements characterizing the division. I will do so through the exemplar case which is central to my study here. In 1604 Galileo wrote a letter to Paolo Sarpi, in which he put forward an “errone- ous” principle from which he claimed that he could derive the times-squared law of fall. The principle is as follows: the ratio of the speeds of fall is the same as the ratio of the spaces fallen through. In referring to that “erroneous” principle, Alexandre Koyré argues that Galileo already knew all the details concerning the phenomenon of fall, such as the sameness of ratios between the spaces traversed and the squares of the elapsed times (on sameness of ratios more below, in Section 3).1 What Galileo had long wanted to discover, in Koyré’s view, was a general principle from which he could deduce the law of fall geometrically. In other words, Koyré continues, Galileo sought to fi nd the essence, i.e., the defi nition, or law, of the phenomenon “fall of bodies”.
    [Show full text]
  • History of Science Meets History of Art on Galileo's Telescope: an Integrated Approach for Science Education
    History of science meets history of art on Galileo's telescope: An integrated approach for science education Margarita-Ana Vázquez-Manassero1 Maria-Antonia Manassero-Mas2 and Ángel Vázquez-Alonso3 1Autonomous University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain ([email protected]) 2University of the Balearic Islands, Palma de Mallorca, Spain ([email protected]) 3University of the Balearic Islands, Palma de Mallorca, Spain ([email protected]) Corresponding author: Ángel Vázquez-Alonso Universidad de las Islas Baleares, Edificio Guillem Cifre de Colonya Carretera de Valldemossa, km. 7.5 07122 - PALMA DE MALLORCA, España T. +34 971 17 30 75 FAX 34 971 17 31 90 BES-2013-062631 funded by the Spanish State Research Agency and the European Regional Development Fund. HAR2016-78098-P (AEI / FEDER, UE), funded by the State Research Agency (Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness) and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). EDU2015-64642-R (AEI/FEDER, UE) funded by the Spanish State Research Agency and the European Regional Development Fund. Summary An interdisciplinary approach to science education through history of art is proposed. The approach is innovative, as the artworks complement the history, philosophy and sociology of science contents to increase students’ interest and motivation. The approach integrates humanities and science education through history of art, which requests interdisciplinary cooperation of the teachers of the school subjects involved with historical curriculum contents. The approach is elaborated through the case of Galileo's telescope, which provides specific features on the relationships between science and technology (scientific instrumentation applied to generate knowledge), nature of science, and science-technology-society relationships, where history and art meet each other.
    [Show full text]
  • Galileo Galilei and the Scientific Revolution Ashley Leidal Junior
    Galileo Galilei and the Scientific Revolution Ashley Leidal Junior Division Historical Paper Paper Length: 2,104 Words Overview Before Galileo Galilei was born in 1564, most people believed in old theories from the Greek scientists and philosophers, like Aristotle, that were based on common sense. Even though over time these theories were proved to be incorrect and flawed, people believed in them at the time. Galileo’s greatest triumphs were his discoveries that many of the old theories were inaccurate. He tested and altered them and made his own theories that he proved with experimentation. Tragically, the Catholic Church did not approve of his theories and beliefs because they thought that they contradicted the Bible. He spent his last years under house arrest, but many of his discoveries and theories were proven correct are still used today. Early Astronomy and Science in the Renaissance The Earth-centered model of the solar system was first developed by the Greeks. Later, a man named Claudius Ptolemy developed a more refined model of the solar system building on the ideas of the Greeks.¹ His model was highly regarded and became the model for understanding and presenting the known solar system with the Earth at the center. The Ptolemaic model was not challenged for over 1,300 years.² In 1543, the Ptolemaic model was challenged for the first time by a man named Nicolaus Copernicus.³ Copernicus was born in 1473 in Poland.⁴ He went to school and studied math and astronomy. He is known for introducing the idea of a Sun-centered solar system.
    [Show full text]
  • Galileo and Aristotle's Wheel
    Journal of Humanistic Mathematics Volume 4 | Issue 1 January 2014 Galileo and Aristotle's Wheel Olympia Nicodemi SUNY Geneseo Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.claremont.edu/jhm Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons, and the Mathematics Commons Recommended Citation Nicodemi, O. "Galileo and Aristotle's Wheel," Journal of Humanistic Mathematics, Volume 4 Issue 1 (January 2014), pages 2-15. DOI: 10.5642/jhummath.201401.03 . Available at: https://scholarship.claremont.edu/jhm/vol4/iss1/3 ©2014 by the authors. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License. JHM is an open access bi-annual journal sponsored by the Claremont Center for the Mathematical Sciences and published by the Claremont Colleges Library | ISSN 2159-8118 | http://scholarship.claremont.edu/jhm/ The editorial staff of JHM works hard to make sure the scholarship disseminated in JHM is accurate and upholds professional ethical guidelines. However the views and opinions expressed in each published manuscript belong exclusively to the individual contributor(s). The publisher and the editors do not endorse or accept responsibility for them. See https://scholarship.claremont.edu/jhm/policies.html for more information. Galileo and Aristotle's Wheel Olympia Nicodemi Department of Mathematics, SUNY Geneseo, Geneseo, NY 14454 [email protected] Abstract At the beginning of his last major work, Galileo tackles an old paradox, Aristotle's Wheel, in order to produce a model of the continuum that explains (at least to him) how line segments of different length could be put into a one-to-one correspondence. His argument seems like a playful digression. However, it is precisely this type of a one-to-one correspondence that he needs to support his work on free fall.
    [Show full text]
  • SYLLABUS for ENGR 490 - Global Experiences in Engineering
    SYLLABUS for ENGR 490 - Global Experiences in Engineering 1. Instructor: David H. Allen, Ph.D., P.E. Dean University of Nebraska-Lincoln College of Engineering 114 OTHM Lincoln, NE 68588-0642 (402)472-7071 [email protected] 2. Bulletin Listing: ENGR 490 Global Experiences in Engineering (1-3 cr*, max 12) Fld. Prereq: Permission, Choice of subject matter and coordination of on-and off- campus activites are at the discretion of the instructor. Pass/No Pass only. Individual or group education experience combining classroom lectures, discussions, and/or seminars with field and/or classroom studies in a foreign country. *Note: a minimum of 3 semester credit hours is required for ACE Outcome #9 credit 3. Course Prerequisites: Freshman or above status 4. Course Overview This course fulfills UNL Achievement Centered Education (ACE) Outcome 9: Exhibiting global awareness or knowledge of human diversity through analysis of an issue. To achieve this Outcome of global awareness and knowledge of human diversity, students will analyze engineering aspects within “Country” they visit through course preparation and cultural immersion. • Course Preparation o History – gain a brief understanding of scientific, technological, political, social, and economic history of the Country o Current – impact understanding of how cultural and engineering significances impact the global society today o Future – Understand where engineering is going, and how the country and you are interrelated. • Cultural Immersion and Engineering Analysis o Gain awareness of the culture and discover how the culture could affect the engineering discipline o Engage in a new language on a basic level o Connect what it means to be a global engineer 3.
    [Show full text]