Regula Socratis
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
REGULA SOCRATIS: THE REDISCOVERY OF ANCIENT INDUCTION IN EARLY MODERN ENGLAND A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY AND THE COMMITTEE ON GRADUATE STUDIES OF STANFORD UNIVERSITY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY John P. McCaskey April '(() © Copyright by John P. McCaskey '(() All Rights Reserved ii I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. ——————————————————— Paula Findlen, Principal Adviser I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. ——————————————————— Jessica Riskin I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. ——————————————————— James G. Lennox Approved for the University Committee on Graduate Studies iii Abstract The influence of Sir Francis Bacon on early modern science is widely recognized. His ideas regarding the utility of knowledge, value of observation, and benefits of cooperative research were widely adopted in the seventeenth century. But Bacon believed his chief contribution to the reform of knowledge was not these, but rather his proposal for a new kind of inductive reasoning. His theory of induction, however, is generally not thought to have had significant direct influence on subsequent developments in science. I argue in this dissertation, based on close reading of the relevant texts, that the conventional assessment is hampered by an inadequate understanding of Baconian induction, and that this misunderstanding can be corrected by considering Bacon’s proposal in the historical context in which it was presented. Bacon’s treatise on induction, the Novum Organum , was meant as an alternative to Aristotle’s Organon . The dissertation therefore begins by examining Aristotle’s views on induction. I propose a significant revision to the received interpretation of Aristotle’s position. I then argue that my interpretation was conventional until late antiquity when it was altered by Neoplatonic writers. The dissertation traces the transmission of the Neoplatonic interpretation through the major Islamic and Latin commentators. During the Renaissance, some humanist iv scholars realized that the scholastic interpretation of induction differed from that common in antiquity, and a debate ensued about its nature. One chapter here examines the contributions to that debate by four late sixteenth-century thinkers, Jacopo Zabarella, Everard Digby, William Temple, and John Case. Bacon’s proposal for a new kind of induction is then examined in the context of the contemporary and historical background. I argue that although Bacon’s theory of induction is more systematic than any that had gone before, it was in a sense a return to induction as it was understood in antiquity. In the final chapter, I argue that the work of William Harvey and Robert Boyle were good examples of Baconian induction in practice. I conclude that Bacon’s induction, and not only his general vision for reform, was well understood and in fact used by important seventeenth century scientists. v Acknowledgements It is right that the last words written on this project should appear not at the end but at the beginning. Only in hindsight can one fully appreciate the help that others have given—how an early comment yielded late dividends, how mistakes and misdirections that could have been embarrassing were corrected with timeliness and grace, how someone doing a job better than it needed to be done saved months of research, how daily enthusiasm and support made a long-term difference. Considering the project from this vantage point, it is clear that thanking those who have helped is a matter of urgency. My first thanks must go to my principal adviser for the last five years, Paula Findlen. She is a professional of range and depth, discipline and empathy, perspective and flexibility. I am fortunate to have been the beneficiary of her unbounded generosity and goodwill, her wide-ranging knowledge, and her sensitivities to the business of getting through graduate school. Thanks also to Jessica Riskin. I have particularly valued her talent for asking small questions that uncover big issues. She constantly got me to consider perspectives that I would have—and should not have—overlooked. I must also thank her for introducing me to Francis Bacon. Special thanks go to Jim Lennox of the University of Pittsburgh. His willingness to be an active participant in the education of a graduate student at vi a university far away has gone well beyond professional courtesy. I thank him not only personally but also on behalf of Stanford University and the Department of History. Jim’s mentoring has been invaluable. By being a role model for what an historian and philosopher of science can be, he has left me permanently changed. I extend a hearty thanks to all three of my readers. It has been an honor and a privilege to have worked with them. I was blessed with the opportunity to study for a semester in the University of Pittsburgh’s Department of History and Philosophy of Science. I thank all those there—especially the chairman at the time, John Norton—for their hospitality. My thanks to Allan Gotthelf and Greg Salmieri, also now at the University of Pittsburgh, for their help and guidance with my study of Aristotle. A special thanks to Harry Binswanger of the Ayn Rand Institute. His enthusiasm for this project has been a constant source of encouragement. The ability and willingness of Lynn Kaiser and Linda Huynh to keep me on the road, help me over speed bumps, and get me around obstacles is greatly appreciated as is the assistance and courtesies I have received from rare-book librarians at the Huntington Library, Stanford University, University of Cambridge, the University of Oxford, the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Yale University, Claremont Colleges, the University of Texas at Austin, and Bryn Athyn College. Loving thanks go to my wife, Char. Since she first stoked my interest in history years ago, Char’s enthusiasm for my study in the field has been unwavering. I particularly appreciate the support she gave me when writing of the dissertation vii must have appeared oddly bereft of any actual writing and was taking longer than I suggested it might. Char constantly inspired me to keep the pace and has been understanding when that required time apart. That time apart has been one unenjoyable part of the project. viii Notes on Typography, Translations, and Terminology This project relies heavily on a close, careful, and contextualized reading of texts, and presentation of its argument demands typographical care. American style guidelines allow the use of quotation marks and italics for multiple purposes, and following these guidelines can lead to important and misleading ambiguities. Consequently, the following practices have been adopted. Besides the names of journal articles and book sections, double quotation marks are used only for verbatim excerpts or translations thereof. All double- quoted material has its source cited. Citations are primarily to original publications, rather than later collected editions, especially in the case of books published in England before BC((, as these are now readily available on-line. 1 Translators and alterations of translations are identified in footnotes. Original-language source material is reproduced in footnotes, except for Greek passages from Aristotle and Plato for which Greek texts are readily available, for Arabic passages, and for a few other passages. Bekker numbers are provided for Aristotelian passages, Stephanus numbers for Plato. With Aristotle and Plato, I have taken the liberty of using 1 Early English Books Online , http://eebo.chadwyck.com. ix different translations for different passages, choosing the one I believe presents the relevant idea most clearly for a given context. Single quotation marks are used for terms or phrases that have a technical or distinctive use by an author or authors but for which no specific passage is being cited. For example, Digby deduced his conclusion from a ‘clear and distinct’ idea. Bacon discussed four types of ‘idols.’ In such uses, the marks indicate that the author under discussion is using the term (or the term from which the quoted term is a translation) in a distinctive way, not that I am. I do not introduce any scare quotes (single or double) of my own. Single quotation marks are also used for definitions (unless being quoted verbatim from a cited dictionary or a cited author). For example, The term came to mean ‘the essence of.’ In these, cases, the definitions are my own. (If not, they are set in double quotation marks and cited.) Single quotations marks are also used for quotations within quotations, according to standard practice. Italics are used when a word or phrase is functioning as a term or concept. We seek to understand what is meant by induction . This may be read We seek to understand what is meant by the term induction . or We seek to understand what is meant by the concept induction . x When both italics and single quotations marks could be justified by these rules, only the italics will be used. Cicero used the term inductio for Aristotle’s epagōgē. Italics are also used occasionally for emphasis and, of course, for book titles. Non-English words are not by virtue of being non-English typographically distinguished, but are frequently set in single quotation marks for reasons above. For example For Nifo, induction is a manner of speaking (oratio). A principle true per se is also true de omni. but Bacon surveyed four types of ‘idols,’ or ‘idola.’ Aristotle believed the ‘archai’ of science are developed from experience.