From pre-classical physics to classical mechanics

Abstract

In this article, within the framework of the general problem of the formation of modern science, the question of the transition from Aristotelian physics to classical mechanics in the 17th century is being considered. The distinction between these two forms of scientific approach to the study of nature is based on the opposition of ideas of holism, which guided the preclassical natural science, and reductionism, which became the foundation of classical mechanics. The reductionist nature of the postulates underlying the law of the parabolic trajectory of the projectile, the discovery of which inaugurated the scientific revolution of the 17th century, is disclosed and emphasized. Among them - the principle of inertial motion in the horizontal direction (in the absence of gravity), the law of free fall in the vertical direction under the influence of gravity, and the law of the parallelogram of forces and motions. It is shown that none of these postulates could be fulfilled in pre-classical mechanics due to its holistic orientation. Proceeding from the hypothesis that the theoretical constructions in the field of mechanics are secondary in relation to the forms of motion realized in practical mechanics, it is established that holism is associated with the use of muscular strength of man and animals as working engines. It is shown that it is the use of animate engines (characteristic of antiquity and the Middle Ages) that underlies the violation of the principle of the additivity of forces, upon which classical mechanics is based. In conclusion, proceeding from the aforementioned hypothesis about the secondary nature of theoretical constructions, the thesis is argued that the technological prerequisites for the formation of the idea of reduction are new types of technical movement realized in practical mechanics in the 15th-16th centuries. These are lifting devices using gravity as driving force and crank-and-rod mechanisms equipped with flywheels. Devices of the first type led to the idea of additivity of forces, while of the second to the possibility of a uniform motion.