Truth but not science? George Berkeley and the politics of mathematical authority in the Analyst Controversy.
This article reframes the Analyst Controversy, incited by George Berkeley's incendiary tract The Analyst: A Discourse Addressed to an Infidel Mathematician (1734), as not merely a debate about Newtonian fluxions but as a conflict over epistemic authority and competing ideas and ideals of reason in t...
| Publicado en: | Annals of Science Vol. 82; no. 4; pp. 528 - 586 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Taylor & Francis Ltd
Oct2025
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=188362572&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 188362572 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 00033790 7J1 jtl: Annals of Science issn: 00033790 maglogo: Y pubinfo: dt: Oct2025 vid: 82 iid: 4 pid: 377 pub: Taylor & Francis Ltd artinfo: ui: 188362572 10.1080/00033790.2025.2538447 ppf: 528 ppct: 58 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: P size: 1.1MB tig: atl: Truth but not science? George Berkeley and the politics of mathematical authority in the Analyst Controversy. aug: au: Tomasson, Julia affil: Department of History, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA su: History of mathematics Early modern history Social epistemology Locke, John, 1632-1704 Newton, Isaac, 1642-1727 Mathematicians Social context sug: subj: History of mathematics Early modern history Social epistemology Locke, John, 1632-1704 Newton, Isaac, 1642-1727 Mathematicians Social context keyword: early modern science George Berkeley (1685–1753) history of mathematics Isaac Newton (1642–1727) John Locke (1632–1704) scientific controversy The Analyst ab: This article reframes the Analyst Controversy, incited by George Berkeley's incendiary tract The Analyst: A Discourse Addressed to an Infidel Mathematician (1734), as not merely a debate about Newtonian fluxions but as a conflict over epistemic authority and competing ideas and ideals of reason in the Age of Reason. While often treated as a technical episode in the history of calculus, the controversy also reveals deeper tensions about the legitimate production of mathematical knowledge and the status of its truths. By situating the controversy in the broader social and political context of Augustan Britain, this article argues that Berkeley's critique challenged not only the foundations of Newtonian mathematics but also the Lockean social epistemology and Whig ideologies of order in which they were embedded. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: Copyright of Annals of Science is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. item: Annals of Science holder: Taylor & Francis Ltd dt: @attributes: year: 2025 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|