@article {345102,
	title = {Optical versus Mechanical Models: Newton{\textquoteright}s "Failure" to Construct an Optical Theory},
	journal = {Logique et Analyse},
	volume = {49},
	number = {194},
	year = {2006},
	pages = {199{\textendash}223},
	abstract = {<p>In this essay, I take up both Shapiros and Hakfoorts suggestion that Newton tried to apply the same method he used in the Principia (first edition: 1687) to The Opticks (first edition: 1704). Why did Newtons method, which was apparently so successful in the realm of mechanics, fail when applied to optics? I shall argue that both empirical as well as methodological aspects are needed to explain Newtons failure. Newtons repugnance to introduce hypotheses in published texts forced him to explore, in the demonstrative part of science, a conceptually poor framework. Such framework has limited inferential power, i.e. the set of consequences which can be deduced from it is limited. This will be contrasted with the Principia where a richer conceptual framework was at hand and its deduced effects could by confirmed by experiment. The conceptual framework in the Principia allowed Newton to a priori deduce the celestial motions. As I have argued elsewhere, a priori deducing the phenomena under investigation was one of Newtons most central methodological ideals. In this essay, I shall attempt to explain why a priori deduction of phenomena was impossible in optics.</p>},
	issn = {0024-5836},
	author = {Ducheyne, Steffen}
}
