The significance of the Barrovian Case: The Barrovian Case is a technical problem, hitherto unsolved, involving either a double convex lens or a concave mirror. The problem, due to Isaac Barrow and reported by Berkeley in his New theory of vision, is that what is seen in certain instances with these devices seems to violate historically important principles of optics. One is the ‘ancient principle’ of Euclid that the object should be seen at the intersection of the refracted ray with the perpendicular of incidence; the other is the principle attributed to Kepler that the perceived distance of an object varies indirectly with the divergence of the rays it sends to the eye. The most obvious difficulty is that the object should appear, impossibly, behind the eye. As it happens, despite some strong claims that have been made about the significance of the problem, the principles generating it no longer have the centrality in optics they were once thought to have. But even accepting them, th

Thomas M. Lennon

Download from

dx.doi.org

More download options

The significance of the Barrovian Case: The Barrovian Case is a technical problem, hitherto unsolved, involving either a double convex lens or a concave mirror. The problem, due to Isaac Barrow and reported by Berkeley in his New theory of vision, is that what is seen in certain instances with these devices seems to violate historically important principles of optics. One is the ‘ancient principle’ of Euclid that the object should be seen at the intersection of the refracted ray with the perpendicular of incidence; the other is the principle attributed to Kepler that the perceived distance of an object varies indirectly with the divergence of the rays it sends to the eye. The most obvious difficulty is that the object should appear, impossibly, behind the eye. As it happens, despite some strong claims that have been made about the significance of the problem, the principles generating it no longer have the centrality in optics they were once thought to have. But even accepting them, th [Book Review]

Thomas M. Lennon

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 38 (1):36-55 (2007)

@article{Lennon2007-LENTSO-8,
	author = {Thomas M. Lennon},
	doi = {10.1016/j.shpsa.2006.12.014},
	journal = {Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A},
	number = {1},
	pages = {36--55},
	publisher = {Elsevier},
	title = {The Significance of the Barrovian Case: The Barrovian Case is a Technical Problem, Hitherto Unsolved, Involving Either a Double Convex Lens or a Concave Mirror. The Problem, Due to Isaac Barrow and Reported by Berkeley in His New Theory of Vision, is That What is Seen in Certain Instances with These Devices Seems to Violate Historically Important Principles of Optics. One is the ?Ancient Principle? of Euclid That the Object Should Be Seen at the Intersection of the Refracted Ray with the Perpendicular of Incidence; the Other is the Principle Attributed to Kepler That the Perceived Distance of an Object Varies Indirectly with the Divergence of the Rays It Sends to the Eye. The Most Obvious Difficulty is That the Object Should Appear, Impossibly, Behind the Eye. As It Happens, Despite Some Strong Claims That Have Been Made About the Significance of the Problem, the Principles Generating It No Longer Have the Centrality in Optics They Were Once Thought to Have. But Even Accepting Them, Th},
	volume = {38},
	year = {2007}
}

Lennon, Thomas M. (2007). The significance of the Barrovian Case: The Barrovian Case is a technical problem, hitherto unsolved, involving either a double convex lens or a concave mirror. The problem, due to Isaac Barrow and reported by Berkeley in his New theory of vision, is that what is seen in certain instances with these devices seems to violate historically important principles of optics. One is the ‘ancient principle’ of Euclid that the object should be seen at the intersection of the refracted ray with the perpendicular of incidence; the other is the principle attributed to Kepler that the perceived distance of an object varies indirectly with the divergence of the rays it sends to the eye. The most obvious difficulty is that the object should appear, impossibly, behind the eye. As it happens, despite some strong claims that have been made about the significance of the problem, the principles generating it no longer have the centrality in optics they were once thought to have. But even accepting them, th. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 38 (1):36-55.

Copy BIBT_EX

Abstract

This article has no associated abstract. (fix it)

Cite

Plain text

BibTeX

Formatted text

Zotero

EndNote

Reference Manager

RefWorks

Options

Mark as duplicate

Find it on Scholar

Request removal from index

Revision history

Edit

Keywords

Add keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.1016/j.shpsa.2006.12.014

My notes

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-09-02

Downloads
33 (#487,172)

6 months
6 (#530,265)

Historical graph of downloads

How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The Works of George Berkeley.J. E. C., George Berkeley & Alexander Campbell Fraser - 1902 - Philosophical Review 11:97.

The power of images: mathematics and metaphysics in Hobbes's optics.Antoni Malet - 2001 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 32 (2):303-333.

Optics, the Science of Vison.VASCO RONCHI - 1957

Add more references

Applied ethics	Epistemology	History of Western Philosophy	Meta-ethics	Metaphysics	Normative ethics
Philosophy of biology	Philosophy of language	Philosophy of mind	Philosophy of religion	Science Logic and Mathematics	More ...

Abstract

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

Links

PhilArchive

External links

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Citations of this work

References found in this work