Skip to main content

Descartes’ Rules of Impact and Their Criticism

An Example of the Structure of Processes in the History of Science

  • Chapter
Essays in Memory of Imre Lakatos

Part of the book series: Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science ((BSPS,volume 39))

  • 446 Accesses

Abstract

Since Huygens it has been said that six of Descartes’ rules of impact are wrong. This seems to be completely clear and we might close the files on that case. What happened here is obviously considered as the simple replacement of error by truth. Contrary to this unanimous opinion, however, we should regard this case as a particularly characteristic example of the intricate structure of processes in the history of science.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Descartes, Principia Philosophiae, Pars secunda, XLVII, Oeuvres, Bd. VIII.

    Google Scholar 

  2. op. cit., XLIX.

    Google Scholar 

  3. op. cit., LH. There we read: Nec ista egent probatione, quia per se sunt manifesta.

    Google Scholar 

  4. op. cit., Pars prima, LVII.

    Google Scholar 

  5. op. cit., LVII.

    Google Scholar 

  6. op. cit., Pars secunda, XXV.

    Google Scholar 

  7. op. cit., XXIX.

    Google Scholar 

  8. op. cit., XXXVI.

    Google Scholar 

  9. op. cit., Pars tertia, I.

    Google Scholar 

  10. quoted from Mouy, Le Development de la Physique Cartésienne, Paris 1934, p. 193.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hübner, K., ‘On the Question of Relativism and Progress in Science’, Man and World 7 (1974), No. 4, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague. Concerning the terms ‘judicial and normative principles’. Cf. also my article: ‘Duhems historistische Wissenschaftstheorie und ihre Weiterentwicklung’, in 9. Deutscher Kongress für Philosophie, Meisenheim 1969, and in Philosophia Naturalis 13 (1971).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

R. S. Cohen P. K. Feyerabend M. W. Wartofsky

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1976 D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht-Holland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hüubner, K. (1976). Descartes’ Rules of Impact and Their Criticism. In: Cohen, R.S., Feyerabend, P.K., Wartofsky, M.W. (eds) Essays in Memory of Imre Lakatos. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol 39. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-1451-9_19

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-1451-9_19

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-277-0655-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-010-1451-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics