Philosophical analysis demonstrates full certainty in Crusian physics, highlighting that empirical science was not regarded as merely probable.
Crusius’ work on physics has recently become the target of well-deserved scholarly attention. In this paper, I aim to challenge a recent interpretation of Crusius’ physics as a merely probable science defended by Hein van den Berg and Boris Demarest. By inquiring into the sense of ‘probable’ in Crusius and systematizing his often-missed distinction between two concepts of probability, this paper argues that Crusius defended a conception of physics as a science that can and, and in fact does, attain full certainty.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vladimir Lazurca (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: