sign in sign up
<<
Home , Celestial spheres, Lucas Watzenrode, Tetrabiblos

96

CONTROL, MORE CONTROL: Studying Practical Forms of Scientifi c Rationality in a Bulgarian Holographic Laboratory transition: -Copernicus The Intertheoretic Context Intertheoretic and reciprocal extrapolation of earth physics on divine phenomena. divine on physics earth of extrapolation reciprocal and earth to skies from descendance mathematics the of stages the as comprehended be can gradual eff toorts eliminate it. Hence the works of Copernicus, Galileo,be- Kepler and Newton dualism the of realization andphysics and qualitative tween mathematical Aristotelian a the corresponding as considered be can one Copernican the that it argued revolution, is Einsteinian the to Analogously physics”. math- “Aristotelian of “Platonic of those with the ematics” mixing scheme theoretical dual a as Ptolemaic evaluate can one electrodynamics, maxwellian with mechanics Newtonian mixing scheme playing the Ptolemy role and Einstein – the role of Copernicus. Just as Lorentz’s “theory 19 the of “theory half second Lorentz’s the of as Just electrons” of Copernicus. of role the – Einstein and demonstrated role is it Ptolemy the paper playing present the In mechanics. that the Ptolemy-Copernicus statistical transition is similar and to the Lorentz-Einstein one with Lorentz electrody- thermodynamics Maxwellian namics, mechanics, Newtonian main physics: the classical between of clash the programmes in research consisted cause its that argued was it revolution stein’s by provided context revolution Copernican the and between Einsteinian the an one. analogy In of Ein- case the intertheoretic the in analyzed is transition Ptolemy-Copernicus The Abstract E-mail: [email protected] Russia Tatarstan, Cooperation, of University Russian of branch Kazan Nugayev M. Rinat th century can be evaluated as a dual theoretical 97 Rinat M. Nugayev: The Ptolemy-Copernicus transition: Intertheoretic Context 98

Rinat M. Nugayev: The Ptolemy-Copernicus transition: Intertheoretic Context “the of superior simplicity was dispelled by the careful and professional work work professional and careful the by dispelled was simplicity superior of myth “the that known well is it However, etc. “economic”, “simple”, “coherent”, more is it because another than better is theory One grounds. empirical purely on remaining theories rival the to According (III) 1957, [1975] (Kuhn action of Feyerabend 1984). 2010, principles Chaunu ous dubi- with telescope invented recently of a help with obtained data observational the lieve of (Ariew 1987).phases the Oneanticipated can understandGalileo Galileo’sthat claim the critics is amongerror the Aristotelianshistorical refusingfundamental toBut be- Venus? of cycles the discovered had Galileo 1616, when In - happen? it does when Yet Copernicus. support to refutable for a long : however in the longequally run thewere crucialtheories experiment [1935] rival (Popper both 2002), refutedoption Ptolemysecond the to (b)According accurate. more was and one, Copernican the by proposed that than epicycles fewer contained model Ptolemy’s a result, As epicycles. of series a new introduce to had Copernicus elimination, the To epicycles. compensate no less late for (see, instance, Gingerichmyth” 1997,“historical a chaptersis 11-13). astronomy Ptolemaic in In realityepicycles Copernicus’s of programme couldproliferation assimi- However, [1906] (Duhem 1991). deferents and was heuristic programme hoc ad Ptolemy The opposite. the just was theory Copernicus’s while (а) According to the fi rst of them, Ptolemy’s theory was irrefutable and also. hence unscientifi unsatisfactory be to seem c that options two ing (II) were example, for , for positions The accurate. very not was theory “Ptolemy’s observa- available with data. tion incompatible were Ptolemy– and Copernicus of –that programmes (I) insuffi be to seem arguments. Ptolemy following over the to due cient victory Copernicus’s of reasons the of explanations proposed the all However, Zahar. E. and Lakatos I. of count ac- (V) Kuhn; T.S. of account (IV) account; conventionalist (III) account; falsifi account; (II) cationist (I) inductivist groups: following epistemologi- the to main belong The – question the answering Ptolemy’s? theories cal supersede programme research Copernicus’ did Why Introduction Inductivist Falsifi cationist ; any fact could be explained in retrospect by multiplying the number of epicycles, epicycles, of number the multiplying by retrospect in explained be could fact any ; by Copernicus […] were nearly as bad”. (Gingerich 2004) 2004) (Gingerich bad”. as […] nearly were Copernicus by predicted positions planetary […]the But degrees. 5 nearly by wrong sometimes explanation seems to be especially vulnerable since theories from both rival rival both from theories since vulnerable especially be to seems explanation account of Ptolemy-Copernicus transition can be reduced to the follow- the to reduced be can transition Ptolemy-Copernicus of account conventionalist conventionalist account, one cannot make the between the the between choice the make cannot one account, a subtle structure: a tenacious hard core + heuristic (a set of problem-solving techniques) techniques) (a problem-solving of set + heuristic core hard a tenacious structure: a subtle has that theories of series developing a of consists ap- It of knowledge. of unit growth a the of is praisal Programme Research Scientific problem”. “psychological a is rejection– to . But But philosophy. to with. For how many people (except Copernicus) Copernicus) (except people many how For operate to with. vague too is “crisis” the it, put Zahar Elie and Lakatos Imre as However, “The state of Ptolemaic astronomy was a recognized scandal before Copernicus scientifi any to c revolution: prelude inevitable the is which crisis” “paradigm- of state a 1543 in by was astronomy Ptolemaic Kuhn, Thomas to According (IV) transition from classical radiation theory to quantum one (19 one quantum to theory radiation classical from transition Kuhn’s paradigm-shiſt model a “ methodology), the basic problem of is to provide provide to is science of (SRP philosophy of programmes problem research basic scientifi c the of methodology), methodology Lakatos’ Imre to According (V) before Copernicus joined had ? Galileo and Kepler researchers few so why one Copernican the to applicable is completely of scientifianalysis c his revolutions’ ‘structure that if insisted And Kuhn small. rather was scientifi community c time that At none”. was there where “Kuhn scandal a up that conjures insists (2004) Gingerich case Copernicus the in that surprising not is it Hence optics”. in investigations “experimental for but 1881/1887 scientifi ether for c programme the of not Medal refutation Copley the 1907 in awarded 1901). was (Kelvin Michelson Albert hurricanes” time “two or same the At se- tornado” on “two clouds” about not “two but the physics about only (Wil- theoretical wrote of sky Kelvin rene Lord instance, for speech, patriarch prophetic his in respectable a Thomson) However, liam where? And Morley? & Michelson Poincare? fi it? had xed Lorentz? Who 2000a). (Nugayev dubious rather be to appears crisis” praisal of scientifi c theories. scientifi of theories. c praisal state”. (Kuhn 1963, 367; see also Kuhn 1957, Kuhn 1963, 367; (Kuhn also see state”. 177) crisis this of description a classic provides innovation Coperni- for reasons his which in described cus preface the and theory, astronomical in change basic a proposed 1974, &Zahar 362) it”. (Lakatos to neat fairly point empty an at but intended, originally he as , the at not , the of center the put to has also he wobble; complicated rather a with spinning sets Copernicus which earth corrupt already the to movements Ptolemaic irregular its transferring by sphere eighth immobile the for pay to has Copernicus but ; Ptolemaic simpler is system two The its removes and fi of immobile sphere eighth xed the leaves epicyclets. it as far so in and epicycles new by replaced eccentric be to and has equant each removed but eccentrics; some with and equants with dis- it penses since simpler certainly is system Copernican […]The historians modern of explanation Appraisal of the change –of real reasons of theories’ acceptance and and acceptance theories’ of reasons real –of change the of crisis ” must always precede a “ a precede always must ” of the change is a normative problem and belongs belongs and problem normative a is change the of really had felt this “community crisis”? In th revolution -20 th centuries) “paradigm- centuries) ”. But even in the the in even But ”. normative ap- 99

Rinat M. Nugayev: The Ptolemy-Copernicus transition: Intertheoretic Context 100

Rinat M. Nugayev: The Ptolemy-Copernicus transition: Intertheoretic Context teraction, interpenetration and unifi cation of the research programmes, springing out of of out springing programmes, research the of unifi and cation interpenetration in- as teraction, knowledge of growth the considering model general the of view of point the From unifi physics and my cation. contextigno- rance: intertheoretic the with connected point abovementioned the important that an miss (I)-(V) demonstrate accounts to try I’ll follows what In programme. Copernican of victory and genesis the of reasons the for make explanation to and theoretical of path a on account step further Lakatos-Zahar the supplement to is paper present the of aim The infl any did not have his and pupils? on Ptolemy uence considerations these why And place? take not did it why But Aristarchus. by even produced be could programme Copernican the of content the all that suppose to natural is it account Lakatos-Zahar of frame the Within taken have could part progressive its internal; narrowly is development whole “The reasons. actual its of explanation the not but is scientific transition question The example). for 1992, Thomason (see a treatise any in can discovered that be can considered always account the of defi ciencies small with bothered be not should that one think I SRP. of methodology the by given transition “Ptolemy-Copernicus” the is This compared progress genuine constituting as achievement Copernicus’ “explains account Lakatos-Zahar aresult, As 1974, &Zahar 374). (Lakatos Newton from beginning But new before. some not observed facts anticipate did It one. progressive” “theoretically a was programme Copernican refutations). + protecting belt (that is constantly modifi ed to protect the hard core from experimental of of matter Copernican and Ptolemaic programmes were realizing the opposite ways of astrono- of ways opposite the realizing were programmes Ptolemaic and Copernican Zahar 1974,Zahar 381) or the Ptolemy of aſt 1175say, and year, the translation any er in between genius, Copernicus a given time, any at place 1974, 380) Zahar & (Lakatos rival”. Ptolemaic its over power predictive excess had model rough Aristarchus’) (andindeed Copernicus’ already for assumption, static helio- the adopt to Galileo and Kepler for reasons objective good were his there of that vision man’s in change it scientifiwas shows It superior. because also simply but cally revolutionary in place a Universe, the also became it because it– have would Feyerabend Paul –as not revolution Weltanschauung, scientifiEuropean c the great changed it a because not became Revolution Copernican The Ptolemy. with . The aim of Lakatos’s methodology is to give an objective appraisal of of appraisal objective an give to is methodology Lakatos’s of aim The . actually Copernican programme empirically progressed only only progressed empirically programme Copernican intoLatin”. & (Lakatos fully exist in sublunary world and that “the matter of our sublunary world can represent represent can world sublunary our of matter “the that and world sublunary in exist fully success- can exactness that opportunity an imagine hardly could Greek the Hence streets. swept well and lines straight of circles, free is “mathematized”. be it can nor one mathematical ics, common in which we live and act (the “ metaphys- fi clearly of Aristotelian , notions to xed by the our common According (sub- 2007a). terrestrial the (Aristotle of worlds (eternal) celestial and separation lunary) strict its and motions violent and natural its with physics, “ the case this In lies. universe the of center prin- the where to as This directives no contained proto-programme possible. as motions circular uniform few ciple as remained of the ofcornerstone the combination a by “saved” be should appearances astronomical all perfect, are bodies heavenly since that was principle basic Its programme. off branched Pythagorean-Platonic programmes the “paradigms”. Both from based community to themselves devote entirely they did nor results, observational of tion on worked Copernicus programmes and Ptolemy both it, put Zahar Elie and Lakatos Imre As Programme Research Ptolemaic and FallRise of Ptolemy. over victory Copernicus’ of reasons the of some with and context intertheoretic the in seen Revolution Copernican the of origins the with deals one third the Hence the second part of the present paper is devoted to the Ptolemaic astronomy, while skies. on physics earth of trapolation scribedde- as thebe stagescan of mathematicsNewton and descendance fromDescartes skies Kepler, Tycho, to earthpoint andGalileo, reciprocal this Copernicus, ex- of From works the physics. view of qualitative Aristotelian and astronomy mathematical Ptolemy’s between gap the of dualism, the of resolution (partial) and compre- be of can result a as Revolution hended Copernican the that tran- demonstrate to tries paper present The “Ptolemy-Copernicus the of the account explanation into take to has one sition” theoretical accurate more a give to Therefore the – Einstein and role Ptolemy the playing 2000). (Nugayev Lorentz Copernicus of role with one Lorentz-Einstein the to is similar transition Ptolemy-Copernicus the 1999), 1998; (Nugayev traditions cultural diff erent hypothesis “hardened hypothesis . They did not simply test conjectures or try to put in order a vast conjunc- vast a order in put to try or conjectures test simply not did They . heuristic ” into a hard core assumption due to the development of Aristotelian Aristotelian of development the to due assumption core hard a into ” ” was primary, while the “ the while primary, was ” heuristic intertheoretic facetintertheoretic of both programmes. Pythagorean-Platonic of both Pythagorean-Platonic programmes. hard hard core lebenswelt ” only secondary. The geocentric of the . revolution. Copernican the of ” of Edmund Husserl) is not a a not is Husserl) Edmund of ” research research 101

Rinat M. Nugayev: The Ptolemy-Copernicus transition: Intertheoretic Context 102

Rinat M. Nugayev: The Ptolemy-Copernicus transition: Intertheoretic Context tronomy was contrasted with the Greek: the former were merely arithmetical and geo- and lacking arithmetical because merely incomplete but were metrical, former the Greek: the with as- contrasted Egyptian was and tronomy Babylonian The Universe. the of makeup and nature basic the know to wanted they viewpoint: sea- theoretical purely the a of from track astronomy keep to approached Greeks the heavens sons, the observed who Egyptians, and Babylonians the Unlike 1975). (Neugebauer astronomy mathematical of domain the captured meeting cultures three the that to it doubt is open not but is contentious, emerged cultures Greco-Asian hybrid genuinely which to extent The cultures. “barbarian” towards attitudes Greek earlier from ture and a depar- and Babylon of Egypt that with culture Greek of a Ancient the fusion civilization represented Hellenistic Egypt. Hellenized of capital the , of resident a was Ptolemy take into account the terrestrial physics. For if the Earth moved, Earth the if For physics. terrestrial the account into take axis its on daily spinning Earth the have to viewpoint, celestial strictly a from simpler, be perhaps may it that admitted Ptolemy principles. physics Aristotelian with connected considerations rational to due hypothesis heliocentric Aristarchus’ to skeptical was he hand, one the On cultures three the between himself to balance is title real s it’ greatest; the – “al-majasti” Arabic an from derived Almagest –the magnus opus as- Ptolemy’s poet. Нellenistic and (87-150) – geographer Ptolemy mathematician, astrologer, tronomer, Claudius by reached was summit science ancient The surface. Earth the on devices the applied not had and motions terrestrial did mathematize not they But devices. a of measuring help with sky the observed exactness and patience amazing with but mathematics applied eff only ectively is and physics mathematical possible not. Aristotle, to due Hence, laws. with geometrical harmony constant full and in place strict take stars the of motions ordered absolutely and perfect The down. slowing nor speeding neither perfectly and are circular shells their and bodies heavenly of motions natural The inward. outside the the exists fi there the of sphere stars, xed the Outside specifi its has for in the contained of heavenly body it. the accounts that c rotation, shell Each fi stars. , xed , Mars, Sun, Venus, , , the of shell the der: or- following the in other fieach around shells The ether. tightly of t shells spherical of part (fi ether the diff of substance, an entirely are bodies immutable erent Heavenly element). ſth divine the at situation the However appropriate not is way this Thus 2007b). matter. (Aristotle matter” with connected is lacking cases the all in nature since science objects natural for the for only demanded be exact- should “mathematical ness that claimed himself Aristotle 1957). (Koyre entities” mathematical – dominated European thought for more than 14 centuries (t centuries 14 than more for thought European dominated – rather than the entire heavens rotating about the Earth. But this, he said, fails to to fails said, he this, But Earth. the about rotating heavens entire the than rather world is quite the opposite. The heavens are made up up made are heavens The opposite. the quite is world It is not surprising that the Greek not not astronomers Greek the that surprising not is It φυσιο . λογία . prime mover As a genuine Hellenist,As Ptolemy a genuine tried mathematicalastronomyis ; it imports motion from motion from ; it imports Syntaxis Mathematica Syntaxis he book’s name is is name book’s he ). ). possess 2 main properties : (1) they are are (1)they : They properties main ellipses. 2 actually possess are planetary that Kepler, to due states, astronomy Modern observations. by dictated directly were all models his of aspects view) of point Aristotelian the (from non-orthodox the that out pointed frequently had the Ptolemy in And Earth. slightly the have with all coincide which of deferents none planetary centers, the diffgeometric and erent Sun the of the since Universe, the of displaced earth was not circular; and fi nally the Ptolemaic equants entailed that even the motion motion the even that entailed equants Ptolemaic fithe the and about nally circular; planets not the was of earth path real the that meant epicycles Hipparchan and Apollonian the circle; the of center the from earth the displaced eccentric The heuristic. Platonic the to counter ran programme geostatic the in move every abandoned, was spheres) rotating of (1974, Zahar system 371), Elie (the aſtand model Eudoxus Lakatos er Imre to According to fame claims Ptolemy’s of one is covery fact, “In speed. center same the the at move to appear watch, and always would there epicycle planet’s the of stand to were you if which, orbit planet’s the of center the near done in the the in is done what is This eccentricities. their to compared orbits planetary of ellipticities the neglect that, that, Since e². as a scales of of small e (e relatively elongation of possess planets of system solar the degree eccentricity orbits the the that corresponding the while e, as demonstrated be scales can orbit It Keplerian circularity. from deviations their measures called e, quantity a by described are orbits Keplerian astronomy In axis. are (2)they orbit; the of center metric the at cated – argued also Aristotle (ii) non-uniform. is them of one least at addition, a is planets the of motion the system, Ptolemaic (i) respects. important of anumber in orthodox the of all, Ptolemaic the model First did of temological from deviate solar the system aspects. epis- and physical in both oversimplifi an cation is this However, philosophy. Aristotelian of referred Ptolemy whom the of to author the explicitly, only the was Aristotle since hand, other the On “animals and other weights would be leſt hanging in the , and the Earth would Ptolemy’s second outstanding achievement was the famous “ famous the was achievement outstanding second Ptolemy’s 2010). (Fitzpatrick model” his of strengths main the of one actually is circles Aristotle argued that heavenly bodies should move in in move should bodies heavenly that argued Aristotle to a very good to approximation good a very appear ridiculous”. (quoted from Kline 1986) Kline from (quoted ridiculous”. appear them makes things such conceive to Merely heavens. the of out fall quickly very from the center of the Universe. In Ptolemy’s cosmology there is no unique center center unique no is there cosmology Ptolemy’s In Universe. the of center the from Almagest exact center of the Universe. But in the Ptolemaic system the Earth is slightly slightly is Earth the system Ptolemaic in the But Universe. the of center . “It follows that Ptolemy’s assumption that heavenly bodies move in in move bodies heavenly that assumption Ptolemy’s that follows “It . again from purely philosophical grounds– that the Earth is lo- is Earth the that grounds– philosophical purely from again Almagest , these orbits can be treated as eccentric circles. One can can One circles. eccentric as treated be can orbits these , is oſten accused of slavish adherence to the tenets elliptical ” (Fitzpatrick 2010, 6). ” (Fitzpatrick eccentric , i.e. the orbit is “elongated” along a certain certain a along “elongated” is orbit the i.e. , , i.e. the Sun is displaced from the geo- the from displaced is Sun the i.e. , combination single equant of two circular motions. In uniform circles. Yet, in the the in Yet, circles. uniform ”. . The latter is a point point a is latter The the eccentricity the < 0,21), it follows follows it 0,21), Almagest this dis- this . It It .

103

Rinat M. Nugayev: The Ptolemy-Copernicus transition: Intertheoretic Context 104

Rinat M. Nugayev: The Ptolemy-Copernicus transition: Intertheoretic Context “A very few considerations would make it apparent to all that certain power ema- elements. four the of world sub-lunar the on heavens the of action the of investigation an to ether of realm celestial the of contemplation pure from He turns worlds. and of mundane divine interaction the considers In Ptolemy book this istotelian physics” physics” istotelian “Ar- of those with mathematics” “Platonic of principles the mixing scheme theoretical dual evaluate can one run long the well- in Hence physics empirically. Aristotelian grounded of principles the from more and more diverge to began center earth the with coinciding not rotation of centers the and the orbits demanded noncircular of that introduction exactness mathematical programme Ptolemaic the in Thus, nation. elimi- full to its equal it was equant heuristic: Platonic the upon blow The heaviest the was circular. introduction and uniform simultaneously not was center empty epicycle’s the of as “dry”. and “cold”,such “wet” and “hot” qualities with operates It mathematical. not nature by is elements the change the of modeling the to immediately leads which behavior, cal mathemati- a is motion circular signifi More uniform cantly, facts. empirical from directly is argued elements on their of change a power of exerting con- be the can whereas ceived), that motion unchanging eternally of kind only the rotation (circular the in motion circular uniform of property the rabiblos Ptolemy’s in espoused the was domain cross-contradictions second (b)The 1999). (Lloyd them between intermediate are planets the disorderly, and irregular both are things sublunary and orderly, and regular both fiare the while stars xed that saying in the interpreted For instance, principles. physics of Aristotelian signifi especially for description their needed that motions planet the namely violations cant (a) 2000b). Nugayev –see electrodynamics maxwellian with mechanics newtonian mixing scheme theoretical dual a as evaluated be can century Almagest the of hypotheses basic the diffbetween erences important very however, were, There The region of their obvious cross-contradiction was the “planet theory” since it was was it since theory” “planet the was cross-contradiction obvious their of region The (a work written aſt Almagest the er written (a work and the plants and animals therein”. (Ptolemy, (Ptolemy, therein”. animals and plants the and motions in the ether, and in turn encompassthe andby change allchanged else,and earth and water encompassed fi are air elements, and re sublunar primary the of since, change, to is throughout which earth, the about region whole the permeates and through dispersed is substance ethereal eternal the from nating qualitative level, and largely within the ‘irregular’ sublunary part of the , be be 2005, 35) cosmos, (Jones of astrology?” models the of mathematical by predictive the part well described sublunary ‘irregular’ the within the largely at and level, operating qualitative cause-and-effect can how problem: a created this “And and the Tetrabiblos the and (just as Lorentz’s “theory of electrons” of the second half of the 19 the of half second the of electrons” of “theory Lorentz’s as (just . In both treatises, the ethereal matter is simply a given. But But is a simply given. matter ethereal the . treatises, In both but probably before the Planetary Hypotheses the before probably but Almagest is justifi ed on a priori grounds grounds priori a justifi on is ed Ptolemaic cosmology as a a as cosmology Ptolemaic Almagest , 1.2) , while power to to power while , Republic to be be to Tet- ). ). th

and the consequences fl owing from them. In particular, Gerard of Feltre’s 13 Feltre’s of Gerard particular, In fl them. from consequences owing the and own its for to in be responsible order will, free possess must sole individual the that and Magnus Aquinas), Thomas tian (Albertus doctrine sinceChris- the religious dictates doctrine medieval into integration later to crucial was point The necessity”. “fatal suggest to logical scheme met severe criticisms that arise when the practice of predictions was seen Hence with the translation of the of the translation the with Hence out. borne be to not certain are principles, correct most the to according made even predictions, astrological why explain to environment mundane the of complexity and disorderliness the to appeals he heavens the of of of schemes predictive the his However, astrology. structure mathematical the to justify orderliness the on relies he Essentially problem. the evades Ptolemy Yet not intend to bother himself with refl ections on the of things. of refl essence the on with himself ections bother to intend not did and initially principle “economy by of inspired thought” (partly) was tradition, mentalist com- carefully that me to the of seems author It the deferents, and epicycles bining constructions. subtle his all for typical was heuristic tive the mimic to models peculiarities ofideal planet rotations. The “equant” introduction to geocentricsophisticated programme posi- constructing of way rational the chose Ptolemy Aristotle of Universe. the of center spirit the to the respect in motion of was uniformity of principle the contradicted introduction that equant the hypothesis” hoc Copernicus “ad and typical a astronomers Islamic/Arabic the as critics stern From point modern the of view, Ptolemy’s is equant Kepler precursor. ellipses for But such the on depends below motion every that say astrologers the as time same “Atthe divinatricem: astrologiam adversus Disputationes in posed (1463-1499) Mirandola’s della astrology Pico of core the against admire can One argument fiit is more the or all the a a thief, then a man make murderer cause, stars “If the rst considerations: theological describesStars the on Summa the problem that astrological created for the everything with all [the proximate causes]”. (quoted from Rutkin 2010, 138) Rutkin from (quoted causes]”. proximate [the all with everything makes cause a causes], [proximate these from diffthings makes erent something since eff and the of ects; diffvariety and the for erence account to ent, be or that sought from it, but from proximate causes, which are varied and diff effcomes-to- this is why nor er- distinguish not ects, does cause a universal Moreover, eff lower of ects. cause universal a is caelum the that this, from phi- follows the losophers among commonplace that since teaching, their contradict immediately dependere],motu [motum caeli they ainferioremheavens omnem the ofmotion suggest”. to shameful is it which this, does who , Tetrabiblos into in the 12 the in Latin into Almagest , in accord with Eastern instru- Eastern with accord in , th century Ptolemy’s astro- Ptolemy’s century -Ptolemy programme – th century text text century 105

Rinat M. Nugayev: The Ptolemy-Copernicus transition: Intertheoretic Context 106

Rinat M. Nugayev: The Ptolemy-Copernicus transition: Intertheoretic Context pieces as well, and in the the in and well, as pieces the In me. for over-simplifi cation obvious an seems it But method the Shortly, “realist”. physicists the of details). method the for and 1997 “instrumentalist”, was Goldstein astronomers of see Simplicius; Proclus, Ptolemy, (, instrumentalists ancient the among Ptolemy place to Duhem Pierre enabled passage The hy- eccentric the “ that because is preferred be Sun, to is the pothesis to relation in appearances the for can account models to both used be that aſt noting er says, actually Ptolemy What hypothesis. eccentric on Sun, the of theory his with system. true one the not is represent devices his whether of standpoint his indiff question of the to use, to erences has he that hypotheses the of complexity the by dismayed Almagest the of in XIII, ch.2 even instance, For position. For Ptolemy the mathematical agreement of the “hypotheses” (the models) with the the with the models) for (the evidence was “hypotheses” data the observational of agreement mathematical the Ptolemy For Thus, in the the in Thus, heavenly the to hypotheses simpler fi to the t possible, as far as try, should “one Almagest the to According seemed unduly complicated. in instance, well-known For the of disposal. his one at are that those among model mathematical simplest the one should choose in astronomy and that claimed to philosophical discussions ly skeptical of the one. author The simplest a mathematically the he rule, chose had Aſt schemes. empirically-equivalent theoretical alternative several Ptolemy constructed as erwards, motions planet some of description the for that so went things Sometimes epistemological inclinations one has to listen to the other outstand- other the to listen to onehas inclinations epistemological dominating his to grasp However, culture. Hellenistic of spirit the in standpoints realist naïve and strumentalist be hindered even by themselves?” ( themselves?” by even hindered be are that those never and unchanging, or those that can beunchanging hindered and by anything and those thateternal cannot are that things those than unlike more cerning such great things from examplescon- that are sobeliefs unlike form them. For to what couldnor be ones, divine with things human compare fi to not is tting “It are opposed to one another”. (quoted from Goldstein 1997, Goldstein a 8) from (quoted of another”. one to but opposed are hindrance, no afford to as such is if even [the motions] of part, each motions kind to nature to way yield and natural the give their when heavens the of motions the characterize can complications such that strange it think anyone should why hypotheses, the by saved duly is phenomena the of each that fi do provided For t. which hypotheses] such apply should [one succeed, not does this if but motions, Almagest Ptolemy holds an an holds Ptolemy Almagest Planetary Hypotheses (XIII.2), (XIII.2), that the appearances may be saved on either an epicyclic or or epicyclic an either on saved be may appearances the that passages (III, ch.4) Ptolemy comments, in connection it is simpler and eff and it is simpler movements”. two not one, by ected eclectic physical reality physical Almagest naïve realist naïve obvious an maintains Ptolemy epistemological position, combining in- combining position, epistemological , XIII, ch. 2, quoted from Lloyd 1999, 216) 1999, Lloyd from quoted 2, ch. XIII, , , when he asks the reader not to be be to not reader the asks he when , of the hypotheses, even if they Almagest Almagest one can fi can realist one nd was especial- was

that he set out in the the in out set he that theories mathematical the upon based mechanism a to develop celestial intended Ptolemy Almagest the to respect with programme Ptolemaic the of success the parameters second volume, dealing the with produced ether hypotheses, nothing of new for the empirical some corrects Ptolemy one fi the of rst the In volumes. two of consists recently, The physical preliminary provide constructions. same the to for models try to had Ptolemy models, mathematical to fiitself nes his of in phenomena celestial dualism and mundane Aristotelian the elaborating in step next the make to had Ptolemy astronomy, theoretical own his of achievements the retain to and philosophy natural Aristotelian the To paradigm. realist the with endsthe Zeitgeist, meet the with retain achievements the of This is not to ignore Ptolemy’s realist standpoint, phenomena”. pelled violently with a motion not proper to it, a celestial one enjoys only uniform and circu- and uniform only enjoys one celestial a it, to proper not motion a pro- be with can body violently earthly pelled an Whereas motion. natural own its in participate and to celestial both terrestrial, body, every requires cosmology His heavens. the and Earth the be- tween distinction sharp a draws Ptolemy bodies, celestial of motion the of description his In . and vision of faculties human the to compared be may which faculty a claims maintain also bodies Ptolemy celestial that that crucial is It motion. “voluntary” single, a only performs and cularly, cir- and uniformly moves fi and agitation, no invariable receives is nite, each bodies: etherial respond to the continuous substance”, that is, the ether. So, he lists the characteristics of Ptolemy a as acted Ptolemy practice search thought”; of economy of “principle the of basis the on there obtained were results So, if at one the looks methods the about physicists theoretical the from anything fi out to nd want you “If Theoretical of Method the “On confessed: he Physics” paper the of and beginning Planck’s very with the At realism. Mach’s combine Boltzmann’s to tried who Einstein, Albert eclectic, ing Tetrabiblos PlanetaryHypotheses Almagest 1 they use, I advice you to stick closely to one principle: don’t listen to their words, fi x words, their to listen 1935, don’t 30) (Einstein deeds”. their on attention your principle: one to closely stick to you advice I use, they – the author of of author the – and Optics and and suggests an improved model to explain planetary latitude. However, Almagest . It is Ptolemy is It . Almagest book, only of which parts have become well known in the West Almagest content. content. from this standpoint, one fi nds out that the most important important most the that out fi one nds standpoint, this from . And his models should “adhere to the principles that cor- that principles the to “adhere should models his And . committed instrumentalist. 1 , and Ptolemy and , who is usually associated with the slogan “saving the , and can be considered as a pile of ad hoc hypothesis hypothesis hoc a ad pile of as considered be can , and Planetary Hypotheses Planetary since, aſt since, the er 2 – the author of of author the – Hence, one should put apart apart put should one Hence, . Since the the Since . Almagest Planetary Hypotheses Planetary he had to make Almagest in his re- his in con- , 107

Rinat M. Nugayev: The Ptolemy-Copernicus transition: Intertheoretic Context 108

Rinat M. Nugayev: The Ptolemy-Copernicus transition: Intertheoretic Context “Why isn’t anything destroyed at the contact between the inner sphere and and sphere inner the between contact the at destroyed anything isn’t “Why Ptol- system, his in retained know to wants emy Aristotle that the they do Citing means another? one what to by motion another; one transmit to connect necessity celestial by how spherical question: are basic that bodies another answer to help should described model ideal The wings. the of motion the from “ own, its with responds body each to which (Murschel) as a light” “green functions emission The that bodies. of celestial planet’s outermost the to then deferent, the to then fac- epicycle, the psychic to planet’s emissions the sends ulty Similarly, movement. its perform to bird the then and allows it nerves its wings; to its emission an sends bird the of faculty psychic In the world Earth. the sub-lunar above air of layer the in birds of terrestrial motion the the kind: to peculiar turns very a of Ptolemy example faculty, this illustrate To well. as bodies celestial boring neigh- the of motions the but motion, own its only not direct to power the has planet Each reason. following other the than faculty the of amount larger substantially a mand com- stars wandering The ether. to natural is faculty a Such motion. and brightness ducing pro- for faculty the provides eventually that this is It motion”. voluntary a with moved concept, metaphysical another soul the to turns Ptolemy Universe, the of order the explain To bodies. celestial other the to motion particular own its transmit hardly could it because motion, proper its with rotate would sphere outermost the Only outermost bodies. the only celestial the all of touches mover prime the yet contact, by transmitted is motion that admits he Aristotle, Like mover”. “prime the of Aristotelian the about doubts Ptolemy their although air. the of them, diff are those from densities erent and surround colours that elements same the of composed are they since the planets to compared be may clouds and Birds animal”. “universal of parts as spheres celestial applies also He motion. terrestrial govern that diff those laws from follow erent spheres celestial emy’s Ptol- But rotation. celestial understand to are bodies of mundane motion that the us”, using by near motions spherical the from analogy their “begin they because writes, he motion, image of The philosophersof planetary the nature spheres. fail the celestial to understand an generate to examples terrestrial using for Aristotle criticizes Ptolemy forces. outside by be determined cannot motion heavens of the the motion, unlike sub-lunar And motion. lar . Anticipating , he believes that “the planets are ensouled and are are and ensouled are planets “the that believes he Kepler, Johannes Anticipating . the fi rst outer sphere? And why aren’t all the motion[s] of the spheres equal in 1995,in 39) Murschel equal from speed?”(quoted spheres the of motion[s] the all aren’t why And sphere? fiouter the rst terrestrial examples to explain the structure of the heavens. He treats the voluntary” motion, just as the motion of the nerves diff nerves the ers of motion the as just motion, voluntary” etherial bodies due to the the to due bodies etherial hypotheses for the cosmos. But almost all the the all almost But represented cosmos. the for models hypotheses Ptolemy’s whether to as remained then question The some if And rotation? diurnal the in share and sphere? the of fi volume what sawn-off motion remaining into the pieces, up away lls cut are spheres voluntary its have sphere a can How other? aff each planets ect of emissions the don’t Why unanswered. questions many too are there Yet contained entirely is it if body latter. the within spherical another by moved be may body spherical A (ii) collinear. not mathematical are axes their if it within lying body spherical another move will body spherical A (i) fol- principles. basic the lowing of form the takes answer Ptolemy’s ? motion own their have which of all bodies, then, do the various sawn-off pieces and spheres impose their motions upon other celestial rotation that affects every planetary system as well as the sphere of the fi type xedany aof or diurnal physical sphere non-physical pole.generates of universe the stars. outermost The How,dismiss so and axes their of end either at area surface no have Sawn-offpieces truncated. are they hence, function; real spheres such as the Yet eccentric hollow. deferents necessarily have are large amounts spheres other of all surface and area that located, fulfi are planets the which in ll no epicycles sawn-off are solid the pieces tambourine-like The tambourines. like may be disks, solid they or whorls, the or of some bracelets like hollow, cuts be may sawn-off pieces Ptolemy These machine, segments. into spheres celestial the for necessary not is sphere entire an Since do we that [not] assume that appropriate anything is be “it made in nature that thought”: has of no and economy of that is of no use”. “principle the of instead nature” of my econo- of “principle the now applies Ptolemy cosmology his of objects the constructing In etherial surrounding the from world”. the of diff center erent the to “sink are would they they if surfaces, And “warts”. or “knots” than more nothing the would be they since like spheres, the for movers as couldfunction now ether connect, they of spheres made also an points, like now-physical the that physical argues a he move But to sphere. able ethereal be would point a as such object mathematical a that fiunrealistic it Ptolemy nds him. satisfy to defifails this nition But path. circular a out concept defi this nes the of spirit the in Hence bodies. fi be physical not xed, need poles Yet uniformly. rotate will nature since by ether motion its cause to mechanism a need would sphere no Moreover, ether. surrounding its of uniformity the movement, any supra-lunar,down fi physical, slow can xed poles be must unable tonothing impose motion on the and frictionless nature by is ether the Since mathematically , as the points on a rotating sphere that do not trace trace not do that sphere rotating a on points the as , Almagest geometrical models were repro- were models geometrical Almagest true , Ptolemy Ptolemy , physical physical 109

Rinat M. Nugayev: The Ptolemy-Copernicus transition: Intertheoretic Context 110

Rinat M. Nugayev: The Ptolemy-Copernicus transition: Intertheoretic Context also Ibn-Shatir in the 13 the in Ibn-Shatir also and Maragha” of “School the that discrepancies the remove to attempting in was It sharp. admitting the profound gap between the celestial and mundane worlds. In the second book the in book planets second the the of In worlds. mundane and celestial the of between gap profound the admitting during attack repeated the Middleunder (Linton Ages 2010). came It obviously the principles contradicted of monotheism not cosmology Ptolemy’s so deeper, became principles attributes, and thus their motions had to be explained according to the mathematical mathematical the models. their of to laws according explained be to had motions their thus and divine objects attributes, universe’s the deny to astronomers compelled physics 2007). Aristotelean (Ragep and cosmology Ptolemaic harmonize to attempts compel to and astrology from separation its force to was astronomy on impact main Religion’s well. as functionaries religious were scientists Arabic the of Most establishment. religious the of allies as pose could texts Hay’a of composers the as well as astronomy, Greek of porters im- the then astrology, of discipline the shun could they once that important is It sance. renais- European late the of time the until repeated be to not was that a time, of the purposes the for them deploy to desire a deep with of antiquity sciences the of recovery unprecedented an created that flAbbasides early the ourishing the of to time the at due activities created was astronomy) (theoretical Nay’a of science new The more become to scientifi science cally coherent. their harmonizing at aimed astronomers Arabic Age Middle The Thus, aſtthe Thus, er hy- physical versa. vice the and pothesis support would result mathematical new each that so Ptolemy, by pro- were vided models physical the and mathematical the connecting links rigid no Moreover, “the pronouncements in the the in pronouncements “the However, Ptolemy’s theories. but planetary new invent to not trivial, and heavens, of the mathematically representation seem physical may consistent and a suitable to provide was object structures These heavens. fi the to ll sumed fi shells ethereal the as- than sawn-offrst no unlikely more seemed For instance, pieces els. mod- physical his by compromised not were necessary and true as accepted had Ptolemy that heavens the governing principles the Moreover, form. physical comparable a in duced Planetary Hypotheses Planetary ning driven by cosmic or by planetary rays or by the axes)”. (Jones 2005, 35) 2005, axes)”. (Jones the by or rays planetary by or souls cosmic by driven ning of the of the ethereal matter is matter ethereal mo- the in embodied are celestial the structures of geometrical these specifithat the way c but structures tions; geometrical fundamental the of sure quite also and Almagest Planetary Hypotheses Planetary Almagest th . Ptolemy is quite sure of the ethereal composition of the heavens, heavens, the of composition ethereal the of sure quite is Ptolemy . , describing a physical actualization of the mathematical models models mathematical the of actualization physical a describing , and 14 open to alternatives to open , the confl ict with became especially especially became physics Aristotelian with confl ict the , th centuries devised new planetary models (Saliba 2007). Planetary Hypotheses the gap between the physical and mathematical (complete spheres or equatorial slices, spin- slices, equatorial or spheres (complete are more equivocal than those those than equivocal more are based on Aristotelian physics to one based on empirical and mathematical physics aſt er the aſt the er physics mathematical and empirical on based one to physics Aristotelian on reality a from based evolved gradually School Maragha The them. surrounding world mathematics real the the with match to need the on insisted astronomers Islamic theory, were who planetary a Ptolemy) and of principles Eudoxus physical and (like mathematical the between coherence the with concerned astronomers not Hellenistic and Greek ancient the Unlike phenomena”. the “save only would which hypothesis, amathematical remain not it should But language. in mathematical bodies of physical behavior the should aim to describe astronomy that realization the included revolution Maragha of facet important An eccentrics. and equant inproducing Andalusianpredecessors non-Ptolemaic confi whicheliminated gurations the 13 astronomy, Ptolemaic against revolution school’s Maragha (theRevolution” “Maragha the called later process the initiated had Samarkand and Damascus from astronomers Finally fi a point. xed about motion circular uniform of axiom Aristotle’s satisfy to failed that models The re-examination of Ptolemaic astronomy reached its full maturity during the 11 the during maturity full its reached astronomy Ptolemaic of re-examination The Almagest In astronomy of aspects physical and cal al-Haytham Ibn by leveled was it on (965-1040), attack also known as Alhazen. His main objective was to “ sophisticated and extensive most The tury. eff orts were ultimately unsuccessful, but the search for alternate models continued during during continued models 12 the alternate for search the but unsuccessful, ultimately were efforts The Persian Abu Ubayad al-Juzjani constructed his own non-Ptolemaic models. Al-Juzjani’s learning if scientists, of writings the investigates who man the of duty the “Thus it, put he As ones. imaginary with deal should astronomy he argued, all, Above impossible. physically seemed This apogee. lunar the of motion the controlling deferent the of center the posite op- point imaginary an involved it because theory Ibn- lunar Ptolemy’s to succeeded. objected have to al-Haitham considered be not could he mechanism, had he equant since the that, introduced and motions circular task uniform the using himself phenomena the set for had accounting Ptolemy of that wrote Ibn-al-Haitham instance, For there. found th Doubts concerning Ptolemyconcerning Doubts -14 th th century in the Islamic west. Astronomers of Andalusian Spain rejected geometric centuries). The Maragha school astronomers were more successful than their their than successful more were astronomers school Maragha The centuries). searching for and knowledge”. (quoted from Ragep 2007, Ragep 72) from (quoted knowledge”. and truth for searching of that way better no is there God, to closeness eff and the to ulgence gain- for access ing that belief my became it and truth, and knowledge sought [ constantly side I every from it attack content, its of margins and core the to his ing the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and, apply- , Planetary

Hypotheses , published between 1025 and 1028, Alhazen criticized the the criticized Alhazen 1028, and 1025 between published , and Optics and ”. , pointing out “innumerous contradictions” he he contradictions” “innumerous out pointing , harmonizethemathemati- real bodies, and not not and bodies, th cen- …] …] 111

Rinat M. Nugayev: The Ptolemy-Copernicus transition: Intertheoretic Context 112

Rinat M. Nugayev: The Ptolemy-Copernicus transition: Intertheoretic Context “I was impelled to consider a diff erent system of deducing the motions of the the of motions the deducing of diffsystem a erent consider to impelled was “I that out points Warnia) directly of bishop the Watzenrode, Lucas was uncle maternal (who’s Cathedral Frombork Pope III”, Paul to “his holiness andin at dedicated a Nuremberg canon Copernicus, Nicolaus In the famous introduction to his his to introduction famous the In dualism. in essence– On experience. and the contrary, Copernicuscosmology was inspiredPtolemaic bythe aesthetic between discrepancies the in not eliminating consisted motive construction programme qualita- heliocentric the Hence Aristotelian and physics. tive astronomy mathematical between gap” He “tremendous of Koyre. spoke Alexander science of historian and philosopher French fi by ſt revealed ies) transition rational reconstruction since they were a part of general bias – to “ to – bias general of part a were astronomy of they aspects physical and mathematical since reconstruction rational transition Ptolemy-Copernicus for useful are astronomers Islamic of works the that me to seems It (1236-1311), (1305-1375), al-Shatir Ibn others. and al-Tusial-Shirazi (1201-1274),al-Din al-Din 1266),Nasir by Qutb in (died al-Urdi al-Din astronomy Mu’ajjad Ptolemaic reform to made were attempts time, this During century. teenth mid-four- to mid-thirteenth the from extended had astronomy Islamic of Age Golden The facts. observed the for account to failure its of basis the on made astronomy Greek to objections were cases few very in Only cosmology. Ptolemaic of models mathematical the with philosophy natural Aristotelian of requirements the reconcile to try to was theorists Arabic of all the purpose main the Thus, Ibn of works the in ed exemplifi as al-Khafri. and observation, al-Birjandi Qushji, al-Shatir, empirical the on emphasis greater a towards and astronomy Ptolemaic and physics both shiſt a Aristotelian by away of foundations philosophical the from characterized thus was Revolution” “Maragha The al-Shatir. Ibn of work retic context of the Copernican revolution was many years ago (in the 20 the (in ago years many was revolution Copernican the of context intertheo- to retic belongs which of elimination (partial) and realization contradiction The Development and Genesis Programme Copernican the fi rst place, they are so uncertain about the motion of the sun and moon moon and sun the of motion the about uncertain so are they fisubject. place, the this rst of investigations their in themselves among agree not do that realization the than reason other no for spheres universe’s

considerations directly considerations with connected elimination of the abovementioned De revolutionibus orbium coelestium orbium revolutionibus De ”. ”.

andmetaphysical , published in 1543 in published , –and theological theological –and harmonize the astronomers th century century For, in in For, As a matter of fact Copernicus had constructed a genuine genuine a constructed had Copernicus fact of matter a As violent movements. the deep paradoxes within the causes Aristotelian physics this caused with the namely notions of natural However and Sun. on Universe the of center the place to proposes Co- pernicus Heavens”, the of Order Divine the demonstrate to “best the by inspired Thus, model. equant Ptolemy’s reject to motion spurred was he only. Hence circular uniform execute to bodies celestial requires heavens of perfection posed circles or along their combinations. Like Aristotle, Copernicus and was convinced that the sup- spheres ideal to belong they But of planets. the movement in non-ideal consists by Copernicus, as seen core, paradoxes’ The machine, world the of movements the that annoyed be to began “I aresult, As “Copernicus in an insinuating manner and maybe unconsciously had introduced introduced had unconsciously maybe and manner insinuating an in “Copernicus ics phys- mundane and theory mathematics divine to way the paved that semiclassical details) for 2000a 1900 Nugayev Planck’s fi to rst or current displacement Maxwell’s to interpenetration most insignifi triflmost world”. cant this of es the precisely so examined otherwise who , the by certainty greater sakeour by the best and most systematic of all, Artisan [1453](Copernicus 1972) of parts”. its symmetry and true the of universe the structure is, the that eration, motion. apparently which many good a introduced they meanwhile But calculations. appropriate with motions apparent of the problem the solved to have measure in large thereby seem eccentrics the who devised those On hand, the other the phenomena. with agreement absolute in result any incontrovertible to obtain unable were they means by this ertheless nev- way, this in compounded be could motions nonuniform some that homocentrics showed in faith their put who those although For goal. their reach quite homocentrics, only employ some while For motions. and revolutions apparent the of and explanations assumptions, principles, same the use not do they fi planets, other ve the of also but bodies these of only not motions the determining in Secondly, year. tropical the for even length constant a observe and establish cannot they that into Aristotelian fortress two small assumptions with the help of which Kepler, Kepler, which of 430) 1984, up”. it (Chaunu blowed help Descartes the and Galileo with assumptions small two fortress Aristotelian into Nor could they elicit or deduce from the eccentrics the principal consid- principal the eccentrics the from deduce or elicit they could Nor . As a modern French historian put it it put historian French amodern . As others utilize eccentrics and epicycles, and yet they do not not do they yet and epicycles, and eccentrics utilize others should be engaged in uniform motions along the contradict the fi rst principles of uniform uniform of fi principles the rst contradict crossbred crossbred were not understood with with not were understood theory (analogous theory created for for created – see see 113

Rinat M. Nugayev: The Ptolemy-Copernicus transition: Intertheoretic Context 114

Rinat M. Nugayev: The Ptolemy-Copernicus transition: Intertheoretic Context As a matter of fact Copernicus appeals to a favorable clergy consisting of Pope Paul III Paul Pope of consisting clergy his favorable whom (to a to appeals Copernicus fact of matter a As polymaths of the 15 the of polymaths greatest the of one , an and mathematician jurist, philosopher, theologian, a was He Germany. from church Catholic the of cardinal a (1401-1464) was Cusa who core”,“hard programme “heuristic Copernican of reconstruction rational systematic and complete more For had astronomers of generations which with machinery celestial the of rid “getting begun had who Copernicus was It surface. its along moving bodies the to and Sun the around and axis own its around tions an is planet, ordinary Earth and worlds mundane and divine between line demarcation strict no is there If Galileo. to way the paved unconsciously even Copernicus way that Namely someone like just was experience [Ptolemy’sproponents] their contrary, the “on system Ptolemaic of parts various Thus, the diff of “artisans”. plans reflso pagan erent various the ect Artisan”; systematic most and best “the God, monotheistic single, lacking nevertheless is equants and epicycles of hundreds and tens paganism for Ptolemy his Capua, of uncle, cardinal maternal Schonberg, Nicholas publication), its on insisted even and magnus (1623) Galileo claims that that (1623) Assayer claims The work Galileo programmatic pithy especially his (especially Galileo descends mathematics from skies to Earth being inspired by Copernicus and Plato science. natural mathematical of foundations the laid This objects. theoretical (mathematical) ideal of architect an was he hence and God” “second a as treated was Man hand, other the On earth. diffthe not signifidid from er skies cantly creation divine of result a as Ptolemy: and Aristotle of cosmos the against directed was creationism” “monotheistic Nicolas’s consequently. and systematically Cusanus by ordered were “Zeitgeist” the constituting dantia Catholica dantia In writings. his of aware all were Galilei Galileo and Kepler Johannes nicus, encumbered the heavens, and thus ‘sweeping cobwebs off ’ the sky”. (Maxwell (Maxwell sky”. the off[1872]’ cobwebs 1890, 311) ‘sweeping thus and heavens, the encumbered [1453] Copernicus to 1972) man (introduction them”. a from than together put be would rather monster a all, at another one these to since belong not person; would single a fragments of representation de- the for well not very but be, pieces, may other it and picted, head, a feet, hands, places various from taking De revolutionibusDe the mathematical notions and principles should be applicable to its rota- bishop of , Tiedemann Giese, bishop of Chelmno, etc. and condemns and condemns etc. of Chelmno, bishop Giese, Tiedemann of Warmia, bishop , De Docta Ignorantia Docta De th . He criticizes Ptolemy for that his sophisticated system containing containing system sophisticated his that for Ptolemy criticizes He . ” and “protecting belt” one has to turn to the works of Nicolas of

century. Nicolaus was widely read; in particular, Nicolaus Coper- Nicolaus particular, in read; widely was Nicolaus century. dialogue) and his own astronomical observations as well. In the was dedicated), Pope Climentus VII (who adopted his opus the metaphysical intuitions metaphysical the Dei Visione De and De Concor-De cated in the Lutheran faith, Kepler devoted himself to the the to himself devoted Kepler faith, Edu- Lutheran motions. the in planet cated the governing laws mathematical for search that the to those Kepler among brought [1596]1981)where (Kepler Trinity” Holy the and Cosmos the be- tween accordance “delightful especially and motives neo-platonic) (and platonic Analogous [1883] (Mach 2007). dynamics of law second Newton’s to and inertia” of principle “the to [1936] (Husserl of science methods 1970). to for come Galileo close it made All possible that el- methodology science natural evating the transforms Galileo mathematization of sake the At [360 BC] 2000). (Plato them of out animals and plants bodies, real architect to solids these uses he then and solids; regular four construct to chaos preexistent a on order ( universe ordered the generate mathematical imposes sman– Craſt divine a Demiurge, –the tian theology was inspired by Plato and his his and Plato by inspired was theology tian (quoted Universe” the of Chris- interpretation Galileo’s 1995, written that 2). is well-known Hornsby It has and Miller Lial, God from which with language the is “mathematics Galileo For consisted in demonstration with the help of Copernicus and Galileo heuristic that it was the the was it that heuristic Galileo and Copernicus of help the with demonstration in done be to fi thing consisted The rst motions. divine and terrestrial laws both of the motion discover the to govern was that purpose main Newton’s Isaac Sir Cotes, Roger Sir to According [1609] (Kepler 2005). physics qualitative the destroy to began Skies rotation. uniform bodies divine of principle Aristotle-Ptolemy the breaking roughly laws the discovered and Kepler took the unifi towards step the next andcation of astronomy physics mathematical Trinity. uncreated the and cosmos created the between analogy his by inspired also were fiplanets to the and nd earth both of attempts motion the for account would repeated that law Kepler’s universal a Moreover, Ghost. Holy were planets the and Son the God Stars the Father, the God was Sun cosmos. the of space and periphery center, the of nuity conti- the required Spirit and Son, Father, of coequality The the theology. on Trinitarian of cosmos the grounds of center dynamical and geometric the as sun the considered Kepler 2001). Goldstein and Barker from (quoted Nature” of book the to regard in God highest the of priests are astronomers “We priest. a of fi the service in the work as eld “philosophy is written in that great book which ever lies before our eyes eyes our before lies ever which book great that in written is “philosophy the idealization and giving to real and thought experiments the ranks of leading leading of ranks the experiments thought and real to giving and idealization the from Burtt 2003, 75; see also Galilei [1632] Galilei also 75; see 2003, 2001) Burtt from (Galileilabyrinth”. dark a [1623]without through vain it; in of wanders word one 1957, which single a comprehend quoted to impossible is it help whose without mathemati- the in written is book circles are and andcal fi triangles, the language, other geometrical This gures, written is it which in symbols, the grasp and the universe the – but we cannot understand it if we do not fi rst learn the language “cosmos”). For that purpose he cuts out small triangles to to triangles small out cuts he purpose that For “cosmos”). Timaeus . The central fi gure of the dialogue dialogue the fi of gure central The . Book of Nature of Book , looking on his on looking , – I mean mean I 115

Rinat M. Nugayev: The Ptolemy-Copernicus transition: Intertheoretic Context 116

Rinat M. Nugayev: The Ptolemy-Copernicus transition: Intertheoretic Context rately from each other. each from sepa- rately existed had previously that programmes research those unifi of and cation etration well as unifiCopernicus, with cation problems. connected considerations the by played was role important both rather In cases transitions. Lorentz-Einstein and Ptolemy-Copernicus the between analogy deep the reveal to enables context intertheoretic revolution Copernican the of elucidation Thus, progressive programme. empirically an problemshiſt Copernican the of provided that law gravitation the of with conjunction dynamics the of to laws up three coming and Galileo and Hooke Kepler, Copernicus, of schemes theoretical the remaking and fusing by programme his of core” “hard the created Newton “Therefore it is plain that the centripetal force, by which the Moon is perpetually , preface Cotes’s Roger Sir in (1687).Mathematica Principia is stated As Naturalis done in was Philosophiae Namely that to bodies the all attracted that force same comments. of the reviewer unknown and Ariew prof. Roger to thank It is a pleasure (Newton [1687] Moon”. (Newton the 31) 1846, to up reaching gravity terrestrial of force very the is orbit, in its retained and tangent the of out attracted or impelled either as Einstein, proposed the hypotheses that led to interpen- to led that hypotheses the proposed Einstein, as earth that forced the moon to orbit the Earth. Earth. the orbit to moon the forced that earth Almagest for critical • T.S. (1957),Kuhn, • (1957), A. Koyre, • Knowledge for Search the (1986), M. and Kline, Mathematics • in Nova”, ([1609] J. Kepler, “Astronomia 2005), • ([1596] J. Kepler, 1981), and Heat of Theory Dynamical the over Clouds Century (1901),“19th • Lord W.T., Kelvin, • P. ([1975]Feyerabend, 2010), Method Against Publishers. Free • (1934), Covici A. York: New It. ISee As World The Einstein, • P. ([1906] Duhem, 1991), ([1543] 1972),N. • Copernicus, • P. Classique (1984),Chaunu, l’Europe de La Civilisation (2003), E.A. • Burtt, Astronomy”, Kepler’s of Foundations (2001), “Theological • B.R. P., Goldstein, Barker, • (2007b), Aristotle • (2007a), Physics Aristotle 1610”, before Venus of • phases (1989), R. “The Ariew, References • Jones, A. (2005), “Ptolemy’s Mathematical Models and their Meaning”, in Kinyon M., van van M., Kinyon in Meaning”, their and Models Mathematical “Ptolemy’s (2005), • A. Jones, ([1936] • E. 1970), Husserl, planetary Ptolemy’s to background the phenomena: the (1997),“Saving • B.R. Goldstein, Read • Nobody Book (2004), O.J. The Gingerich, • O. (1997), Eye Heaven The of Gingerich, (2010), R. • Fitzpatrick, • Galileo, G. ([1632]2001),• G. Galileo, • ([1623] G. Galileo, 1957), Assayer The Press. Press. Lion Green NM: A Science Module for Humanities Studies Light”, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Press. University Harvard Cambridge: Though. Western as published Press. Macmillan. London: Rosen. Edward Publications. 16: 88-113. 18: Science 81-92.Physical Brummelen G.(eds), enology theory”, Copernican Enterprises. Lulu System. Solar 2: 1-39. 2: Magazine Philosophical . Translated by David Carr. Northwestern University Press. University Northwestern Carr. David by . Translated 28: 3-22. 28: Astronomy of History the for Journal . Translated by Stillman Drake. New York: The Modern Library. Modern The York: New Drake. Stillman by . Translated From the Closed World to the Infi the to Universe. World nite Closed the From The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of of Development the in Astronomy Planetary Revolution: Copernican The The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science Modern of Foundations Metaphysical The Mathematics and the Historian’s Craſt Historian’s the and Mathematics A Modern Almagest. An Updated Version of Ptolemy’s Model of the the of Model Ptolemy’s of Version Updated An Almagest. Modern A The Secret of the the of Secret The . Translated by R.P. Hardy and R.K. Goye. eBooks@Adelaide. Goye. R.K. and R.P. by Hardy . Translated The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory Physical of Structure and Aim The Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief Systems – Ptolemaic and and Ptolemaic – Systems Chief Two the Concerning Dialogue The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenom- Transcendental and Sciences European of Crisis The On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Bodies Heavenly the of Revolutions the On . Translated by W.D.Ross. eBooks@Adelaide. W.D.Ross. by . Translated . Translated by Stillman Drake. New York: Doubleday. Doubleday. York: New Drake. Stillman by . Translated . Berlin: Springer. . Berlin: . New York: Abaris. York: . New Universe. TranslatedUniverse.F.M. by OriginallyDuncan. . New York: Walker. York: . New , 4 Selectionsfrom Kepler’s Astronomia Nova: th ed. New York: Verso Books. Books. Verso York: New ed. . Translated by W.H. Donahue. Santa Fe, Studies in History and Philosophy of of Philosophy and History in Studies . Paris: Les Editions Arthaud. Arthaud. Editions Les . Paris: . Springer, 23-42. . Springer, . Oxford University Press. Press. University . Oxford Baltimore: John Hopkins Hopkins John Baltimore: . Princeton University University Princeton . . New York: Dover Dover York: New . . Translated by by Translated. Osiris

117

Rinat M. Nugayev: The Ptolemy-Copernicus transition: Intertheoretic Context 118

Rinat M. Nugayev: The Ptolemy-Copernicus transition: Intertheoretic Context • Saliba, G. (2007), (2007), G. • Saliba, Science?”, Modern of Origins • the (1999), G. “Seaking Saliba, • (2010), C.M. Linton, • (1995),J.E. Miller, Hornsby, M.L., C.D., Lial, • I. (1970), Lakatos, of Scientifi “FalsifiProgrammes”, c and Methodology the Research cation Ptole- Supersede Program Research Copernicus’s did (1974),“Why E. Zahar, I., • Lakatos, (ed.), A.C. Crombie, in ScientifiResearch”, in c Dogma of Function • (1963),T.S. “The Kuhn, • ([1883] E. 2007), Mach, (1909), H.A. • Lorentz, • (1999), G.E.R. Lloyd, • O. (1975),Neugebauer, • al-Tusi al-Din Nasir, (1993), Astronomy on Memoir of hypotheses physical Ptolemy’s of function and structure “The (1985), A. • Murschel, ([1872]• J.C. 1890), Maxwell, • Newton, I. ([1687]1846), • I. Newton, • ([386 2000),BC] Plato Electrodynam- of Mechanics, Reconciliation • Revolution: (2000), “Einstein’s R.M. Nugayev, • (1999), R.M. Nugayev, Epistemologia Model”, • (1998), R.M. Theory-Change “A Simple Nugayev, • H.D. ( 2010), of Rutkin, Ptolemy’s and Use Abuse “The • F.J.Ragep, and predecessors”, his ( Islamic 2007), “Copernicus • ( C. 2005), Ptolemy, • (1998), C. Ptolemy, • Popper, K. ([1935] 2002), Cambridge University Press. University Cambridge 1: Inter-Faithfor Studies 139-152. perspectives in (ed.) Ptolemy A. Jones, in Fantoni)”, Filippo and Mirandola della Pico (Giovanni Studies Case Two Europe: Modern versity Press, 91-195. Press, versity (eds), A. Musgrave, I., Lakatos, in Achievement The Copernican in my’s?”, Scientific Change light and radiant heat radiant and light Press. versity 26: 33-61. 26: Astronomy of History the for Journal motion”, planetary 311-320. Publications, Dover York: New 1. W.D. Niven. by vol. Ed. Maxwell, J.C. of Developments ics and Thermodynamics”, Physis Thermodynamics”, and ics Lang. Peter Main: am Frankfurt Ades. Daniel York: New Cotes. Mr. of Roger preface with Motte), Andrew by English into getich. Princeton University Press. University Princeton getich. Co. Publishing Hackett sachusetts: . Lightning Source Inc. Source . Lightning . London: Heinemann. From Eudoxes to Einstein: of a astronomy. mathematical history Islamic Science and the Making of the European European the of Making the and Science Islamic The Almagest Tetrabiblos Methods and Problems in Greek Science . New York: G.F. Stechart &Co. G.F. York: Stechart . New The theory of electrons and its applications to the phenomena of of phenomena the to applications its and electrons of theory The Reconstruction of Mature Theory Change: A Theory –Change Model –Change Theory A Change: Theory Mature of Reconstruction A History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy Mathematical Ancient of History A Timaeus The Science of Mechanics: A Critical and Historical Account of its its of Account Historical and Critical A Mechanics: of Science The The The of Scientific Discovery (translated Philosophy Natural of Principles Mathematical The On Action at a Distance . Translated by J.M. Ashmand. Astrology Center of America. of Center Astrology Ashmand. J.M. by Translated . . Translated by D.J. Zeyl. Indianapolis and Cambridge, Mas- Cambridge, and Indianapolis Zeyl. D.J. by Translated . (Nuova Serie) 37: Serie) 181-208. (Nuova . Translated by G.J.Toomer with a foreword by Owen Gin- Owen by foreword a G.J.Toomer by with Translated . Cambridge Uni- Cambridge Knowledge. of Growth the and Criticism . Springer. . University of California, Los Angeles, ch. X, 168-192. X, ch. Angeles, Los California, of University . Beginning Beginning Algebra. . New York: Springer Verlag. Springer York: . New , in Maxwell, J.C. , J.C. Maxwell, in ,

Tetrabiblos . London and New York : Routledge. : York New and London . Harper Harper Collins College Publishers. Bulletin of the Royal Institute Institute Royal the of Bulletin . Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- Cambridge . Cambridge: History of Science of History in Renaissance and Early Early and Renaissance in , 3 vols. Berlin: Springer. Springer. Berlin: vols. 3 , The scientifi c papers 21: 225-260. Cambridge: Cambridge: 45: 65-81. 45: . Cam- . . • Thomason, N. (1992), “Could Lakatos even with Zahar’s Criterion for novel fact, evaluate evaluate fact, novel for Criterion Zahar’s with even Lakatos (1992),• N. “Could Thomason, the Copernican Research Programme?”, Research Copernican the Press. MIT MA: bridge, 43(2): 161-2. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science of Philosophy the for Journal British The

119

Rinat M. Nugayev: The Ptolemy-Copernicus transition: Intertheoretic Context