1. Especially in his “The Development of Scientific Method in the School of Padua,” Journal of the History of Ideas 1 (1940), 177–206,later expanded into a monograph, The School of Padua and the Emergence of Modern Science, Padua: Editrice Antenore, 1961.
2. For fuller details, see our Prelude to Galileo: Essays on Medieval and Sixteenth-Century Sources of Galileo’s Thought, Dordrecht-Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1981, and Galileo and His Sources: The Heritage of the Collegio Romano in Galileo’s Science, Princeton: Princeton University Press,1984.
3. Whewell's appraisal is contained in his Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, 2 vols., London: J.W. Parker, 1847 (repr. 1967), 2: 216-220, and Mach's in his The Science of Mechanics: A Critical and Historical Account of Its Development, 6th ed., Chicago: The Open Court Publishing Company, 1960, 151-191. Earlier, in his biography of Galileo reprinted in the National Edition of Galileo's works (Le opere di Galileo Galilei, ed. A. Favaro, Florence: 1890-1909, Vol. 19, 597-632, henceforth abbreviated as GG19: 597632), Vincenzio Viviani had likewise portrayed his teacher as an empiricist
4. see Michael Segre, ¡°Viviani's Life of Galileo,¡± Isis 80 (1989), 207-231.
5. Typical of Koyr¨¦’s evaluation of medieval science is his rejection of Domingo de Soto’s having exerted any influence on Galileo’s thought; see our ¡°Duhem and Koyr¨¦ on Domingo de Soto,¡± Synthese 83 (1990), 239–260.