Between 1665 and 1755 several members of the Royal Society collected eyewitness accounts of earthquakes, some of which were published in the Philosophical Transactions. While such observations have been recognized as crucial to early seismology in the nineteenth century, their impact on the seventeenth- and eighteenth-century natural philosophy of earthquakes has received limited attention. This article suggests that growing inclusion of observations considerably challenged existing theories and epistemologies and was indispensable to the emergence of seismology in the second half of the eighteenth century. Initially, observations of earthquakes served two uses: the provision of particulars and the verification of other observations. By the eighteenth century, a new approach to empiricism was beginning to influence the collection of observations, focusing on information that could be compared and synthesized to chart the extent and varying intensities of earthquakes. This practice promoted a conception of subterranean, travelling earthquakes that could be measured by their intensity, and which were hypothesized to have some form of centre or origin. While seismology could develop on the basis of sound theoretical assumptions, these assumptions were heavily indebted to the methodological practice of eyewitness observation.

1665 年至 1755 年间，皇家学会的几位成员收集了地震的目击者记录，其中一些发表在《哲学汇刊》上. 虽然这些观测被认为对 19 世纪的早期地震学至关重要，但它们对 17 世纪和 18 世纪地震自然哲学的影响却受到了有限的关注。本文认为，越来越多的观测纳入对现有理论和认识论提出了很大挑战，并且对于 18 世纪下半叶地震学的出现是必不可少的。最初，地震观测有两个用途：提供细节和验证其他观测。到 18 世纪，一种新的经验主义方法开始影响观测资料的收集，重点关注可以比较和综合的信息，以绘制地震的范围和不同强度的图表。这种做法促进了一种可以通过强度来测量的地下移动地震的概念，并假设这些地震具有某种形式的中心或起源。虽然地震学可以在合理的理论假设的基础上发展，但这些假设很大程度上归功于目击者观察的方法实践。