* The historiography of eighteenth-century scientific methodology tends to portray the persistence of metaphysics as the sign of resistance to modernity and modern science, leaving the potential interaction between metaphysics and early modern science uncharted. The EPISTOP project provides a historiographical re-evaluation of metaphysical considerations within eighteenth-century natural philosophy.
* The aim of this research project is to bring a twofold shift to this traditional interpretation. First, by shedding light on the significance of other experimental traditions, some older than and some contemporary with the Newtonian experimental philosophy, that explain how Newton’s natural philosophy was received and, second and most importantly, by showing that within a number of eighteenth-century scientific methodologies there were infact fertile interactions between experimentation and metaphysics. The project will focus on the Dutch Republic from 1690 to 1750, because it provides us with a clear case of how Newton’s Principia and Opticks were received within an already existing experimental context and because Dutch natural philosophy was prototypical of the experimental philosophy which was burgeoning at the time. The focus of this project is on two questions that occupied eighteenth-century scientists: 1. What sort of knowledge do experiments provide us with?, and 2. How can it be rendered certain? The project will study the development of experimental philosophy in the Dutch Republic, and pinpoint how it reconfigured epistemic concerns without totally erasing metaphysical preoccupations. In this context, the hypothesis of ‘epistemic optimism’ is introduced as a heuristic tool. 'Epistemic optimism' refers to an awareness that our epistemic capacities are limited combined with a certain epistemic confidence that we will be able to push back these limitation at some later time. The originality of my project lies in its endeavour to account for the epistemic devices employed by certain early eighteenth-century savants by using categories from general philosophy of science (robustness, uncertainty logic, statement falsifiability, etc.).
* We live in a period where we unceasingly discover new entities, new stars, new medical treatments, etc., i.e. in a period where the question of pushing back the limits of our knowledge is fundamental. Our interpretation of Enlightenment can be useful or at least inspiring for understanding epistemically comparable situations.
