the clock metaphor and probabilism

7/29/2019 The Clock Metaphor and Probabilism

1/33

This article was downloaded by: [Harvard College]On: 23 April 2013, At: 15:41Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Annals of SciencePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tasc20

The clock metaphor and probabilism:

The impact of Descartes on Englishmethodological thought, 165065Laurens Laudan M.A. Ph.D.

a

a

Department of History and Philosophy of Science, UniversityCollege, London, W.C.1

Version of record first published: 02 Jun 2006.

To cite this article: Laurens Laudan M.A. Ph.D. (1966): The clock metaphor and probabilism: Theimpact of Descartes on English methodological thought, 165065, Annals of Science, 22:2, 73-104

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00033796600203065

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00033796600203065http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tasc20


2/33

A N N A L S O F S C I E N C EA QU ARTERLY REV I EW O F THE HI S TORY OF

S C IE N C E A N D T E C H N O L O G Y S IN C E T H E R E N A I S S A N C EVoL. 22 June, 1966 No . 2

(Publ i shed November , 1966)

T H E C L O C K M E T A P H O R A N D P I% O B A BI LI SM :T H E I M P A C T O F D E S C A I % T E S O N

E N G L I S H M E T H O D O L O G I C A L T H O U G H T , 1 65 0-6 5B y LAURENS LAUI)AN, M.A., P~ .D .*

H I S T O R I A N S ha ve ne v e r be e n a b l e t o c om e t o a ny v e r y s a t i s f a c t o r yc onc lu s ions a bo u t t he i n fl uenc e o f De s c a r t e s on s e ve n t e e n t h - c e n t u r yE ng l is h though t . Un t i l ve r y r e c e n t l y , i t wa s t hough t t h a t h i s i m pa c t w a ss l igh t , s ign i f ican t - - i f a t Ml - -on ly in theo logy . In the l a s t s evera l yea r s ,howe ver , h i s to r ians of sc ience hav e de tec ted C ar tes ian s t r a ins in Engl i shmechanics , op t ic s and phy s io log y da t ing f rom th e 1650s. 1 Gradu a l ly ,the re fore , the r ea l and subs ta n t ia l r o le of Desca r tes i s coming to bemore fu l ly apprec ia ted . Ho we ver , th e r e i s s t il l one aspec t o f Engl i shphi losophico- sc ien t i fi c thoug ht where Desc a r tes ' pos i t ive imp ac t i s tho ugh tto b e negl igible, viz., with r espec t to theor ies o f sc ien t if i c me th od . Indee d ,m os t h i s to r i a ns w ho ha v e de a l t w i t h t he de ve l opm e n t o f s ci e nt if ic m e t hodi n B r i t a i n ha ve w r i t t e n a s i f t he s e ve n t e e n t h c e n t u r y c ou l d be unde r s t oods imply as a se r ie s o f foo tn otes to , and com men ta r ie s on , Ba con ' s Nov umOrganum. No t on l y is s e ve n t e e n t h - c e n t u r y E ng l i sh ph i l o s ophy o f s c ie nc es a i d t o be B a c on i a n , i t i s e qua l l y t hough t t o r e p r e s e n t a v i o l e n t r e a c t i ona ga i n s t t he a priori Car tes ian m ode l o f sc ience , wi th i t s empha s i s on

* D e p a r t m e n t o f H i s t o r y a n d P h i l o s o p h y o f S c ie n c e, U n i v e r s i t y C o ll eg e , L o n d o n , W . C . 1 .T h e a u t h o r i s g r a t e f u l t o t h e U . S . N a t i o n a l S c ie n c e F o u n d a t i o n f o r f i n a n c ia l s u p p o r t , a n dt o t h e R o y a l S o c i e t y o f L o n d o n f o r a c c es s t o i t s a r c h i v e s a n d f o r p e r m i s s i o n t o q u o t e f r o mm a t e r i a l o f w h i c h c o p y r i g h t r e m a i n s t h e p r o p e r t y o f t h e S o ci e ty .

1 A m o n g t h e m o r e i m p o r t a n t a c c o u n t s o f C a r t e s i a n i n f l u e n c e s i n B r i t a i n , s e e : M .N i e o l s o n, ' T h e E a r l y S t a g e o f C a r t e s i a n i s m i n E n g l a n d ' , Studies in Philology, 1929, 26,3 5 6 - 3 7 4 ; J . S a v e s on , ' D e s c a r t e s ' I n f l u e n c e o n J o h n S m i t h , C a m b r i d g e P l a t o n i s t ' , J. Hist .Ideas, 1 95 9 , ~ 0 , 2 5 5 - 2 6 3 ; S . L a m p r e c h t , ' T h e R o l e o f D e s c a r t e s i n 1 7 t h C e n t u r y E n g l a n d ' ,Studies in the History of Ideas, B o u l d e r , C o l o r a d o , 1 9 3 5 ; E . B u r t t , Metaphysical Foundationsof Modern Science, N e w Y o r k , 1 93 2, passim; a n d M a r i e B o a s [ H a l l ] , ' T h e E s t a b l i s h m e n t o ft h e M e c h a n i c a l P h i l o s o p h y ', Osiris, 1 9 52 , 1 0 , 4 1 2 - 5 4 1 . F r o m t h e p o i n t o f v i e w o f t h i sp a p e r , t h e a r t i c le b y M r s . H a l l i s p a r t i c u l a r l y v a l u a b l e i n e x h i b i t i n g D e s c a r t e s ' i n f l u e n c e o nE n g l i s h t h eo r i es o f m a t t e r , a t t r a c t i o n a n d p n e u m a t i c s .

Ann . o f S~ i . ~Vol . 22, :No. 2. e


3/33

74 L a u r e n s L a u d a n ona l l -e m b r a c i n g s y s t e m s . T h e s e t w o f a c t o rs , v e n e r a t i o n fo r B a c o n a n ds c o r n f o r D e s c a r te s , a r e a l le g e d l y t h e m a j o r s t im u l i f o r E n g l i sh w r i t in g so n m e t h o d f r o m H o b b e s t o N e w t o n . B u t a p a r t f r o m it s a lr e a d y s u sp i ci ou st id i n e s s a n d s i m p l ic i ty , t h i s a c c o u n t h a s s o m e p r o f o u n d l y d i s q u i e t in gf e a t u r e s, n o t l e a s t o f w h i c h is th e f a c t t h a t m a n y E n g l i s h s c i e n ti s ts a n dm e t h o d o l o g i s t s o f t h i s p e r i o d w e r e a s v o c a l i n t h e i r e s t e e m f o r D e s c a r t e sa s i n t h e i r i d o l a t r y f o r B a c o n ; i n d e e d , m a n y p r a i s e d D e s c a r t e s m o r el a v i s h ly t h a n B a c o n . M o r e s i g ni fi c a nt , h o w e v e r , t h a n s u c h p o m p o u sd e f e r e n c e , s e v e r a l n a t u r a l p h i l o s o p h e r s s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e i r a c c o u n t s o fs c ie n ti fi c m e t h o d w e r e d e r i v e d f ro m , a n d p e r f e c t l y c o m p a t i b l e w i t h ,D e s c a r t e s ' v i e w s o n t h e s u b j e c t . U n l e s s s u c h s c ie n t i s t s w e r e s e r i o u s l ym i s le d , w e m u s t c r i ti c a ll y r e - e x a m i n e t h e v i e w o f m o d e r n s c h o l a r s l ik eR . F . J o n e s w h o i n s is t t h a t D e s c a r t e s ' m e t h o d o l o g i c a l i d e a s h a d n e g l ig i b lei m p a c t c o m p a r e d w i t h B a c o n ' s . ~ T h e r e a r e , o f c o ur s e , w e l l -e s ta b l is h e dp r e c e d e n t s f o r J o n e s ' s c la im . T h e e x p e r i m e n t a l t e n o r o f t h e e a r ly R o y a lS o c i e t y a n d i ts a l m o s t p a th o l o g i c a l a v e r s io n t o h y p o t h e t i c a l s y s t e m -b u i l d in g s e e m t o b e s y m p t o m s o f a l a t e n t , b u t w e l l - e n t r e n c h e d , a n t i-C a r t e si a n is m . F u r t h e r m o r e , T h o m a s S p r a t , i n h is i n f lu e n t i a l History ofthe Royal Society (1 66 7), e x t o l s th e v i r t u e s o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l p h i l o s o p h ya n d b a r e l y m e n t i o n s D e s c a r te s , e x c e p t a s a n e x a m p l e o f b a d p h y s i c s .T h i s a c c o u n t is f u r t h e r r e in f o r c e d b y t h e l ip - s er v ic e w h i c h m o s t B r i t i s hm e t h o d o l o g i st s p a i d t o B a c o n , c o n s t a n t l y s p e a k in g i n e x e m p l a r y t o n e s o f' t h e n o b l e V e r u l a m ' , ' o u r i l l u st ri o u s L o r d B a c o n ', e t c . B u t d e s p i t es u c h p l a u s ib l e p r e c e d e n t s , t h i s p i c t u r e o f B a c o n a s t h e s o le g u i d in g l i g h t

For example, Jone s asserts tha t ' Experi mentM philo sophy remains a thing dist inctfrom the mechanical [and hypothet ical] and Bacon, who was the chief sponsor of the former,far outweighs in importance Descartes, who lent his great influence to the l at t er . . . Needlessto say, the scientific mov emen t in England in the third quarter of the seven teenth cent ury . . was largely inspired by the great Chancellor [Bacon] . . . ' ( A n c i e n t s a n d M o d e r n s , St .Louis, 1961, p. 169). Else whe re he note s, ' it is a mist ak e to thilfl~ Carte sian ism inspir edthe scientific movement in England ' (ibid., p. 185). Jon es even goes so far as to suggestthat this period in English science should be cal led the ' Bacon-faced generat ion ' (ibid.,pp. 237 ft.).

F. W. Westaway, another wri ter who denies Descartes ' influence on English method-ology, asserts that ' Cartesianism took b ut sl ight hold in Englan d ' (Scient i f ic Method: I tsP h i l o s o p h y a n d P r a c ti s e, Lon don , 1919, p. 127). Wit h Boyle in particul ar, histori ans hav ebeen too quick to apply the :Baeonian label. Thus , Butterfield, in a long discussion ofBoyle's ideas, clings tenacio usly to the view tha t Boyle was a devo ut follower of Bacon,withou~ ever hint ing a bout a possible debt Boyle migh t owe to Descartes (cf . H.Butterfield, Origins o f Modern Sc ience , Lond on, 1957, pp. 130-38). Marie Boas [Hall],taking a similar l ine, argues th at Boyle 's c orpuscularism (and the methodol ogy whichsustains it ) was not derived fr om Descartes but was, rather, ' an independent developm entalong l ines suggested by Bacon ' (Osiris, 1952, 10~ p. 461): Recen tly, h owe ver , Mrs. I-Iallhas conceded that ' thou gh i t was Bacon w ho mainly inspired Boyle, he was influenced byDescartes as well ' (Rober t Boy le on l~atural Phi losoph y , Bloomington, Indiana, 1965, 63).


4/33

The Clock Metaphor and Probabilism 7 5o f B r i t is h p h i l o s o p h y o f s c ie n c e is t o o o n e - s i d e d a n d s e r i o u s ly o v e r -s im p l if ie s t h e d i v e r s i t y o f t h e o r ig i n s o f E n g l i s h m e t h o d o l o g y i n t h i sp e r i o d . W h i l e i t i s c e r t a i n l y t r u e t o s a y t h a t s u c h w r i t e r s g e n e r a l l ye n d o r s e d B a c o n i a n e x p e r i m e n t a li s m , 8 i t is n o t c o r r e c t t o t h i n k t h a t t h e ya ll a c c e p t e d h i s i n d u c t i v i s m a s w e l l. M a n y t h i n k e r s w e r e q u i t e s c e p t ic a la b o u t t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f d i s c o v e r i n g i n d u b i t a b l e s c ie n ti fi c p r i n c i p l e s b ya n y q u a s i -i n d u c t iv e p r o c es s . I n o p p o s i ti o n t o B a c o n , t h e y f r e el y a n de n t h u s i as t ic a l l y a c c e p t e d D e s c a r t e s ' s u g g e s ti o n t h a t t h e s c ie n t is t m u s t b ec o n t e n t w i t h h y p o t h e t i c a l p r i n c ip l e s a n d c o n j e c t u re s ra t h e r th a n t r u ea n d v a l id i n d u c ti o n s . D e s c a r t e s ' h y p o t h e t i c a l is m , w h e n b l e n d e d w i t hB a c o n i a n e x p e r i m e n t a l is m , b e c a m e ~ c o r n e rs t o n e o f t h e m e t h o d o l o g ie s o fs e v e r a l E n g l i s h p h i l o s o p h e r s, e s p e c i a l ly B o y l e , G l a n v i l l a n d L o c k e . I nt h e g e n e r a l e n t h u s ia s m f o r B a c o n , h o w e v e r , D e s c a r t e s ' c o n t r i b u t i o n s t oE n g l i sh m e t h o d o lo g i c a l t h o u g h t h a v e b e e n n e i t h e r d o c u m e n t e d n o rc a r e fu l ly a ss e ss e d. T h i s p a p e r i s n o t a n a t t e m p t t o d e n y B a c o n ' s re a lc o n t r i b u t i o n s b u t s e e k s r a t h e r t o f o c u s a tt e n t i o n o n a n o t h e r e q u a l l yi m p o r t a n t s t i m u l a n t t o E n g l i s h p h i l o s o p h y o f s c ie n c e, D e s c a r t e s .

T h u s , I w i l l a r g u e , i n c o n t r a s t t o J o n e s a n d o t h e r w r i t e r s , t h a t m a n yo f t h e m a j o r B r i t is h m e t h o d o l o g i s t s d e r i v e d t h e i r p h i lo s o p h ie s o f s c i e n c ea s m u c h f r o m D e s c a r t e s a s f r o m B a c o n . I t f o ll o w s , a s a c o r o l l a r y t o t h is ,t h a t t h e y w e r e n e i th e r s o i n d u c t i v e n o r s o o p p o s e d t o s p e c u l a t io n a s h a so f t e n b e e n s u g g e s te d . I w i ll c l a im t h a t D e s c a r t e s ' m e t h o d o l o g y ( e s p e c ia l lyt h a t d e v e l o p e d in t h e l a t t e r h a l f o f t h e Principles) w a s a f e r t i l e s o u r c e f o rd i sc u s si o n s o f m e t h o d a m o n g t h e E n g l i sh t h in k e r s ; a n d e s p e c i a l ly t h a th i s v i e w o f t h e u n i v e r s e a s a ' m e c h a n i c a l e n g i n e ' o r c l o c k w h o s o i n t e r n a lp a r t s c a n o n l y b e c o n j e c t u r e d a b o u t s e r v e d a s a n i m p o r t a n t s t im u l u s f o rt h e E n g l is h w r i te r s o n m e t h o d . I n s u m , I w a n t t o i n v e s t ig a t e t h e e x t e n tt o w h i c h th e h y p o t h e t i c a l m e t h o d o f s e v e ra l s e v e n t e e n t h - c e n t u r y E n g l i s hs c i e n t is t s a n d p h i l o s o p h e r s i s d e r i v e d f r o m D e s c a r t e s ' v e r s i o n o f t h a tm e t h o d .

B e f o r e w e c a n u n d e r s t a n d t h e d e b t o f t h e E n g l i s h h y p o t h e t i e a li s t s t oD e s c a r t e s, w e m u s t c l a ri f y th e s e n se in w h i c h h i s m e t h o d o l o g y c a n b ec h a r a c t e r i z e d a s ' h y p o t h e t i c a l '. S u c h e m p h a s i s h a s b e e n p l a c e d o n t h ea prioristic m e t h o d , w h i c h h e e s p o u s e s i n th e Discourse on Method, t h a t i tm a y s e e m s t ra n g e t o s u g g e s t t h a t h e b e l i e v e d h y p o t h e s e s t o b e in d i sp e n s -

3 M o r e o f t e n t h a n n o t , i t w a s n o t e v e n Baconian e x p e r i m e n t a l i s m th a t w a s a p p l a u d e db u t s i m p l y e x p e r im e n t a l i s m . T h e w o r k o f s c h o la r s s u c h a s F . R . J o h n s o n (AstronomicalThought in Renaissance England, B a l t i m o r e , 1 93 7) m a k e s i t h i g h l y d o u b t f u l w h e t h e r t h ee x p e r i m e n t a l s p i r i t o f E n g l i s h s c ie n c e c a n b e a t t r i b u t e d t o B a c o n a t a ll . M a n y o f B a c o n ' sp r e d e c e s s o rs a n d c o n t e m p o r a r i e s ( e. g. H a r v e y a n d G i l be r t) w e r e a c c o m p l i s h e d e x p e ri -m e n t a l i s t s lo n g b e fo r e t h e a p p e a r a n c e o f t h e Novum Organum.


5/33

76 Laurens La uda n onable to science. ~ The m yt h th at Descartes was a rigid rationalist,consiste ntly opposed to all scientific conjecture, is now so widespread tha t,to counter-balance it, we must begin by summarizing briefly themethodolo gy which he develops in the Pr i nc i p l e s , and which is evenformulated in embryonic form in the Regu l ae , the Discourse , theM e d i t a t i o n s and the D i op t r i que . We must read the P r i n c i p l e s , as theEnglishmen of his time did, without bringing to it the prejudices thatcome from excessive pre-occupation with the a pr i or i sm of theM edi t a t i ons . (Equally, we must read it withou t forcing it into anachronouscategories such as ' rat iona lism ' or ' empiricism '. Such pigeon-holes,whimsical inventions of Enlightenment historians, viciously underminea n y a t t e m p t t o u n d e r s t a n d s e v e n t e e n t h - c e n t u r y s c i e n c e a n d p h i l o s o p h y . )The figures I will be discussing knew Descartes primarily th rou gh theP r i n c i p l e s 5 and it was thus natural for them to assume that he adopteda modest pose abou t th e possibility of certainty in science, rather tha nthe v ain and omniscient posture of the Discourse .Towards the end of the Fourth Part of the P r i n c i p l e s (1644),Descartes makes a surprising confession. After trying to deduce theparticular characteristics of chemical change from his first principles(i.e., ma tt er and motion), he concedes failure. His progr amme for thederivation of the phenomena of chemistry and physics from a pr i or itru ths remains uncompleted . His first principles are, he admits, simplytoo general to permit him to deduce statements from them about thespecific way particular chunks of matter behave under particularconditions. It is not tha t m att er behaves in violation of these firstprinciples; Descartes was too confident, and his principles too vague,for him to be forced to admi t that. But the very generality of hisprinciples made them practically useless for explaining and predictingparticular events. 6 Not content with leaving an ythin g unexplained,

4 : H i st o ri a n s a re g r a d u a l l y b e g i n n i n g t o r e c o g n i z e t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f D e s c a r t e s ' h y p o -t h e t i c a l m e t h o d a n d t h e f u n d a m e n t a l ro le i t p l a y e d i n h is p h i l o s o p h y o f s c ie n c e. E s p e c i a l l yu s e f u l i n t h i s r e g a r d a r e G . B u e h d a h l ' s d i s c u s s i o n s i n ' D e s c a r t e s ' A n t i c i p a t i o n o f a " L o g i c o fS c i e n ti f ic D i s c o v e r y " ' , S c i e n t i f i c C h a n g e ( ed . A . C . C r o m b i e ) , L o n d o n , 1 9 62 , p p . 3 9 9 - 4 1 7 , a n d' T h e l% e l ev a nc e o f D e s c a r t e s ' P h i l o s o p h y f o r M o d e r n P h i l o s o p h y o f S c i e n c e ', B r i t . J . H i s t .S c i . , 1 9 6 3, 1~ 2 2 7 - 2 4 9 . S e e a l s o R . B l a k e , ' T h e R o l e o f E x p e r i e n c e i n D e s c a r t e s ' T h e o r yo f M e t h o d ' , i n T h e o r i e s o f S c i e n t if i c M e t h o d ( e d. E . M a d d e n ) , S e a t t l e , 1 9 6 0 , p p . 7 5 - 1 0 3 .

5 A l t h o u g h a n E n g l i s h t r a n s l a t io n o f t h e D i s c o u r s e a p p e a r e d i n L o n d o n i n 1 6 4 9, i tsc i r c u la t i o n s e e m s t o h a v e b e e n q u i t e l i m i te d . A p p a r e n t l y D e s c a r t e s ' P a s s i o n s o f t he S o u lw a s w i d e l y c i r c u l a t e d i n B r i t a i n , b u t s i n c e i t h a s l it t le o f m e t h o d o l o g i c a l i n t e r e s t , w e s h a l ln e g l e c t i t i n o u r d i s c u s s i o n .

6 A s h e p u t i t i n t h e Dis cour s e : ' B u t I m u s t c o n f e s s a l so t h a t t h e p o w e r o f n a t u r e i s sov a s t a n d a m p l e , a n d t h e s e p ri n c ip l e s ar e s o s i m p l e a n d g e n e r al , t h a t I o b s e r v e d h a r d l y a n yp a r t i c u l a r e f f ec t c o n c e r n i n g w h i c h I c o u l d n o t a t o n c e r e co g n i ze t h a t i t m i g h t b e d e d u c e df r o m t h e p r i n ci p le s i n m a n y d i f fe r e n t w a y s a n d m y g r e a t e s t d i f f ic u l ty is u s u a l l y to d i s c o v e ri n w h i c h o f t h e s e w a y s t h e e ff e ct d o e s d e p e n d o n t h e m ' ( l~ ; D e s c a r t e s , P h i l o s o p h i c a lW o r k s , t r a n s . , I - Ia l d a n e a n d R o s s , N e w Y o r k , 1 9 31 , c o l. i , p . 1 2 1) .


6/33

The Clock Metaphor and Probabilism 77Descartes departed from his usual devotion to clear and distinct ideasand advo cated the use of inter medi ate theories (less general than thefirst principles, but more general than the phenomena), which weresufficiently explicit to pe rmit the e xplan ation of individual events andwhich were, at the same time, compatible with, but not deducible from,the first principles. Descartes recognized th at all such inte rmed iarytheories were necessarily hypo theti cal. Because they were not clearlyand di stinc tly perceived, it was possible th at they were wrong. After all,nature is describable in a wide variety of ways and the fact that anexpl anat ion worked was no proof th at it was true. He was a sufficientlysophisticated logician to realize th at ' one may deduce some very true andcertain conclusions from suppositions that are false or un ce rt ai n' /

Descartes goes on to suggest that we do not need assurances of truthin such matt ers. It will suffice if we can give an account of how natur emight behave, not necessarily how nature does behave . After all, his wasa corpuscular philosophy which sought to explain the macroscopic worldin terms of sub-microscopic particles. By definition, such particles wereunobservable and so any specific properties we attribute to them (e.g.,such-and-such a size, shape, and motion) can only be done tentativelyand with a clear appreciation of their hypothet ical character. We can,of course, be sure that they have some size, shape and motion (our firstprinciples guarantee that much), but we remain forever in doubt aboutthe particular properties t he y are given, s Descartes justifies this excur-sion into the hypothetical by means of a metaphor which was widelyexploited by later English writers who, as eorpuscularians like Descartes,wan ted some rational apology for thei r use of hypotheses. He suggeststhat we imagine the world on the analogy of a watch, whose face isvisible but whose inter nal constr uction is forever excluded from view. Insuch a case, the most we can say about the mechanisms of the watch isconject ural opinion, not infallible knowledge. We canpropose mechanis msfor how the internal parts of the watch might be arranged, thoug h we cannever, ex hypothesis, get inside to see if we are right. Because the watchmight be constructed in any number of ways, it is sufficient if we outlinesome possible arra ngement which would account for its external behaviour(e.g., hand s moving, cuckoos calling and bells chiming). In th e same way,the physicist has honoured his commitments so long as the mechanismshe proposes are compatible with the phenomena at hand. To ask for moreth an this is to misunde rstand the limitations on the physicist. Thepassage itself reads as follows:'It may be retorted to this that, although I may have imagined

R. Descartes, Oeu v r e s (ed. Adam an d Tann ery) , Pa ri s 1897-1957, vol. ii, p. 199.s, I frankly confess that concerning corporeal things, I kn ow only this: that they can

be divided, sh aped a nd mo ved in all sorts of ways . . . ' ( i b i d . , vol, ix, p. 102).


7/33

7 8 L a u r e n s L a u d a n o nc a u s e s c a p a b l e o f p r o d u c i n g e f f e ct s s i m i l a r t o t h o s e w e s e e, w e s h o u l dn o t c o n c lu d e f o r t h a t r e a s o n t h a t t h o s e w e s e e a r e p r o d u c e d b y t h e s ec a u s e s ; f o r j u s t a s a n i n d u s t r i o u s w a t c h - m a k e r m a y m a k e t w o w a t c h e sw h i c h k e e p t i m e e q u a l ly w e ll a n d w i t h o u t a n y d i ff e re n c e i n t h e i r e x t e r n a la p p e a r a n c e , y e t w i t h o u t a n y s i m i l a r it y in t h e c o m p o s i t io n o f t h e i rw h e e l s , so i t is c e r t a i n t h a t G o d w o r k s i n a n i n f i n i t y o f d i v e r s e w a y s[ e ac h o f w h i c h e n a b l es H i m t o m a k e e v e r y t h i n g a p p e a r i n t h e w o r l da s it d o es , w i t h o u t m a k i n g i t p o ss i bl e f o r t h e h u m a n m i n d t o k n o ww h i c h o f a l l t h e s e w a y s H e h a s d e c i d e d t o u se ] . A n d I b e l i e v e I s h a llh a v e d o n e e n o u g h i f t h e c a u s es t h a t I h a v e li s te d a r e s u c h t h a t t h ee f f e c ts t h e y m a y p r o d u c e a r e s i m i l a r t o t h o s e w e s e e i n th e w o r l d ,w i t h o u t b e i n g i n f o r m e d w h e t h e r t h e r e a r e o t h e r w a y s i n w h i c h t h e y a r ep r o d u c e d . '~

T h e c l o c k a n a l o g y i s n o t m e r e l y a n a f t e r t h o u g h t w h i c h D e s c a r te st h r e w i n t o i l lu s t r a t e h i s a r g u m e n t . R a t h e r , i t f o r m e d a n i n t e g r a l p a r to f h i s w a y o f l o o k i n g a t t h e w o r l d a n d t h e r o l e h e a s s ig n e d t o t h ec o r p u s c u l a r p h i l o s o p h y i n e x p l a i n i n g t h a t w o r l d . H e t e l ls u s t h a t m a c h i n e sl ik e t h e c l o ck s e r v e d a s m o d e l s f o r d e v e l o p i n g h i s m e c h a n i c a l a c c o u n t o fn a t u r e :

' A n d i n t h i s , th e e x a m p l e o f c e r t ai n t h in g s m a d e b y h u m a n a r t w a so f n o l i tt l e a s s i s ta n c e t o m e ; f o r I r e c o g n i z e n o d i f fe r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e s em a c h i n e s a n d n a tu r a l b o d i e s . . . '1T o u n d e r s t a n d t h e s i g n if ic a n c e o f t h e c l o c k a n a l o g y a n d w h y i t l e d

D e s c a r t e s t o a d v o c a t e a h y p o t h e t i c a l m e t h o d , w e m u s t l o o k c a r e fu l l ya t hi s a c c o u n t o f s c ie n t i fi c k n o w l e d g e . T h o u g h h e f r e q u e n t l y s p e a k s o fd e d u c i n g t h e f a c t s o f p h y s i c s f r o m h i s fi r st p r in c i p l e s , n h e n e v e r o f f e r sa n y d e d u c t i o n w h i c h d o e s in f a c t e x h a u s t i v e l y o r u n i q u e l y e x p l a i n s o m ep a r t i c u l a r i n t e r m s o f t h e s e v e r y g e n e r a l p r in c i p le s . W e n e e d m a n y o t h e ra s s u m p t i o n s t o e x p la i n w h y o b s e r v a b l e b o d ie s b e h a v e t h e w a y t h e y d o ,a n d t h e s e a s s u m p t i o n s c a n n o t a ll b e d e r i v e d f r o m t h e f i rs t p r i n c i p le s .W h e n e v e r D e s c a r t e s a c t u a l ly t r i e s to d e d u c e o p t ic a l a n d m e c h a n i c a lp h e n o m e n a f r o m t h e f i rs t p r i n c i p le s , h e p e r s i s t e n t l y f ai ls a n d m u s t f a llb a c k o n a v a r i e t y o f h y p o t h e t i c a l a s su m p t i o n s . N o r s h o u l d w e b e s t a r t l e dt o f in d t h a t t h e m a t t e r - i n - m o t i o n p a r a d i g m i s t o o c o m p r e s s e d t o e n a b l eu s t o e x p l a i n p a r t i c u l a r e v e n t s . A f t e r al l , e v e r y b o d y h a s m a t t e r a n dm o t i o n , b u t o n l y s o m e a r e lu m i n o u s , o r m a g n e t i c , o r d en s e , o r a b r a s i v e .C l e a r ly s o m e t h i n g e ls e i s i n v o l v e d w h i c h g i v e s m a t t e r t h e s e c h a r a c t e r i s ti c s .W a n t i n g t o a v o i d a n y n o t i o n o f o c c u lt f o r c e s ( b ec a u se o n l y m a t t e r a n dm o t i o n t r u l y e x is t ), D e s c a r t e s f i n ds t h a t t h e o n l y w a y t o e x p l a i n s u c h

9 I b i d . , vol . ix, p. 32 2. The passage in square brack ets only occurs in the F renchedition of the P r i n c i p l e s , not the La t in.lo I b i d . , vol. viii, p. 3 26.11 Recal l Desc artes ' c lassic rem ark th at ' As for physics I should bel ieve mys elf to knownothing of i t i f I were only able to say how things m ay b% wi thout dem onst ra t ing th a t theycannot be otherwise ' ( i b i d . , vol. iii , p. 39),


8/33

The C lock Me faphor and Probab i l i sm 79properties as light and magnetism is to assume that bodies exhibitingthese properties have a different sort of motion th an bodies which do n othave these properties. 12 Despite Descartes' claim th at he could deduceever ythin g in his optics from his clear and dist inct ideas, he is contin uall yforced to employ assumptio ns t ha t do not follow from a ny knowledge wehave of the first principles. He is compelled to make addit ional assump-tions about the constitution of moving matter. Such assumptions forman essential par t of every scientific explanation. This difficulty is evenclearer in the Pr inc ip le s where Descartes tries to explain physical andchemical change. Again, he concludes th at the first principles are toogeneral to permit us to explain an y even t uniquely, and in saying as much,he finally comes to grips with the problem plaguing his a pr ior i physics.In addition to the first principles, we need a set of principles of lowergenerality which will enable us to discover the specific mechanisms ofnatu re. Bu t these less general prineicles can not be deduced from thefirst principles; and Descartes was certainly aware that these principlesof intermediate generality were not deducible from his metaphysicalstrictures about nature. Buchdahl has correctly noted th at ' I t is ascholar's legend tha t Descartes consistently believed tha t his physics wasdeducible from first principles...,13.

Descartes' endorsement of the hypothetical method is most explicitin that section of the P r i n c @ l e s where he develops the doctrine of thethree elements, which he used exte nsively to explain chemical andphysical change. Among the assumptions of this theo ry is the claim th atmatter is corpuscular and that these corpuscles have a certain size,shape, and velocity. He says of these assumptions:

' we cannot determine by reason how big these pieces of matter are,how quickly they move, or what circles the y desc ri be .. . [this] is a thingwe must learn from observation. Therefore, we are free to make anyassumptions we like about them, so long as all the consequences agreewith exper ienc e... '. ~i 2 I n t h e D i o p ~ i c s , f o r e x a m p l e , D e s e a r S e s tr i e s t o e x p l a i n d i f f e r e n t c o l o u r e d r a y s o f

l i gh t . H e s u g g e s t s t h a t l i g h t i s c o m p o s e d o f s p h e r i c a l c o r p u sc l e s m o v i n g i n s t r a i g h t l in e sa t i n fi n i te v el o c it y , a n d w i t h a r o t a t io n a l m o t i o n a b o u t t h e i r c e n t r e s . D i f f e r e n t e o l o u r e dr a y s o f l i g h t a re d u e t o t h e d i f fe r e n ti a l s p e e d s o f a x i a t r o t a t i o n w h i c h t h e c o r p u s c l e s c a na s s u m e . A f a s t s p i n a p p e a r s t o b e r e d l i gh t , a m o d e r a t e s p i n a s ye l lo w , a n d a s l o w s p i n a sb l ue . N o w , D e s c a r t e s h a s su c c e e d e d in e x p l a i n i n g t h e p h e n o m e n a o f c o l o u r w i t h o u tr e c o u r se to e n t i ti e s e x c e p t m a t t e r - i n - m o t i o n . B u t a t t h e s a m e t i m e , h e h a s b e e n fo r c e dt o g o b e y o n d t h e k n o w l e d g e g i v e n b y t h e f i rs t p ri n c i pl e s t o h y p o t h e s i z e , w i t h n e i t h e re m p i r i c a l e v i d e n c e n o r a pr ior i r e a s o n s , t h a t d i f f e r en t a t o m s o f m a t t e r r e , a t e a t d i f fe r e n ts p e e d s a n d t h a t s u c h r o t a t io n i s t h e c a u s e o f c o lo u r . T h u s , h e d e d u c e s t h e p h e n o m e n a o fc o l o u r f r o m t h e c o n j u n c t i o n o f t h e f ir s t p r i n c ip l e s ' m a t t e r ' a n d ' m o t i o n ' and a n a s s u m p t i o na b o u t d i f f e r e n t ia l s p e e d s o f r o t a t i o n .

i 3 G . J 3 u c h d a h l , i n Scient i f ic Change ( e d. A . C . C r o m b i e ) , L o n d o n , 1 9 6 2 , p . 4 1 1 .1 4 1% . D e s c a r t e s , Oeuvres, 1 8 9 7 - 1 9 5 7 , v o l , i x , p , 3 2 5 ,


9/33

8O Laurens Laudan onHere again, matte r and motion are too general to explain the phenomena.We must, he insists, resort to less general hypotheses about the size andconfiguration of ma tt er in order to explain the world. The scientist thu sresembles the skilled watch-maker of the analogy who is given a watchbut cannot see its internal mechanisms. Like the watch-maker, he knowsthe general principles which govern his subject ma tter , b ut he is uncerta inabout the way th ey exhibit themselves in any particular case. Equa llylike the watch-maker, the scientist can offer only conjectures aboutinternal construction and mechanisms.

The role of the first principles in physics is thus to circumscribe therange of acceptable hypotheses by excluding certain entities. Our firstprinciples tell us, for example, not to develop a science based on thehypothesis of a void; they warn us against hypotheses couched in theteleological language of final causality; and t he y forbid hypotheses postu-lating action at a distance. Viewed in this light, corpuscular metap hysic sdoes not di ctate which physical s ystem we adopt, but only gives uscertain regulative rules. Matter and motion thus function much asOccam's razor or the assumption of nature 's un iformi ty operate in modernscience. Physica l hypotheses must be compatible with such regulativeprinciples, but they are not deducible from them.

Bu t t hou gh Descartes concedes th at science is necessarily hypothetic aland probabilistic, he is not willing to say that all hypotheses are equallygood or th at the scientist can never be confident abou t his principles. Hedoes suggest that mere ad hoc hypotheses, invented to explain oneparticular phenomenon, are not ve ry convincing. :But, he insists, whenwe put forward a hypothesis which accounts for a wide variety ofphenomena successfully, we can be reasonably confident (though notcertain) that it is true:

' Although there exist several individual effects to which it is easy toadjust diverse causes [i.e., hypotheses], one to each, it is however notso easy to adjust one and the same [hypothesis] to several differenteffects, unless it be the true one from which they proceed. ,15While insisting on the conjectural character of scientific hypotheses,Descartes was careful not to succumb to the sceptic's temptation togrant all hypotheses equal status and improbability. He clearly declaredthe right of the scientist to believe those hypotheses which accounted fora wide cross-section of the facts at hand: ' it is not likely that that fromwhich one may deduce all the p henomen a is false ,.6 Thus, a soundhypothesis is one which is both compatible with the data and with thefirst principles, matt er a nd motion. On Descartes' view, the logical gapseparating the first principles from the phenomena can be bridged only

1~ 1 b i d . , v o l . i i , p , 1 9 9 .~t~ 1b id , , v o l . i x , p , 1 2 3 .


10/33

The C lock Me taphor and Probab i l i sm 81by hypotheses. Since compatibility rather t ha n deducibility is therelation between the first principles and the hypotheses of physics, thefirst principles function in the same way, vis-a-vis the hypotheses, as thefacts do. Our first principles, like the data , can infor m us th at certainhypotheses are wrong; but the y cannot tell us which hypotheses areright. We can never get inside nat ure 's clock to see if natu re's mechani smsare wha t we think th em to be. However, the clock analogy is import ant,not only for the considerable light it throws on Descartes' use of themethod of hypothesis, but equally because it, or variants on it, werewidely cited by subsequen t writers who, as corpuscularians, were strugglingwith the same methodological problems. 17 In particular, it was used b yma ny English writers (Boyle, Glanvill, Power an d Locke) who, historianstell us, were Baconia n experimenta lists, uninfluenced by Descartes. Itthus provides a convenient motif in terms of which to explain thedevelopment of the metho d of hypothesis between Descartes and Newton

B O Y L E A N D C A R T E S I A N : P R O B A B I L I S MWe now turn t o consider the more general theme of this paper, namely ,the impact of Descartes' hypothetical method on English writers of the

following generation, is His influence can be seen most pro minent ly inthe work of Robert Boyle, who did much to fuse the Baeonian andCartesian traditions into a coherent and sophisticated view of scientificmethod. Because Boyle's philosophy of science unifies majo r elementsfrom both Descartes and Bacon, it must be understood in the context ofthe tradition s which those two writers initiated. 19 In the mid-sevent eent hcentury, Baconianism and Cartesianism signified quite different things

17 D . J . d e S o l la P r i c e ( ' A u t o m a t a a n d t h e O r i g i ns o f M e c h a n i s m a n d M e c h a n i s t i cP h i l o s o p h y ' , Technology and Cul ture , 1 9 64 , 5, 9 - 2 3 ) h a s d e l i n e a t e d t h e f u n d a m e n t a l r o l et h a t c l o ck s a n d o t h e r a u t o m a t a p l a y e d a s a n a l o g i e s f o r t h e m e c h a n i c a l a n d c o r p u s c u l a rs c i e n ti s t s. H o w e v e r , P r i c e h a s n o t d r a w n a t t e n t i o n t o th e methodological r a m i f i c a t i o n s o ft h e c l o c k - a n M o g y w h i c h I i n t e n d t o d i s c u s s i n t h i s p a p e r .

i s I m u s t m a k e i t a s e x p li c i t a s p o s s ib l e t h a t t h i s p a p e r i s no t a n a t t e m p t t o d a tep r e c is e l y th e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f C a r t e s i a n id e as ~ in t o E n g l i s h s c i e n c e a n d p h i l o s o p h y . F o r t h a t ,w e s h o u l d p r o b a b l y h a v e t o lo o k cl o se l y a t H o b b e s , D i g b y , C h a r l e t o n , C u d w o r t h a n d M o r er a t h e r t h a n B o y l e a n d t h e o t h e r w r i t e r s I d e M w i t h . M y g e m i s a r a t h e r d i f f e r e n t on e ,n a m e l y , t o s u g g e s t t h a t t h e r e a r e c e r t a in C a r t e s i a n s t r a i n s w h i c h l o o m l a r g e i n B o y l e ' sm e t h o d o l o g i c a l w r i t in g s . W h e t h e r t h e y c a m e d i r e c tl y f r o m D e s c a r t e s o r t h r o u g h a ni n t e r m e d i a r y s o u r c e i s a s e p a r a t e q u e s t i o n w h i c h I t o u c h o n l y in c i d e n t al l y . (Cf . L . G y s i ,Pla ton i sm and Car t e s ian i sm in t he Ph i losophy o f Ra lph Cudwor th , B e r n , 1 9 6 2 . )

1~ p . p . W i e n e r ' s a r t i c le o n ~ B oy le 's p h i l o s o p h y o f s c ie n c e { ' T h e e x p e r i m e n t a l p h i l o s o p h yo f R o b e r t B o y l e ', Phi l . Rev . , I 9 3 2 , 4 1 , 5 9 4 - 6 0 9 ) , o n e o f t h e e a r l ie s t o n t h i s t o p i c , m u s tb e r e a d w i t h m u c h c a u t i o n . W i e n e r m i s q u o t e s B o y l e o n tw o o c c a s io n s ( fo o t n o t e s 6 a n d 2 2) ,a n d o n c e d r a w s i n f e r e n c es f r o m t h e t e x t w h i c h i t c o u l d n o t p o s s i b l y s u p p o r t ( f o o tn o t e 5 ).H o w e v e r , W i e n e r d o e s a c a p a b l e j o b o f s h o w i n g B o y l e ' s c o n t e m p t f o r , a n d i g n o r a n c e o f ,ancient an d m e d i e v M s c i e n c e .


11/33

82 L a u r e n s L a u d a n on

from wha t th ey do toda y. Bacon was not praised (or condemned) as aninducti ve philosopher so much as an exper iment al one. Descartes, onthe other hand, was not treated as a n a p r i o r i s t , but rather as an advocateof the corpuscular philosophy who encouraged the use of hypotheses inscience. Boyle borrowed Bacon's experime ntali sm and Descartes'hypothetical corpuscularism, while prudently overlooking the inductiveexcesses of Bacon and th e rationalistic strictures of Descartes. So far aswe can judge from his published works, it never occurred to Boyle thatthe principles of science could be discovered either ind ucti vely or a p r i o r i .By neglecting Bacon's inductivism and Descartes' rationalism, Boyleviewed the methodologies of these two authors as hea lth y contrast s ofemphasis within a commonly-held scientific world-view.

Nor should we be startled to find resemblances between the ' experi-mentalist ' Boyle and the ' rat ion ali st' Descartes. After all and aboveall, th ey were bot h corpuscularians. Boyle began his philosophicaleduca tion with hea vy doses from Descartes; ~ and, as we have seen, theDescartes of the P r i n c i p l e s was neither so a p r i o r i nor so anti-experimental

~0 Boyle 's unpublish ed manusc ripts leave absolutely no d oubt that he had read Descartbs,and more tha n once. Fro m his earliest papers on natu ral philoso phy unti l his last ones,he made repeated references to Descartes and the Cartesians. There is one part icularlyinterest ing passage in which, discarding his normal humili ty, he candidly asesses thecontributions of several impo rtan t sevente enth-c entury scientific figures. His admirat ionfor Descartes is certainly undisguised: ' t tobbes est obseur sans agr6ment, singulier ensesid6es, scavant, mais peu solide, inconstant dans sa doctrine: car il est tanrest Epicurien,tanr est Peripatet icien. Boile est exact dans ses observat ions: il n'y a personne on l 'Eur opequi air enrichy la philosophic de rant d'experiences que luy: i l raissone assez conseq uemmen t surses experiences, lesquelles apr6s tout ne s ent pas to ujou rs indubitab les: p arce que eesprincip esne sent pas toujours eer ta ins . . . Gassendi , qui n 'a voulu passer que pour res taura teur de laphilosophic de Demoerite et d'Epieure, parle peu de son chef, il n'a presque rien de luy, quela beaut6 du st i le , par ou i l peut passer pour un auteur admirable: pour le refuter dans saphysique, on n'a besoin que des argumens d'Aristote centre Democri to et ses disciples.Descartes est un genie des plus extraordinaires qul air paru darts ces de/ 'niers temps, d'unespri t fert i le , et d'une meditat ion profound: L' enchainement de sa doctrine va ~ son but ,l 'ordre en es t bien imaging, selon ses prineipes: et son systeme, tout reel6 qu'i l est d'ancienet de moder ne, est bien arrang6. A la verit6 il enseigne trop ~ douter: et ce n'e st pas un

A much more definitive account of Boyle's scientific method is to be found in the secondchapter of M. Mandelbaum, Phi losophy , Sc i ence , and Sense Percep t ion , Baltimore, 1964,esp. pp. 88-112.

One should also mention R. Westfal l 's useful ' Unpub lished Boyle Pap ers Relat ing toScientific M etho d ', A n n . S c i . , 1956, 12, 63-73 and 103-117; Marie Boas [Hall], ' L aM~thodologie Scicntifique de Robert Boyle ', Rev . Hi s t . Sc i . , 1956, 9, 105-125; and A. 1%.and M. B. Hall, ' Phil oso phy and :Natural Philos ophy : Boyle and Spinoza ', in MdlangesA lexandre Koyrd (ed. I. B. Cohen an d ~ . Taton), Paris, 1964, vol. ii, pp. 241-256. Older,bu t still useful, sources are S. Mendelssohn, Rober t Boy l e a ls Ph i losoph , Wiirzburg, 1902, andG. Sprigg, ' The Hono rabl e Robe rt Boyle: A Chapter in the Philo soph y of Science ', Arche ion ,1929, 11 , 1-12 .


12/33

The Clock Metaphor and Probabil ism 83a s w e n o w j u d g e h i m t o b e o n t h e b a s is o f hi s Discourse a n d Meditations.T h e D e s c a r t e s o f t h e Principles is n o t t h e p r o p o n e n t o f s y s t e m a t i c d o u b ts o m u c h a s t h e m o d e s t i n q u i r e r a f t e r t r u t h w h o a d m i t s , e s p e ci a ll y t h r o u g h -o u t th e l a t t e r h a l f o f th e Principles, t h a t s c ie n c e i s a n h y p o t h e t i c a l a n dc o n j e c t u r a l e n t e r p r i s e w h i c h o f fe r s i ts f o l lo w e r s o n l y a p r o b a b l e s t o r y ,n o t t h e r e v e a l e d t r u t h . N o r i s i t i n c o n s i s t e n t f o r B o y l e t o d r a w f r o m b o t hD e s c a r t e s a n d B a c o n , f o r t h e i r m e t h o d o l o g ie s , a s B o y l e c o n s t r u e d t h e m ,w e r e n o t c o n t r a d i c t o r y . I n d e ed , D e s c a r t es ' h y p o th e t i ca l m e t h o d c an b ev i e w e d ( a n d w a s so v ie w e d b y B o y l e ) a s a n a l t e r n a ti v e f o r m u l a t i o n o fB a c o n ' s h y p o t h e t i c a l I n d u l g e n c e o f t h e U n d e r s t a n d i n g . 21

A n y a t t e m p t t o e x p l a i n B o y l e ' s m e t h o d o l o g y m u s t , o f c o u rs e , b e g i nw i t h t h e f a c t t h a t h e w a s a n a r d e n t a d h e r e n t o f t h e c o r p u s c u l a r o rm e c h a n i c a l p h i l o s o p h y . ~2 I n d e e d , i t i s h i s c o r p u s c u l a r i s m w h i c hc o n d i t i o n e d h i s w h o l e a p p r o a c h t o n a t u r e a n d w h i c h i n c l i n e d h i m t oa d o p t D e s c a r t e s ' m e t h o d o f h y p o t h e s i s, w h i le s i m u l t a n e o u s l y t a k i n g h i se x p e r i m e n t M i s m f r o m B a c o n . A s a n a d v o c a t e o f t h e c o r p u s c u l a rp h i l o s o p h y , a n d a s a w r i t e r f ir m l y in t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l t r a d i t i o n , B o y l e

31 : Bo y le w a s n o t t h e f i r s t t o s u g g e s t t h e s i m i l a r i ty b e t w e e n B a c o n a n d D e s c a r t e s . T h ea n o n y m o u s t r a n s la t o r o f D e s c a r te s ' Passions of the Soule, L o n d o n , 1 6 5 0, in s i s t s , i n a n' a d v e r t i s m e n t ' a p p e n d e d t o t h a t w o r k , t h a t t h o u g h ' m o s t m e n c o n ce i ve n o t h o w n e c e s s a r ye x p e r i m e n t s a r e ,' D e s c a r t e s a n d B a c o n ' h a d t h e b e s t n o t i o n s , c o n c e r n i n g t h e m e t h o d t o b eh e l d t o b r i n g t h e P h y s i c k s t o t h e i r p e r f e c t i o n ' .

2~ T h e v e r y f a c t t h a t B o y l e c h o s e t o c a ll h is d o c t r i n e t h e c o r p u s c u l a r p h i l o s o p h y i si n d i c a t iv e o f h i s f i l ia t io n s w i t h D e s c a r t e s . P r i o r t o B o y l e , i t w a s c o m m o n to d i s t i n g u i s ht h r e e d i s t i n c t t h e o re t i c a l s y s t e m s : th e A r i s t o t e l ia n , t h e C a r t e s i a n a n d t h e A t o m i c o rE p i c u r e a n o r G a s s e n d i a n . B o y l e r ig h t l y p o i n t e d o u t t h a t s u c h a c l a ss i f i c a ti o n o b s c u r e dt h e c o n s i d e r a b le a r e a o f a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e C a r t e s i a n a n d A t o r a i st i c p a r a d i g m s .R a t h e r t h a n c a ll h i m s e l f a n a t o m i s t , a n d t h e r e b y s i de w i t h G a s s e n d i a g a i n s t D e s c a r t e s ,B o y l e d e f in e s a m o r e g e n e r a l p o s i t i o n ( ' t h e c o r p u s c u l a r p h i l o s o p h y ') w h i c h p e r m i t s h i m t oc o n s i d e r h i m s e l f i n a C a r t e s i a n t r a d i t i o n w h i le s t i ll s id i n g w i t h t h e A t o m i s t s o n m a n ys p ec if ic p o i n t s o f i n t e r p r e t a t io n . H e p u t s i t t h i s w a y : . . . I c o n s i d e r ed t h a t t h e A t o m i c a la n d C a r t e s i a n h y p o t h e s e s , t h o u g h t h e y d i f fe r ed i n s o m e m a t e r i a l p o i n t s f r o m o n e a n o t h e r ,y e t i n o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e P e r ip a t e t i c a n d o t h e r v u l g a r d o c t r i n e s t h e y m i g h t b e l o o k e d u p o na s o n e p h i l o s o p h y . . . [ fo r] b o t h t h e C a r t e s i a n s a n d t h e A t o m i s t s e x p l i c a te t h e s a m ep h e n o m e n a b y l i tt le b o d i e s v a r i o u s l y f i g u r e d a n d m o v e d . . . t h e i r h y p o t h e s e s m i g h t b y ap e r s o n o f re c o n c il i ng d is p o s i t i o n b e l o o k e d u p o n a s o n e p h i l o s o p h y ' {Works, e d . B i r c h ,L o n d o n , 1 7 7 2, v o l . i, p p . 3 5 5 - 3 5 6 ).B o y l e u n r e s e r v ed l y r e g a rd s D e s c a r t e s - - m o r e e v e n t h a n G a s s e n d i o r B a c o n - - a s t h em e c h a n i c a l cam c o r p u s c u l a r p h i l o s o p h e r par excellence : ' T h a t s t r i c t p h i l o s o p h e r D e s c a r t e sw h o h a s w i t h g r e a t w i t a n d n o l es s a p p l a u s e a t t e m p t e d t o c a r r y t h e m e c h a n i c a l l p o w e r sh i g h e r t h a n a n y o f t h e m o d e r n p h i l o s o p h e r s a n d a p p l y i t t o e x p l ic a t e t h i n g s m e c h a n i c a l l y '(Royal Society, Boyle Papers, v o l . i i , f . 1 3 7 : cf. a l s o Works, v o l . i i i , p . 5 5 8 ) .b e n r a o d el e ~ d e s e s p r i t s n a t u r a l l e m e n t i n e r e d u le s : m a i s e n f i n il e s t p l u s o r i g i n a l q u e l e sa u t r e s . . . E n f i n G a l i le i e s t l e p l u s a g r e a b l e d e s m o d e r n e s , B a c o n l e p l u s s u b t i l , G a s s e n d i l ep l u s s c a v a n t , H o b b e s le p l u s r e s v e u r , B o y l e l e p l u s e u r ie u x , D e s c a r t e s l e p lu s i n g e n i e u c ,V a n h e l m o n t l e p l u s n a t u r a l is t e : m a i s t r o p a t t a e h 6 a P a r a c e l s e ' {Royal Society, BoylePapers, v o l . x l i v ) .


13/33

8 4 L a u r e n s L a u d a n onw a s a c u t e l y a w a r e o f t h e i m m e n s e g a p s e p a r a t i n g t h e p r i n c ip l e s o fc o r p u s c u l a r i s m f r o m p a r t i c u l a r s c ie n c es su c h a s c h e m i s t r y a n d p h y s i o l o g y .T h o u g h c o r p u s c u l a r i a n s o f t e n s c o ld e d A r i s t o t le f o r n e g l e c t in g e x p e r i m e n t ,t h e y t h e m s e l v e s w e r e s u b j e c t t o t h e s a m e c h a r g e f o r, i n g e n e r a l, f e wa t t e m p t s h a d b e e n m a d e t o u se t h e m a t t e r - i n -m o t i o n p a r a d i g m t oe x p l a i n t h e p a r t i c u l a r f a c t s o f p h y s i c s or c h e m i s t ry . B o y l e p e r c e i v e dt h a t t h i s w a s a s e r i o u s w e a k n e s s i n th e m e c h a n i c a l p r o g r a m m e :

' B u t I a m s o r r y to s ee c a u se t o a d d t o w h a t I h a v e b e e n s a y in g , t h a ta s m u c h a s w e [ C o r p u s c u l a r p h i l o s o p h e r s ] m a g n i f y t h e n e c e s s i t y o fe x p e r i m e n t s i n o u r c o n t a c t s w i t h t h e P e r i p a t e t i c k s a b o u t n a t u r e , w es e e m n o t y e t t o b e s e n s i b le o f t h i s a c k n o w l e d g e d n e c e s s i t y , w h e n w ec o n t e s t w i t h t h e p a r t i c u l a r d i f fi c u lt ie s t h a t f r e q u e n t l y o c c u r , w h e n w eo u r se l v e s a r e t o d i s c o v e r t h e c a u se o f h e r p h e n o m e n a , o r t o i m p l o y h e rp r o d u c t i o n s . ' 2aI f t h e c o r p u s c u l a r p h i l o s o p h y i s t o b e u s e f u l t o n a t u r a l p h i l o s o p h y , i t

m u s t d o m o r e t h a n p r o p o s e a fe w v a g u e p r i n c i p le s w h i c h i t a s se r t s t o b ec o m p a t i b l e w i t h n a t u r e . I t m u s t u s e t h o s e p r i n c ip l e s a n d o t h e r s t oe x p l a i n w h a t c a n b e o b s e r v e d in t h e l a b o r a t o r y . I t s i m p l y is n o t e n o u g ht o s a y t h a t f ir e b o i l s w a t e r b e c a u s e t h e r a p i d l y m o v i n g c o r p u sc l e s o f f ir eb r e a k u p w a t e r c l u s t e r s a n d s e n d v a p o u r t o t h e s u rf ac e . W e m u s t p a yc a r e f u l a t t e n t i o n t o d e s c r ib i n g t h e p a r t i c u l a r s h a p e a n d v e l o c i t y o f f ir ec o r p u sc l es , t o t h e m e c h a n i s m s w h e r e b y t h e y b r e a k u p l i q u i d c l u st e rs a n dt o t h e la w s o f b o i l in g . M o r e g e n e ra l l y , t h e c o r p u s c u l a r p h i l o s o p h y m u s tc e a s e t o b e m e r e l y a s e t o f a m b i g u o u s m e t a p h y s i c a l p r i n c i p le s w h i c h a r es o f lu id t h a t t h e y a r e c o m p a t i b le w i th a n y p h e n o m e n o n . B o y l e w a n t st o t r a n s f o r m t h e c o r p u s c u l a r d o c t r i n e i n t o a se n s ib l e p h y s i c a l t h e o r yw h i c h m a k e s p r e d i c t i o n s a n d p r o v i d e s e x p l a n a t i o n s ; i n s h o r t , i n t o at h e o r y w h i c h a p p r o a c h e s e x p e r i e n c e in o r d e r t o l e a rn f r o m i t a n d w h i c hs t a k e s i ts f a te , n o t o n t h e p h i l o s o p h e r ' s a b i l i ty t o w e a v e i n t r i c a t e m y t h sa n d d e v i s e acl hoc a d j u s t m e n t s , b u t o n t h e s c i e n ti s t ' s a b i l i ty t o c o n f i r mt h o s e p r i n c i p le s .

B o y l e n e v e r s e r io u s ly d o u b t s t h a t n a t u r e is u l t i m a t e l y m a t t e r - in -m o t i o n , ~4 b u t h e i n si s ts t h a t w e n e e d t o g o b e y o n d s u c h c r y p t i c f o r m u l a ei f w e a r e t o h a v e a s c ie n c e w o r t h y o f t h e n a m e :

' F o r i t is o n e t h i n g t o b e a b l e t o s h a w it p o s si b le f o r s u c h a n d s u c he f f ec t s t o p r o c e e d f r o m t h e v a r i o u s m a g n i t u d e s , s h a p e s , m o t i o n s , a n dc o n c r e ti o n s o f a t o m s , a n d a n o t h e r t o b e a b l e t o d e c l a r e w h a t p r e ci sea n d d e t e r m i n a t e f ig u r e s, s iz e s, a n d m o t i o n s o f a t o m s , w i l l su ff ic e t o m a k eo u t t h e p r o p o s e d p h e n o m e n a . ' 2 538 Ro yal Soc ie ty , Bo y le P apers , v o l . i x , f . 1 .34 A s T . S . K u h n p u t s i t : ' N e i t h e r [ B o y l e ' s ] e c le c t i c i s m n o r h i s s c e p t i c i s m e x t e n d s t o

d o u b t s t h a t s o m e c o r p u s c u l a r m e c h a n i s m u n d e r l ie s e a c h i n o rg a n i c p h e n o m e n o n h e i n v e s ti -g a t e s . ' ( ' R o b e r t : B oy le a n d S t r u c t u r a l C h e m i s t r y i n t h e S e v e n t e e n t h C e n t u r y , ' I s i s , 1 9 5 2 ,48, 19).

za R o b e r t B o y l e , W o r k s , 1 7 7 2 , v o l . i i , p . 4 5 .


14/33

T h e C lo c k M e t a p h o r a n d P r o b a b i l i sm 8 5W e m u s t f o r m u l a t e i n t e r m e d i a r y t h e o ri e s w h i c h a r e a t o n c e l e ss g e n e ra la n d m o r e e x p l ic i t t h a n m a t t e r a n d m o t i o n . L i k e D e s c a r t e s in t h eP r i n c i p l e s , B o y l e re a l iz e d t h a t t h e t y p i c a l c o r p u s c u l a r i a n d o c t r i n e is t o og e n e r a l to p e r m i t o n e t o e x p l a i n , i n d e t a i l , t h e b e h a v i o u r o f m a t t e r . W em u s t d e v e l o p l o w e r - l e v e l t h e o r i e s w h i c h , w h i l e c o m p a t i b l e w i t h t h ec o r p u s c u l a r p h i l o s o p h y , a r e n o t s t r i c t l y d e d u c i b l e f r o m i t:

' T h e r e a r e a g r ea t m a n y t h in g s w h i c h . . , c a n n o t w i th a n y c o n v e n i en c eb e i m m e d i a t e l y d e d u c e d f r o m t h e f i r s t a n d s i m p l e s t p r i n c i p l e s ; n a m e l y ,m a t t e r a n d m o t io n ; b u t m u s t b e d e r i v ed f r o m s u b o r d i n a t e p r in c ip l es ;s u c h a s g r a v i t y , f e r m e n t a t i o n , s p r i n g i n e s s , m a g n e t i s m , e t c . ' 26I n t h e i d e a l c as e , w e s h o u l d s e e k t o d e r i v e e v e r y t h i n g f r o m t h e f i r s tp r i n c i p le s . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , h o w e v e r , t h e r e i s a w i d e d i s c r e p a n c y b e t w e e nw h a t w e h o p e f o r a n d w h a t w e a re p r e p a r e d t o a c c e p t:

' That we may asp i re to , bu t mus t no t a lways requi re or expec t , such aknowledge o f th ings , as i s imm edia te ly der ived f rom the ir f i r s t pr inc ip les . ' ~E v e n w h e r e o u r e x p l a n a t i o n s a r e n o t d e r i v a b l e f ro m m e c h a n i c a lp r in c ip l es , t h e y m u s t b e c o m p a t i b l e w i t h t h e m :

' t h e m e c h a n i c a l p r i n c i p l e s a r e s o u n i v e r s a l , a n d t h e r e f o r e a p p l i c a b l et o s o m a n y t h i n g s , t h a t t h e y a r e r a t h e r f i t t ed t o in c lu d e , t h a n n e c e s s i ta t e dt o e x c lu d e , a n y o t h e r [ s u b o r d i n a t e ] h y p o t h e s i s , t h a t is f o u n d e d i nn a t u r e , a s f a r a s it is s o . A n d s u c h h y p o t h e s e s . . . w i ll b e f o u n d , a s f a ra s t h e y h a v e t r u t h i n t h e m , t o b e le g i t im a t e l y ( t h o u g h p e r h a p s n o ti m m e d i a t e l y ) d e d u c i b l e f r o m t h e m e c h a n i c a l p r i n c i p l e s , o r f a i r l yr e c o n c i l e a b l e t o t h e m . . . ' a s

E v e r y s u b o r d i n a t e h y p o t h e s i s , i n s o f a r a s i t is t r u e , i s e i t h e r d e d u c i b l ef r o m , o r a t l e a s t c o m p a t i b l e w i t h , t h e c o r p u s c u l a r p h i l o s o p h y . D e s c a r t e sm a d e p r e c is e ly t h e s a m e p o i n t i n t h e P r i n c i p l e s . S o f a r a s n a t u r a lp h i l o s o p h y i s co n c e r n e d , t h e s e l es s g e n e r a l h y p o t h e s e s a r e e v e n m o r eu s e f u l t h a n t h e c o n c e p t s o f m a t t e r a n d m o t i o n :

' T h e m o s t u s e fu l n o ti o n s w e h a v e i n p h y s i c k s . . . a r e n o t d e r i v e di m m e d i a t e l y f r o m t h e f ir s t p r i n ci p le s ; b u t f r o m i n t e r m e d i a t e t h e o ri es ,n o t i o n s , a n d r u l e s . ' 2 9

~6 R o y a I S o e i e t y , B o y l e P a p e r s , v o l . i x , L 4 0 . E l s e w h e r e , h e m a k e s t h e p o i n t t h i s w a y :i t w o u l d ' b e b a c k w a r d t o r e j e c t o r d e s p i s e a l l e x p l i c a t io n s t h a t a r e n o t i m m e d i a t e l y d e d u c e df r o m t h e s h a p e , b i g n e s s a n d m o t i o n o f a t o m s o r o t h e r in s e n s ib l e p a r t ic l e s o f m a t t e r . . . [ fo rt h o s e w h o ] p r e te n d t o e x p l i c a te e v e r y p h e n o m e n o n b y d e d u c i n g i t f r o m t h e m e c h a n i c a la f f ec t i on s o f a t o m s u n d e r t a k e a h a r d e r t a s k t h a n t h e y i m a g i n e ' ( ib id . , v o l . v i i i , f . 1 6 6 ) .

~7 Ib id . , v o l . v i i i, f . 1 8 4 . U n d e r l i n e d i n o r i g i n a l . C f. f o o t n o t e 6 5 b e lo w .2s 1%. B oy le , W o r k s , 1 7 7 2 , v o l . i v , p . 7 2 .2~ R o y a l S o c i e t y , B o y l e P a p e r s , v o l . i x , f . 4 0 .


15/33

86 Laurens Laudan onBoyle set himself the life-long task of enunciating such ' sub- ordi nateprinc iples ' and 'i nt er medi at e theories ,a0 in order to provide scientificflesh for the metaphysi cal skeleton of corpuscularism:

' I thought it would be no slight service, not only to the Corpuscularhypothesis, but to natural philosophy itself, if I could by good experi-ments, and at least probable reasons, make out that almost all sorts ofparticular qualities may be mechanically originated or produced.' alHaving settled on such an undertaking, it was natural that Boyleshould give some thought to the method whereby these subordinateprinciples could be discovered and confirmed. It is at this stage th at wesee a remarkable blend of Baconian and Cartesian elements. Wit hBacon, Boyle emphasized that the proper foundation of physical know-

ledge was experimentation; n ot merely casual observation of nature, butsystematic and often artificial tinkering with the physical world so as toobserve it under a wide var iety of circumstances. Good nat ura lphilosophers, he writes,' consult experience both more frequent ly and more heedfully [thanthe Aristotelians]; and, not content with the phenomena that naturespontaneously affords them, they are solicitous, when they find itneedful, to enlarge their experience by trials purposely devised . . .' a2

Like Bacon, he envisaged t he compilation of vast histories of nat ure whichwould summarize a nd codify the information gleaned from experiment, saTo this end, Boyle himself wrote experimen tal histories of fluidity,firmness, colours, cold, air, respiration, condensation, flames, humanblood, porosity, liquors, tin a nd fire. s4 Bu t wha t are we to do withsuch nat ura l histories once the y are compiled? Can we use the m toinduce, Bacon ian fashion, the principles and laws of science? Boyle'sanswer to this question is an unequivoca l ' No '. Thou gh a self-styled pupil of Bacon, Boyle never, t o my knowledge, uses the term

so Boyle even suggests tha t the sub ordina te hypo theses may be the only ones which canbe f i rmly es tabl i shed: ' Though men be no t a r r i ved a t such a pi t ch of knowledge as to beable to discover and sol emnely-es tabl i shed [ s i c] c omple a t a nd general hypotheses; yetsubor d ina t e a x i o m s an d h y p o t h e s e s . . , ma y be o f va s t use bo th i n ph i l osophy a nd t o h uma nlife ' ( ibid. , vol. ix, 61).81 Ro yal Soc ie ty , B oy le P apers , vol. ix, f . 28.

s2 1%. Boyle, WorIcs, 1772, vol. v, pp. 513-514.3a :Boyle was as dogged as Bacon in p ut t i ng his tor ies of na tu re high on his l i s t of

pr ior i t ies : ' . . . we eviden t ly want t ha t u pon which a theory, to be sol id and useful , mus tbe bui l t ; I mean an exper imenta l h is tor y . . . And th is we so want , t ha t except perhapsw ha t ma the ma t i c i a ns ha ve done c onc e rn ing sounds , a nd t he obse r vat i ons ( r a the r t ha nexper iments) t ha t our i l lus t r ious Verulam ha th ( in some few pages) sa id of hea t in his shor tEssay de t "orma Cal id i ; I know not any one qua l i ty of which any auth or has given usa n a ny th ing c ompe te n t h i s t o r y ' (ibid., vol. iii, p. 12).

3a See the table of contents to Boyle ' s s ix-volume W o r k s for references to these histor ies.


16/33


17/33

88 Laurens Laud an onbecause without them we might accept a theory which would have beenfalsified if we had experimented more thoroughly. But it is the f acul tyof reason which constructs theories from the data; the y do no t springfull-blown from the histories. No matt er how extensive our experimenta-tion, science remains fund amen tally hypothe tical. 4

These ideas are similar, in expression as well as content, to Descartes'methodological position in the Principles and speak forcefully againstthose who minimize his impact on English tho ugh t in this period. Butit might be argued tha t all I ha ve said to this point merely suggests tha tBoyle and Descartes were both hypotheticalists, but not necessarily th atBoyle derived his hypothetic al met hod from Descartes. This perhapsseems just another of those coincidences that continually misleadhistorians of ideas. That Boy le had similar views tw en ty years afterDescartes is, of itself, meagre proof of his debt to Descartes. In histor yas well as logic, post hoc is no guarantee of propter hoc. Fortunately,however, this is not the only evidence we can cite for the claim thatDescartes exerted substantial influence on English methodologicalthough t, especially Boyle's. There is a passage in Boyle's The Usefulnesso f Na tura l Ph i losophy (1663) which makes our case a good deal morecogent. For Boyle there takes Descartes' clock analo gy and, by clumsilyparaphrasing it, uses it to justify--much as Descartes did--an avowedlyhypothe tical and corpuscular methodology. Boyle formulates theanalogy thus:

' . . . many Atomists and other Naturalists, presume to know the trueand genuine causes of the things they attempt to explicate; yet veryoften the utmost they can attain to, in their explications, is, that theexplicated phenomena may be produced after such a manner, as theydeliver, but not th at they really are so. For as an artificer can set all thewheels of a clock a going, as well with springs as with weights . . . so thesame effects may be produced by divers causes different from one another;and it will oftentimes be very difficult, if not impossible, for our dim40 B o y l e w r i t e s : ' i t i s s o m e t i m e s c o n d u c i v e t o t h e d i s c o v e r y o f t r u t h , t o p e r m i t t h e

u n d e r s t a n d i n g t o m a k e a n h y p o t h e s i s , in o r d e r to t h e e x p l i c a t i o n o f t h i s o r t h a t d i ff ic u lt y ,t h a t b y e x a m i n i n g h o w f a r t h e p h e n o m e n a a r e , o r a re n o t , c a p a b l e o f b e i n g s o l v e d b y t h a th y p o t h e s i s , th e u n d e r s t a n d i n g m a y , e v e n b y i t s o w n e r ro r s , b e i n s t r u c t e d ' ( i b i d . , v o l . i ,p . 3 03 ). T h i s s t a t e m e n t , a l o n g w i t h s e v e r a l o t h e r s , c o u ld b e c i te d a s c o u n t e r - e v i d e n c e t oJ o n e s ' a s s e r t i o n t h a t ' B o y l e w a s i n f l u e n c e d b y t h e c o m p r e h e n s i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t 3 a e o n 'sp h i l o s o p h y i n t h i n k i n g t h a t a l l t h e e v i d e n c e m u s t b e i n be f o re a g e n e r a l i z a t io n s h o u l d b ed r a w n ' (op. c ir . f o o t n o t e 2 , p . 1 6 4) . B o y l e c l e a rl y , a n d e v e n B a c o n d i m l y , p e r c e i v e d t h en e c e s s i t y o f m a k i n g h y p o t h e s e s a n d g e n e r a l i z a ti o n s b e fo r e a l l t h e e v i d e n c e w a s c o l l e c t e d .

c o n s i d e r in g ' h o w i n c o m p l e a t t h e h i s t o r y o f n a t u r e w e y e t h a v e i s, a n d h o w d i ff ic u lt i t i s t ob u i ld a n a c c u r a t e h y p o t h e s i s u p o n a n i n c o m p l e t e h i s to r y o f t h e p h e n o m e n a ' , w e c a n n e v e rs a y w i t h c e r t a i n t y t h a t o u r t h e o r ie s a r e tr u e ( i b i d . , v o l . i v , p . 5 9 ) .


18/33

T h e C l o c k M e t a p h o r a n d P r o b a b i l l s m 89reasons to discern surely, which of those several ways, whereby it ispossible for nature to produce the same phenomena, she [nature] hasreally made use of to exhib it th em.' 41I am not maintaining that Descartes was the first to l iken nature to a

clock-like mechan ism; on the cont rary, this was a commo n met aph oramong mechanist ic phi losophers throughout the s ixteenth and earlyseventeent h centuries. The fact tha t English writers l ike Boyle also usedthe clock anal ogy is, of itself, no indicat ion of their Cartesian leanings.However, Descartes w a s (so far as I can tell) the first to use the analogyto justify a hy pothet ical view of knowledge and science: Tha t Boyle andothers used the clock analogy i n p r e c i s e l y t h e w a y D e s c a r t e s d i d - - t obuttress up a hypothet ico-deduct i ve meth odo logy --i s probabl y indicat iveof their Cartesian leanings. This clock metap hor, borro wed fromDescartes , part icularly s t ruck Boyle 's fancy; so muc h so that he remainedpersu aded for the rest of his l ife tha t science could attai n only probable,not infallible, knowledge. The lan guag e in this passage is Boyle 's; bu tthe thou ght is clearly Descartes' . Bot h insist th at our theories onlydescribe the mechanisms whereby nature might conceivably produce theeffects we observe, not necessarily the mech anisms which nat ure in factuses. In ano ther passage which reminds us of Descartes, Boyle puts thepoint this way:

' . . . it is a very easy mistake to conclude, tha t because an effect ma ybe produced by such determinate causes, it must be so [produced], oractually is so.' 4~He shared with Descartes the belief that mat ter and motion are the

ult imat e an d true principles of physi cal science, and he insisted, againlike Descartes, t ha t all subordin ate principles, in terms of which weexplain particular events, are necessarily conjectural. While declaringhimself a faithful atomist, Boyle was very sceptical about the possibili tyof the 'Atomical Hypothesis ' ever becoming more than a probable theory;and, for that matter, he was equally pessimistic abo ut ever discoveringany of the tru e mechani sms of nature. 4a Like Descartes, Boyle is carefulnot to confuse verification with proof. If a hypoth esis has accoun ted foral l the phenomena, then i t has demonstra ted i ts ut i l i t y , but i ts va l id i t y issti ll an open question and forever remains so. We may, by chance,

41 R. Boyle, Works, 1772, vol. ii, p. 4-5. Boyle actually formulates the clock analogyon several occasions, which suggests that it played a basic role in his thinking about scienceand method. This opinion is confirmed when Boyle says, in introducing the clock metaphor:' To explain this a little, let us assume the often mentioned, and often to be mentioned,instance of a clock ' (Royal Society, Boyle P apers, vol. ii, 141).42 R. ]~oyle, Works, 1772, vol. ii, p. 45. Compare this with Descartes' remark that' one may deduce some very true and certain conclusions from suppositions that are falseor uncertain ' (Oeuvres, 1897-1957, vol. ii, p. 199).4a CL Works, 1772, vol. ii, pp. 46 ft.A n n . o f Sci.- -Vol . 22, No. 2. f


19/33

9 0 L a u r e n s L a u d a n on

s t u m b l e o n t o a t r u e h y p o t h e s i s , b u t w e c a n n e v e r p r o v e it t o b e s o. H el i k e n s sc i e n c e t o a d e c i p h e r i n g o p e r a t i o n i n w h i c h

' m e n c o n j e c t u r a l l y f r a m e s e v e r a l k e y s [ i. e. , h y p o t h e s e s ] t o e n a b l e u sc o u n d e r s t a n d a l e t t e r w r i t t e n i n c i p h e r s [ i. e. , n a t u r e ] . F o r t h o u g ho n e m a y b y h i s s a g a c i t y h a v e f b u n d t h e r i g h t k e y , i t w i ll b e v e r yd i f f ic u l t y f o r h i m , t o p r o v e [ i t is t h e r i g h t o n e ] . ' 44A p a r t f r o m t h e e v i d e n c e b a s e d o n s i m i l a r i t y o f l a n g u a g e a n d t h e m e ,

t h e r e a r e o t h e r f a c t o r s w h i c h s u g g e s t t h a t B o y l e d r e w h i s h y p o t h e t i c a lm e t h o d f r o m D e s c a r t e s . J u s t a s D e s c a r t e s ju s t if ie d h is h y p o t h e t i c a lm e t h o d b y a t t r i b u t in g i t t o A r i s to t le ' s Meteors , 45 s o d o e s B o y l e t u r n t ot h e S t a g i ri t e t o s h o w t h a t t h e m e t h o d o f h y p o t h e s i s h a d b e e n a n t i c i p a te db y ' t h e m a s t e r o f t h o se t h a t k n o w ' :

' A r i s t o t l e h i m s e l f ( w h a t e v e r c o n f i d e n c e h e s o m e t i m e s s e e m s t o e x p r e s s )d o es i n h i s f i r s t b o o k o f Meteors i n g e n u o u s l y c o n f e s s , t h a t c o n c e r n i n gm a n y o f n a t u r e ' s p h e n o m e n a , h e t h i n k s i t s u f f i c i e n t , t h a t t h e y m a y b es o p e r f o r m e d a s h e e x p l i c a t e s t h e m . ' 4 6

B o y l e ' s m e t h o d t h e n c o n s i s t s i n t h i s : T h e s c i e n t i s t c o n d u c t s w i d e -s c a l e e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n t o d e t e r m i n e t h e ' d i v e r s e f f e c t s o f n a t u r e ' . H en e x t s u g g e s ts a h y p o t h e s i s t o e x p l a i n w h a t h a s b e e n o b s e rv e d . T h e f ir s t

*a lbid . , v o l . i , p . 8 2 . C f . a l s o Royal Soc ie ty , Boy le Papers , v o l . i x , f . 6 3 . I n p r i n c i p l e2 0 5 o f t h e f o u r t h b o o k o f t h e Pr inc ip l e s , D e s c a r t e s h a d s i m i l a rl y c o m p a r e d s c ie n ti f i ct h e o r i z in g w i t h d e c o d i n g t e c h n i q u e s : ' I f , f o r i n s t a n c e , a n y o n e w a n t i n g t o r e a d a l e t t erw r i t t e n i n L a t i n c h a r a c t e r s n o t i n t h e ir p r o p e r o r d e r, d e c i d e s t o r e a d B w h e r e v e r h e f i n d s Aa n d C w h e r e h e f in d s B . . . . a n d i f h e i n t h i s w a y f i n d s t h e r e a r e c e r ta i n L a t i n w o r d s c o m p o s e do f t h e s e , h e w il l n o t d o u b t t h a t t h e t r u e m e a n i n g is c o n t a i n e d i n t h e w o r d s , a l t h o u g h h ed i s c o v e r e d t h i s b y c o n j e c t u r e , a n d a l t h o u g h i t is p os s ib l e t h a t t h e w r i t e r d i d n o t a r r a n g et h e l e t t e r s i n t h is o r d e r o f s u c c es s i o n , b u t i n s o m e o t h e r . . . (Oeuvres, 1 8 9 7 - 1 9 5 7 , v o l . i x ,p . 3 2 3 ) . C f. a l s o R u l e 1 0 o f t h e Regulaz.

4~ ' A n d l e st i t b e s u p p o s e d t h a t A r i s t o tl e d i d , o r w a n t e d t o d o , m o r e t h a n t h i s , i t m u s tb e r e c a ll e d t h a t h e e x p r e s s l y s a y s i n t h e i ~ rs t b o o k o f t h e Meteors, a t t h e b e g i m a i n g o f t h es e v e n t h c h a p t e r , t h a t w i t h r e g a r d t o t h i n g s n o t e v i d e n t t o t h e s e n s es , h e t h i n k s t h a t h eo f fe r s s u f fi c ie n t e x p l i c a t io n s a n d d e m o n s t r a t i o n s o f t h e m , i f h e m e r e l y s h o w s t h a t t h e y m a yb e a s h e e x p l a i n s t h e m ' (ibid).

a d l % . B o y l e , Works' , 1 7 7 2, v o l. i i, p . 4 5. I t i s s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t a n o t h e r E n g l i s h e x p o n e n to f a t o m i s m , W a l t e r C h a r l e t o n , w h o s i m i l a rl y a d o p t e d a h y p o t h e t i c a l t h e o r y o f s c ie n c e( o u r c o n j e c t u r e s te l l u s h o w t h e w o r l d ' m a y b e , r a t h e r t h a n h o w i t is or m u s t b e ' ,Physiologiea, L o n d o n , 1 6 54 , p . 1 2 8) , a l s o a p p e a l s t o A r i s t o t l e ' s r e m a r k i n t h e Meteors, tos u p p o r t h i s h y p o t h e t ic a l i s m (ibid.). I m m e d i a t e l y t h e r e a f t e r , h e q u o t e s D e s c a r t e s 'Pr inc ip l e s o n t h e s a m e p o i n t . T h i s r a is e s t h e p o s s i b i l i ty t h a t : B oy le b o r r o w e d t h e r e f e r e n c et o A r i s t o t l e ' s Meteors f r o m C h a r l e t o n r a t h e r t h a n d i r e c t l y f r o m D e s c a r te s . l ~ o w e v e r,: B oy le s t a t e s t h a t t h e p o r t i o n o f h i s M S S . i n w h i c h t h e r e f e r e n c e t o A r i s t o t l e o c c u r s w a sw r i t t e n i n 1 6 51 o r 1 6 5 2, pr io r t o t h e a p p e a r a n c e o f C h a r l e t o n ' s Physiologiea. (Cf. n o t e 9 4 .)A l t h o u g h B o y le m a y h a v e m i s r e m e m b e r e d t h e d a t e o f c o m p o s it io n , t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c et t i a t h e h a s d o n e so . I n d e e d , w h e r e o n e c a n i n d e p e n d e n t l y c h e e k :B o y le 's m e m o r y o n s u c hm a t t e r s , h e i s u s u a l l y q u i t e a c c u r a t e . ( F o r a br ie f , b u t s u g g e s t i v e , a c c o u n t o f t h e r e l a t io n sb e t w e e n : B oy le a n d C h a r l e t o n , s e e R . K a r g o n , ' W a l t e r C h a r l e t o n , R o b e r t : Bo yl e a n d t h eA c c e p t a n c e o f E p i c u r e a n A t o m i s m i n E n g l a n d ' , I s i s , 1 9 6 4 , 5 5 , 1 8 4 - 1 9 2 . )


20/33

The Clock Metaphor and Probabil ism 91h y p o t h e s e s s h o u l d b e f a i r ly l o w - le v e l g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s a b o u t t h e ' i m m e d i a t ec a u s es o f t h e p h e n o m e n a ' . T h e n , ' a s c e n d i n g i n th e s c a le o f c a u s e s ' , h ea r r i v e s u l t i m a t e l y a t t h e m o s t g e n e r a l h y p o t h e s e s , w h i c h c o n c e r n t h e' m o r e c a t h o l i c k a n d p r i m a r y c a u s e s o f t h i n g s , .4 7 A t e a c h l e v el , t h es c ie n t is t c h e c k s t o s ee i f t h e h y p o t h e s i s c o n f o r m s t o t h e c o r p u s e u l a r i a nd o c t r i n e . I f s o, h e t e s t s t h e h y p o t h e s i s a g a i n s t t h e e n t r i e s in a l l h i st a b l e s a n d a g a i n s t t h e o t h e r k n o w n l a w s o f n a t u r e . I f i t i s f al si fi e d h er e j e c t s it , i f n o t , h e c o n t i n u e s t o m a i n t a i n i t . T h i s is o b v i o u s l y s im i l a r t oD e s c a r te s ' v i e w t h a t t h e i n t e r m e d i a t e h y p o t h e s e s m u s t b e c o m p a t i b lew i t h t h e fi rs t p r i n c ip l e s a n d w i t h t h e p h e n o m e n a . A n h y p o t h e s i s i s n o tp r o v e n t r u e , o f c o u r se , e v e n i f i t is c o m p a t i b l e w i t h a l l o u r e v i d e n c e ; b u ti t c a n b e a s s e r t e d w i t h m o r e c o n f id e n c e as i t p r o v e s i t s e l f c a p a b le o fe x p la i n in g m o r e a n d m o r e p h e n o m e n a :' F o r , t h e u s e o f a n h y p o t h e s i s b e i n g t o r e n d e r a n i n te l li g ib l e a c c o u n to f t h e c a u s e s o f t h e e f fe c t s, o r p h e n o m e n a p r o p o s e d , w i t h o u t c r o s si n gt h e l a w s o f n a t u r e , o r o t h e r p h e n o m e n a ; t h e m o r e n u m e r o u s , a n d t h em o r e v a r i o u s t h e p a r t i c l e s a r e , w h e r e o f s o m e a r e e x p l i c a b l e b y t h ea s s i g n e d h y p o t h e s i s , a n d s o m e a r e a g r e e a b l e t o i t , o r , a t l e a s t , n o td i s s o n a n t f r o m i t , t h e m o r e v a l u a b l e i s t h e h y p o t h e s i s , a n d t h e m o r el i k e l y t o b e t r u e . F o r i t i s m u c h m o r e d i f fi c u lt t o f i n d a n h y p o t h e s i s ,t h a t i s n o t t r u e , w h i c h w i ll s u i t w i t h m a n y p h e n o m e n a , e s p e c ia l ly , i ft h e y b e o f v a r i o u s k in d s , t h a n b u t w i t h a f e w .' 4sH e r e a g ai n , c o m p a r i s o n s w i t h D e s c a r t e s a re i n o r d e r . D e s c a r t e s h a da r g u e d t h a t t h o s e p r i n c i p le s a r e m o s t l ik e l y w h i c h e x p l a i n ' s e v e r a ld i f fe r e n t e f f e c t s ' r a t h e r t h a n o n e , a n d s u g g e s t e d t h a t a w e l l - co n f i rm e dh y p o t h e s i s , w h i c h e x p l a i n s a c r o s s - s e c t io n o f n a t u r e , i s p r o b a b l y t r u e . 49B o y l e ' s p o i n t i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y t h e s a m e .

T h e r e i s y e t a n o t h e r b a s i c m e t h o d o l o g i c a l p o s t u l a t e w h i c h B o y l e a n dD e s c a r t e s b o t h a c c e p t e d . T h i s m i g h t b e c a l le d t h e p r in c i p l e o f t h e~nulti-level iden tity of nature. B a s i c a l ly , t h i s p r in c i p l e p o s t u l a t e s t h a t t h el a w s o f n a t u r e w h i c h a p p l y t o v i s ib l e m a s s i v e b o d i e s a ls o a p p l y t o o b j e c t sw h i c h a r e e i t h e r to o l a rg e o r t o o s m a l l to b e m e a s u r e d o r o bs e rv e d .S I tw a s b y i n v o k i n g s u c h a p r i n c i p le t h a t s e v e n t e e n t h - c e n t u r y sc i e n t i s ts w e r ea b l e to a s s u m e t h a t t h e l a w s o f v i s i b l e - b o d y m e c h a n i c s a p p l i e d t oi n t e r a c t i o n s b e t w e e n s u b - m i c r o s c o p ic c o rp u s cl e s. I t w a s a ls o i n t e r m s o ft h i s p r i n c i p le t h a t t h e y r e j e c t e d t h e S c h o l a st ic s t r a t a g e m o f a t t r i b u t i n g

4v R. Boy le, W o r k s , 1772, vol. ii, p. 37.4 s I b i d . , vol. iv, p. 234.49 'Alth oug h there ex ist several individual effects to whic h it is easy to adju st diverse

causes [i.e., hyp othe ses] one to each, it is howe ver no t so easy to adju st one and the stone[hypo thesis] to several different effects, unless it be the true one from which they proceed.(R. Descartes, O e u v r e s , 1897-1957, vol. ii, p. 198).

50 This principle received its definitive form ulat ion at N ewt on 's hands , in his third Ruleof Philosophizing.


21/33

92 L a u r e n s L a u d a n o np r o p e r t i e s t o m i c r o - e n t i t i e s w h i c h d o n o t d e s c r ib e o b s e r v a b l e e n t i t i e s .D e s c a r t e s f o r m u l a t e s t h e p r i n c i p l e t h u s :

' . . . w e d o m u c h b e t t e r t o j u d g e o f w h a t t a k e s p l a c e i n s m a l l b o d i es ,w h i c h t h e i r m i n u t e n e s s a l o n e p r e v e n t s u s f r o m p e r c e iv i n g , b y w h a t w es e e o c c u r r i n g i n t h o s e t h a t w e d o p e r c e i v e , t h a n , i n o r d e r t o e x p l a i nc e r t a i n g i v e n t h i n g s , t o i n v e n t a l l s o r t s o f n o v e l t i e s , t h a t h a v e n or e l a t i o n t o t h o s e t h a t w e p e r c e i v e . ' 51B o y l e , a d o p t i n g h o m e l i e r l a n g u a g e , p u t s t h e p r i n c i p l e t h i s w a y :

' b o t h t h e m e c h a n i c a l a f f e ct i o n s o f m a t t e r a r e t o b e f o u n d , a n d t h el a w s o f m o t i o n t a k e p l a ce , n o t o n l y i n t h e g r e a t m a s s e s , a n d t h e m i d d l es i z e d l u m p s , b u t i n t h e s m a l l e s t f r a g m e n t s o f m a t t e r . . . A n d t h e r e f o r et o s a y , t h a t t h o u g h i n n a t u r a l b o d i es , w h o s e b u l k i s m a n i f e s t a n d t h e i rs t r u c t u r e v i s ib l e , t h e m e c h a n i c a l p r i n c i p l es m a y b e u s e f u l ly a d m i t t e d ,[ b u t] t h a t [ th e y ] a rc n o t t o b e e x t e n d e d t o s u c h p o r t i o n s o f m a t t e r ,w h o s e p a r t s a n d t e x t u r e a r e in v i s ib l e ; m a y p e r h a p s l o o k to s o m e , a s ifa m a n s h o u l d a ll o w , t h a t t h e l a w s o f m e c h a n i s m m a y t a k e p l a c e i n at o w n c l oc k , b u t n o t i n a p o c k e t w a t c h . ' 52

B y w a y o f r e c a p i t u l a t i o n o f t h e a r g u m e n t t h u s f a r , I h a v e e n u m e r a t e db e l o w t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t p a s s a g e s i l l u s t r a t i n g m e t h o d o l o g i c a l s i m i l a r i t i e sb e t w e e n D e s c a r t e s a n d B o y l e :

D e s c a r t e s1 . ' A n d l e s t i t b e s u p p o s e dt h a t A r i s t o t le d i d , o r w a n t e d t o

d o , m o r e t h a n t h is , i t m u s t b er e c a l l e d t h a t h e e x p r e s s l y s a y s i nt h e f i rs t b o o k o f t h e M e t e o r s , a tt h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e s e v e n t hc h a p t e r , t h a t w i t h r e g a r d t ot h i n g s n o t e v i d e n t t o t h e s e n se s ,h e t h i n k s t h a t h e o f f e r s s u f f i c i e n te x p l i c a ti o n s a n d d e m o n s t r a t i o n so f t h e m , i f h e m e r e l y s h o w s t h a tt h e y m a y b e a s he e x p la i n s t h e m . '2 . ' F o r j u s t a s a n i n d u s t r i o u sw a t c h - m a k e r m a y m a k e t w o

w a t c h e s w h i c h k e e p t i m e e q u a l l yw e l l a n d w i t h o u t a n y d i ff e re n c ei n t h e ir e x t e r n a l a p p e a r a n c e , y e tw i t h o u t a n y s i m i l a r i t y i n th ec o m p o s i t i o n o f t h e i r w h e e l s , s o i ti s c e r t a i n t h a t G o d w o r k s i n a ni n f i n i t y o f d i v e r s e w a y s . . . A n d I

B o y l e1 . ' A r i s t o t l e h i m s e l f (w h a t e v e rc o n f i d e n c e h e s o m e t i m e s s e e m s

t o e x p r e s s ) d o e s i n h i s f i r s t b o o ko f M e t e o r s i n g e n u o u s l y c o n f e s s ,t h a t c o n c e rn i n g m a n y o f n a t u r e ' sp h e n o m e n a , h e t h i n k s i t s u ff ic i en t ,t h a t t h e y m a y b e so p e r f o r m e d a sh e e x p l i c a t e s t h e m ' .

2 . ' F o r a s a n a r t i f ic e r c a n s e ta l l t h e w h e e l s o f a c l o c k a g o i n g ,a s w e l l w i t h s p r i n g s a s w i t hw e i g h t s . . . . s o t h e s a m e e f fe c tsm a y b e p r o d u c e d b y d i v e r sc a u s e s d if f e r e n t f r o m o n e a n o t h e r ;a n d i t w i ll o f t e n t i m e s b e v e r yd i f f ic u l t , i f n o t i m p o s s i b l e f o r o u rd i m r e a s o n s t o d i s c e r n s u r e l y ,

~1 1~. D es car tes , Oeuvres, 1897-1957, vol. ix, p. 319.52 1%. :B oy le, Wor]cs, 1772 , vo l . i v , p . 72 . F o r a m o r e e x t e ns iv

the clock metaphor and probabilism

Documents