John Doty wrote:
>Should 18th century physicists have abandoned Newtonian mechanics
>and returned to a belief in Aristotelian physics when Berkeley
>showed that it was based on fallacious reasoning? Straight answer,
>no evasion please.
The above is a classic example of the limited/false alternatives
fallacy. You constructed the above argument with the unwarranted
assumption that the only possible alternative to Newtonian mechanics
is Aristotelian physics, and proceeded to ask me to choose between
those options as if they were the only possible answers.
It is also a classic example of the begging the question fallacy
-- arriving at a conclusion based on statements that themselves
have not been proven to be true. In this case you assume but
have not established that George Berkeley proved that Issac
Newton used fallacious reasoning.
It should be noted -- even though what follows does not imply that
Berkeley was wrong; that would itself be a logical fallacy -- that
Berkeley conducted his campaign against Newtonian mechanics because
he opposed what he saw as the religious implications. Himself being
an Anglican bishop, he was attempting to defend traditional
Christianity against Deism.
The interested reader can read Berkeley's arguments and decide
for himself whether he actually refuted Newton. Look here:
URL: http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Berkeley/Analyst/
Title: THE ANALYST; OR, A DISCOURSE Addressed to an Infidel
MATHEMATICIAN. WHEREIN It is examined whether the Object,
Principles, and Inferences of the modern Analysis are more
distinctly conceived, or more evidently deduced, than Religious
Mysteries and Points of Faith. By George Berkeley (1734)
Also see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Analyst
http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Berkeley/Defence/
http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Jurin/NoFriend/
http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Walton/Vindication/
George Berkeley on killfiles (written in 1735):
"There are some Men that can neither give nor take an Answer,
but writing merely for the sake of writing multiply words
to no purpose. I shall no more ask [him] to explain any
thing. For I can honestly say, the more he explains, the
more I am puzzled. At first I consider'd him in another
light, as one who had good reason for keeping to the beaten
Track, who had been used to dictate, who had terms of art
at will, but was indeed, at small trouble about putting
them together, and perfectly easy about his Reader's
understanding them. It must be owned, in an age of so
much ludicrous humour, it is not every one can at first
sight discern a Writer's real design. But, be a man's
Assertions ever so strong in favour of a Doctrine, yet
if his Reasonings are directly levelled against it,
whatever Question there may be about the matter in Dispute,
there can be none about the Intention of the Writer."
--
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
|
