Don Ihde has recently launched a sweeping attack against Husserl’s late philosophy of science. Ihde takes particular exception to Husserl’s portrayal of Galileo and to the results Husserl draws from his understanding of Galilean science. Ihde’s main point is that Husserl paints an overly intellectualistic picture of the “father of modern science”, neglecting Galileo’s engagement with scientific instruments such as, most notably, the telescope. According to Ihde, this omission is not merely a historiographical shortcoming. On Ihde’s view, it is only on the basis of a distorted picture of Galileo that Husserl can “create“ (Ihde 24:69–82 2011) the division between Lifeworld and the “world of science“, a division that is indeed fundamental for Husserl’s overall position. Hence, if successful, Ihde’s argument effectively undermines Husserl’s late philosophy of science. The aim of this paper is to show that Ihde’s criticism does not stand up to closer historical or philosophical scrutiny.

中文翻译：

---

失去的力学：胡塞尔的伽利略和伊德的望远镜

唐伊德最近对胡塞尔晚期的科学哲学发起了全面攻击。伊德特别反对胡塞尔对伽利略的描绘以及胡塞尔从他对伽利略科学的理解中得出的结果。伊德的主要观点是胡塞尔描绘了一幅关于“现代科学之父”的过于理性主义的图景，而忽略了伽利略与科学仪器的接触，例如最显着的望远镜。根据伊德的说法，这种遗漏不仅仅是史学上的缺陷。在伊德看来，胡塞尔只有基于伽利略的扭曲图景才能“创造”（伊德 24:69-82 2011）生活世界和“科学世界”之间的划分，这种划分确实是胡塞尔的总体立场。因此，如果成功，伊德的论点有效地削弱了胡塞尔晚期的科学哲学。本文的目的是表明伊德的批评经不起更仔细的历史或哲学审查。