Objective
From a methodological point of view, the history of the classical sciences is often presented as a triumphant march of experimentation anchored in the science of Newton and the Newtonians. The historiography of 18th-c. scientific methodology tends moreover to portray each form of persistence of metaphysics as the sign of resistance to modernity or as some obsolete archaism. The aim of my research project is to bring a twofold shift to this traditional interpretation. First, by shedding light on the presence of other experimental traditions, some older than, some contemporary with the Newtonian one, that explain how Newton's natural philosophy was received and, second, by showing that within a certain number of 18th-c. scientific methodologies there was a fertile interaction between experimentation and metaphysics. The idea of the project is to propose a novel historiographical hypothesis about the epistemic values of Enlightenment science. My research hypothesis is based on an innovative methodological idea: namely that one should study epistemic practises in order to identify communities of shared epistemic values. This proposal will go beyond the classical divisions which have long dominated accounts of Enlightenment science (e.g. rationalists versus empiricists, Cartesians versus Newtonians, etc.). It will focus on the Dutch Republic from 1690 to 1750, because the aim is to scrutinize how Newton’s Principia and Opticks were received within an already existing experimental context. The focus here will be on two questions that occupied 18th-c. scientists: What knowledge do experiments provide us with? And, how can it be rendered certain? To understand how the development of experimental philosophy in the Dutch Republic managed to reconfigure epistemic concerns without totally erasing metaphysical preoccupations. My intention is to test a research hypothesis: the epistemic optimism of 18th-c. natural philosophy.
Fields of science (EuroSciVoc)
CORDIS classifies projects with EuroSciVoc, a multilingual taxonomy of fields of science, through a semi-automatic process based on NLP techniques. See: The European Science Vocabulary.
CORDIS classifies projects with EuroSciVoc, a multilingual taxonomy of fields of science, through a semi-automatic process based on NLP techniques. See: The European Science Vocabulary.
- humanities history and archaeology history
- humanities philosophy, ethics and religion philosophy metaphysics
- natural sciences computer and information sciences artificial intelligence heuristic programming
- social sciences political sciences government systems
You need to log in or register to use this function
We are sorry... an unexpected error occurred during execution.
You need to be authenticated. Your session might have expired.
Thank you for your feedback. You will soon receive an email to confirm the submission. If you have selected to be notified about the reporting status, you will also be contacted when the reporting status will change.
Keywords
Project’s keywords as indicated by the project coordinator. Not to be confused with the EuroSciVoc taxonomy (Fields of science)
Project’s keywords as indicated by the project coordinator. Not to be confused with the EuroSciVoc taxonomy (Fields of science)
Programme(s)
Multi-annual funding programmes that define the EU’s priorities for research and innovation.
Multi-annual funding programmes that define the EU’s priorities for research and innovation.
-
H2020-EU.1.3. - EXCELLENT SCIENCE - Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions
MAIN PROGRAMME
See all projects funded under this programme -
H2020-EU.1.3.2. - Nurturing excellence by means of cross-border and cross-sector mobility
See all projects funded under this programme
Topic(s)
Calls for proposals are divided into topics. A topic defines a specific subject or area for which applicants can submit proposals. The description of a topic comprises its specific scope and the expected impact of the funded project.
Calls for proposals are divided into topics. A topic defines a specific subject or area for which applicants can submit proposals. The description of a topic comprises its specific scope and the expected impact of the funded project.
Funding Scheme
Funding scheme (or “Type of Action”) inside a programme with common features. It specifies: the scope of what is funded; the reimbursement rate; specific evaluation criteria to qualify for funding; and the use of simplified forms of costs like lump sums.
Funding scheme (or “Type of Action”) inside a programme with common features. It specifies: the scope of what is funded; the reimbursement rate; specific evaluation criteria to qualify for funding; and the use of simplified forms of costs like lump sums.
MSCA-IF - Marie Skłodowska-Curie Individual Fellowships (IF)
See all projects funded under this funding scheme
Call for proposal
Procedure for inviting applicants to submit project proposals, with the aim of receiving EU funding.
Procedure for inviting applicants to submit project proposals, with the aim of receiving EU funding.
(opens in new window) H2020-MSCA-IF-2016
See all projects funded under this callCoordinator
Net EU financial contribution. The sum of money that the participant receives, deducted by the EU contribution to its linked third party. It considers the distribution of the EU financial contribution between direct beneficiaries of the project and other types of participants, like third-party participants.
1050 Bruxelles / Brussel
Belgium
The total costs incurred by this organisation to participate in the project, including direct and indirect costs. This amount is a subset of the overall project budget.