Understanding mathematical abstraction in the formularization of Galileo's law

Keywords: Galileo, quantitative relationship, atomic theory, mathematical abstraction, thought experiment


Galileo's revolution in science introduced an analytical method to science that typifies the overall modern thinking of extracting, abstracting, and grasping only critical aspects of the target phenomena and focusing on “how”, which is a quantitative relationship between variables, instead of “why”. For example, to him, the question of 'why does an object fall' is of no significance; instead, only the quantitative relationship between distance from the falling object and time is important. Yet, the most fundamental aspect of his idea is that he introduced a quantified time t. When an object is projected horizontally, the distance travelled at some time in the horizontal direction is summed up as d ∝t, whereas the distance falling at some time in the vertical direction is summed up as d ∝ t². Here, the distance, which is a spatial attribute, is expressed as a function of time, t. That is, time is identified as a homogeneous amount that can be reduced to an algebraic number. It is now possible to calculate the laws of motion of things using functions of time. In this respect, mathematical time was a decisive variable in making mathematisation of physical nature practical. Because, according to atomic theory, vacuum exists between an atom and an object composed of atoms or between objects – ignoring factors that interfere with motion, such as friction – the space for absolute time, which is a mathematical time, can be geometrically defined. In order to justify this mathematical abstraction strategy, thought experiments were conducted rather than laboratory experiments, which at that time were difficult to perform.


Download data is not yet available.


Brown, J. R. (1991a). The laboratory of the mind: Thought Experiments in the Natural Sciences. London: Routledge.

Brown, J. R. (1991b). Thought experiments: A platonic account. In T. Horowitz & G. Massey (Eds.), Thought experiments in science and philosophy (pp. 119–128). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

Brown, J. R. (2011). The Laboratory of the mind: thought experiments in the natural sciences (2nd edition). London: Routledge.

Chalmers, A. F. (1999). What is this thing called science? (3rd edition). Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company. Inc.

Cohen, I. B. (1985). The birth of a new physics. New York, London: W.W. Norton & Company.

Crease, R. P. (2003). The prism and the pendulum: the ten most beautiful experiments i science. New York: Random House.

Cushing J. T. (1998). Philosophical Concepts. Cambridge: The Press of the University of Cambridge.

Dolnick, E. (2011). The clockwork universe: Isaac Newton, Royal Society, and the birth of the Modern World. New York: HarperCollins.

Frank, A. (2011). About time: Cosmology and culture at the twilight of the big bang. New York: A Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc

Gillispie, C. C. (1990). The edge of objectivity. NJ: Priceton University Press.

Gottlieb, A. (2000). The dream of reason: A history of western philosophy from the Greeks to the Renaissance. WW Norton & Company.

Kuhn, T.S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd edition). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

McMulin, E. (1985). Galilean idealization. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 16(3), 247–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/0039-3681(85)90003-2

Miller, A. (1996). Insights of Genius. New York: Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-2388-7

Moreland, J. P., & Craig, W. L. (2003). Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Wordview. Downer Grove, IL.: InterVarsity Press.

Nersessian, N. (1992). In the theoretician’s laboratory: Thought experimenting as mental modeling. In D. Hull, M. Forbes & K. Okruhlik (Eds.), PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 2, 291–301. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.

Norton, J. (1991). Thought experiments in Einstein's work. In T. Horowitz and G. Massey (Eds.), Thought Experiments in Science and Philosophy (pp. 129–148). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

Norton, J. (1996). Are thought experiments just what you thought? Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 26(3), 333–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/00455091.1996.10717457

Oh, J.-Y. (2016). Understanding scientific inquiries of Galileo’s formulation for the law of free falling motion. Foundations of Science, 21(4), 567–578. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-015-9426-y

Oh, J.-Y. (2021). Understanding the scientific creativity based on various perspectives of science. Axiomathes; 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-021-09553-8

Park, J.-W., Chung, B.-H., Kwon, S.-G., & Song, J.-W. (1998). A study of high school students and science teachers understanding of ideal conditions involved in the theoretical explanation and experiment in physics: Part II – Focused on the implications to the physics learning. Journal of the Korean Association for Research in Science Education, 18(2), 245–266 [in Korean]

Runco, M. A. (2014). Creativity: Theories and themes: Research, development, and practice (Second Edition). New York: Elsevier Inc.

Trickett, S. B., & Trafton, J. G. (2007). “What if…”: The use of conceptual simulations in scientific reasoning, Cognitive Science, 31(5), 843–875. https://doi.org/10.1080/03640210701530771

Welling, H. (2007) Four mental operations in creative cognition: the importance of abstraction. Creativity research journal, 19(2–3), 163–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410701397214

Abstract views: 282
PDF Downloads: 165
How to Cite
Oh, J.-Y., & Han, H. (2022). Understanding mathematical abstraction in the formularization of Galileo’s law. History of Science and Technology, 12(1), 55-68. https://doi.org/10.32703/2415-7422-2022-12-1-55-68