It is generally agreed that Galileo’s distinctive place in the history of science is due to the power of his method, and that, in general terms, this consists in an effective combination of mathematics and physical experiment. In attempting to be more specific, some authors have assigned a particular method to Galileo as either new or a unique adaptation of a traditional method, e.g. hypothetico-deduction, the method of analysis, or ex suppositione. William Wallace, for example, has argued that by the (...) time of the «Two New Sciences» (1638) Galileo had fashioned his own version of ex suppositione, combining elements of the Archimedean and Aristotelian traditions into a distinct two-stage mode of reasoning of his own creation. We shall have reason to comment upon this below. (shrink)

It is a common occurence to find Galileo claimed as the father of modern science, particularly as to his method being appropriate for its pursuit. Yet, it is apparent from the literature that little agreement has been reached concerning the specifics of the structure and nature of his method(s). Galileo himself is explicit in little more than describing it as „geometrical“, and as such contrasting its greater demonstrative power with that of the traditional Peripatetic logic. One is then left with (...) examples and glosses in the text as to hints that might place his method in a known context of ancient or medieval science, or metaphysics and logic, or both. (shrink)

THE pervasive role of causality in the development of Galileo's science has been obscured largely by two factors. Philosophers who address the problem usually exhibit an anti-causal bias traceable to David Hume, and this disposes them to concentrate on passages in Galileo's writings that can be given a positivist interpretation. Historians are likewise selective in their treatment of his texts, for they tend to enforce sharp dichotomies between Galileo's earlier Latin compositions and his treatises in Italian, especially the two dialogues (...) of his later years for which he is justly famous. With this twofold reinforcement from philosophers and historians of science, one might think that the problem of causality in Galileo's science is whether or not the Italian physicist actually reasoned in causal terms such as those explained in Aristotle's Posterior Analytics. A large and influential school at the moment would say that this is the question, and that it is best answered in the negative: causal analysis played little or no role in the development of Galileo's science, and certainly less and less in his later years. Indeed, it was his rejection of Aristotle precisely on these grounds that merits for him the title, "Father of Modern Science," the canons of which science are almost diametrically opposite those of the science advocated by Greek peripatetics and medieval scholastics, before the onset of the modern era. (shrink)