Historical and Epistemological Reflections on the Culture of Machines around the Renaissance: Machines, Machinaries and Perpetual Motion. Seconda parte
ACTA BALTICA HISTORIAE ET PHILOSOPHIAE SCIENTIARUM
Abstract
This paper is the second part of our recent paper ‘Historical
and Epistemological Reflections on the Culture of Machines around
the Renaissance: How Science and Technique Work’ (Pisano & Bussotti
2014a). In the first paper—which discussed some aspects of the relations
between science and technology from Antiquity to the Renaissance—we
highlighted the differences between the Aristotelian/Euclidean tradition and
the Archimedean tradition. We also pointed out the way in which the two
traditions were perceived around the Renaissance. The Archimedean tradition
is connected with machines: its relationship with science and construction of
machines should be made clear. It is enough to think that Archimedes mainly
dealt with three machines: lever, pulley and screw (and a correlated principle of
mechanical advantage). As underlined in the first part, our thesis is that many
machines were constructed by people who ignored theory, even though, in
other cases, the knowledge of the Archimedean tradition was a precious help
in order to build machines. Hence, an a priori idea as to the relations between
the Archimedean tradition and construction of machines cannot exist. In this
second part we offer some examples of functioning machines constructed
by people who ignored any physical theory, whereas, in other cases, the ignorance of some principles—such as the impossibility of a perpetuum
mobile—induced the attempt to construct impossible machines. What is very
interesting is that these machines did not function, of course, as a perpetuum
mobile, but anyway had their functioning and were useful for certain aims,
although they were constructed on an idea which is completely wrong from
a theoretical point of view. We mainly focus on the Renaissance and early
modern period, but we also provide examples of machines built before and
after this period. We have followed a chronological order in both parts,
starting from the analysis of the situation in ancient Greece. Therefore, in the
first part, we have examined the relations between the Aristotelian/Euclidean
and Archimedean traditions from ancient Greece to the early modern age.
In this second part, we analyse the relations of Archimedean tradition/
construction of machines from ancient Greece to the 19th century, focusing
on the mentioned period. We remind the reader that our aim is to prove
an epistemological thesis, not to provide a complete historical endeavour.