Subject: Re: [HM] Copernicus (was: Indian astronomy and mathematics)
From: Don Cook (tdctdc@surfsouth.com)
Date: Sun Feb 06 2000 - 17:33:48 EST
[Don Cook]
...
> Copernicus was a Platonist and was able to ignore the sense perception
> of an unmovable earth.
...
[Chris Linton]
>
> I don't think that this is true. To Copernicus, the motion of the earth
> was a necessary consequence of his accurate solution to the problem of
> the planets: "In so many and such important ways, then, do the planets
> bear witness to the earth's mobility" (De Revolutionibus, I, 11). It
> seems clear from Copernicus' writings that he had great problems with
> the concept of a moving earth and his attempts to justify it were no
> more convincing than Aristotle's reasons for a stationary earth.
>
> The argument put forward by Thomas Kuhn in "The Copernican revolution"
> in 1957 that Copernicus was influenced by the Neo-Platonic tradition
> of sun worship is often repeated, but many Copernican scholars have
> dismissed it, see eg. E. Rosen (1983) "Was Copernicus a Neoplatonist?"
> Journal for the History of Ideas, vol 44, pp. 667-669.
> ...
Dear Chris,
Thank you for your note and reference. I will read Rosen.
I agree with you that Copernicus' justifications for a moving earth are
weak. However, I believe that from a sense perception view, Aristotle's
reasons for a stationary earth are very convincing.
One problem with the Ptolemaic system is that it is not a unified system.
Each planet has a separate diagram. There is no single center to the system.
Another problem with Ptolemy is the equant and non-uniform motion.
I hear Plato in the following passage:
"Those again who have devised eccentric systems, though they appear to have
well-nigh established the seeming motions by calculations agreeable to their
assumptions, have made many admissions which seem to violate the first
principle of uniformity in motion. Nor have they been able thereby to
discern or deduce the principal thing-namely the shape of the Universe and
the interchangeable symmetry of its parts. With them it is as though an
artist were to gather the hands, feet, head and other members for his images
from diverse models, each part excellently drawn, but not related to a
single body, and since they in no way match each other, the result would be
a monster rather than man."
More than Kuhn, I rely on E.A. Burtt's "The Metaphysical Foundations of
Modern Science" Doubleday Anchor, 1954. He states that "...it was the
triumph of the belief that the universe as a whole, including our earth, is
fundamentally mathematical in its structure over an established natural
philosophy which was based on the supposedly unshakable testimony of the
senses that allowed modern science to bud and flower."
There are many legitimate views of the rise of modern science, but until I
looked at the events as a return to Platonism did it make sense.
Peace,
Don Cook
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sun Feb 06 2000 - 15:33:31 EST