Skip to main content

Berkeley on Calculus

Image result for baseball diamond

As is well known (at least in certain nerdy circles), the immaterialist philosopher George Berkeley sharply criticized Isaac Newton, and the branch of mathematics Newton had founded, in 1734. Berkeley's book of that year, THE ANALYST, said that calculus depends upon presuming that an "infinitesimal" is something at a certain point in one's reason, then assuming it is nothing at another point. That is internally incoherent.

Berkeley thus earned himself a place within the usual story about calculus. The story goes -- Newton proposed certain rough-and-ready ideas, not yet fully developed. He developed them just far enough, and just deep enough, to figure out orbital mathematics. But he left holes in his reasoning. Berkeley saw the holes and called Newton out on this. Subsequent theorists re-worked the foundations to render this branch of mathematics safe from Berkeleyan assaults.

That, as I say, is the usual story.

In 1987, a fellow named David Sherry wrote an article on the subject of Berkeley's critique of calculus, published in a journal called STUDIES IN THE HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE. Sherry took a somewhat different view.  He puts this incident in the context of a pragmatic conception of what constitutes a "demonstration."

"In my view, many of Newton's demonstrations bring about understanding because they situate his results in a familiar context or rather an amalgamation of familiar contexts." Sherry objects to the notion that this was a bad thing, that it was a Newtonian defect that required Berkeleyan assistance.

Newton's demonstrations in particular, Sherry adds, "comprise representational techniques from kinematics, which would be familiar to anyone who grasped that subject. The purpose of Newton's demonstrations is to make plausible a particular manipulation of signs by showing that it is a natural consequence of representational techniques already employed."

The purpose, again, is understanding. Trying to make someone understand why a pitcher might in certain situations deliberately throw outside the strike zone in baseball. Only those who have some background in baseball and its vocabulary,  and likely who have played the game if only in a friend's back yard, could make sense of certain explanations, yet to people who meet that test, those demonstrations of the "intentional walk" would be perfectly cogent.

Berkeley simply didn't understand baseball well enough to understand the strategic value of an intentional walk -- he didn't understand kinematics well enough to grasp the idea of instantaneous velocity. "Baseball" in this analogy translates to such ideas as Oresme's diagrams, and Galileo's techniques in the discussion of momentum and speed.

Sherry's account seems a good deal less flattering to Berkeley than the standard view. His take on pragmatism in mathematics seems to suggest that 'foundations' are unnecessary so long as an existing practice exists. So the idea that Berkeley did something progressive by proving the inadequacy of the "foundations" of calculus falls by the wayside.


Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.

We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majestic wate…

Cancer Breakthrough

Hopeful news in recent days about an old and dear desideratum: a cure for cancer. Or at least for a cancer, and a nasty one at that.

The news comes about because investors in GlaxoSmithKline are greedy for profits, and has already inspired a bit of deregulation to boot. 

The FDA has paved the road for a speedy review of a new BCMA drug for multiple myeloma, essentially cancer of the bone marrow. This means that the US govt has removed some of the hurdles that would otherwise (by decision of the same govt) face a company trying to proceed with these trials expeditiously. 

This has been done because the Phase I clinical trial results have been very promising. The report I've seen indicates that details of these results will be shared with the world on Dec. 11 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. 

The European Medicines Agency has also given priority treatment to the drug in question. 

GSK's website identifies the drug at issue as "GSK2857916," althou…

Hume's Cutlery

David Hume is renowned for two pieces of cutlery, the guillotine and the fork.

Hume's guillotine is the sharp cut he makes between "is" statements and "ought" statements, to make the point that the former never ground the latter.

His "fork" is the division between what later came to be called "analytic" and "synthetic" statements, with the ominous observation that any books containing statements that cannot be assigned to one or the other prong should be burnt.

Actually, I should acknowledge that there is some dispute as to how well or poorly the dichotomy Hume outlines really maps onto the analytic/synthetic dichotomy. Some writers maintain that Hume meant something quite different and has been hijacked. Personally, I've never seen the alleged difference however hard they've worked to point it out to me.

The guillotine makes for a more dramatic graphic than a mere fork, hence the bit of clip art above.

I'm curious whe…