The Scientific Revolution: The Origins of Modern Science?

1
The Scientific Revolution The Origins of Modern
Science?
There is a tendency in the history of science to
look back with hindsight about what is known to
be important later. To judge the past in terms
of the present is to be whiggish or presentist
. . . . the very notion of the Scientific
Revolution, its easy to see, has something
rather whiggish built into it. The science of
that era was revolutionary because, unlike
previous science, it was like our own, or so we
think . . .
The Scientific Revolution and the Origins of
Modern Science (1997)
Copernicus and Vesalius published the two most
famous and influential scientific works of the
sixteenth century De revolutionibus orbium
coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial
Spheres) and De humani corporis fabrica (On the
Structure of the Human Body) . . . Copernicus and
Vesalius were no intellectual radicals . . .
both used classical concepts and models
throughout their work. . .
New Worlds, Ancient Texts the power of tradition
and the shock of discovery (1992)
2
Copernicus Modern Legend A Just-So Story
Modern legend has it that by the sixteenth
century, the Ptolemaic models had been elaborated
in a desperate search for greater accuracy, to
the point where the number of circles required
was beyond all reason. The legend goes on to
claim that on the Sun-centred hypothesis the
number of circles was greatly reduced, and that
the motion of the Earth was considered an
acceptable price to pay for this simplification.
In this legend there is no truth Copernicuss
detailed models are every bit as complicated as
Ptolemys. Indeed, it is obvious that the legend
cannot be true for the supposed elaboration of
the Ptolemaic models could only have been
necessary by new observation, observations of
such precision that mere adjustments in the
parameters were not enough. But observations of
this accuracy not only were not, but could not be
made at this period--the necessary instruments
simply did not exist. Sadly, the legend will
doubtless persist . . . 93
Cambridge Illustrated History of Astronomy (1997)
3
The Creation Expulsion from Paradise (ca.
1445) By Giovanni di Paolo
4
Nuremberg Chronicle (1493)
5
Cosmographia (1539) by Petrus Apianus
Retrograde
6
De revolutionibus (1543) by Nicolaus Copernicus
Retrograde
7
Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) Why did he do it?
Questions
1) Did new observations lead him to
heliocentricism?
No
2) Did new mathematical techniques lead him to it?
No
3) Did new instruments lead him to it?
No
4) Is it better able to predict planetary
motions?
No
5) Was it simpler than the Ptolemaic alternative?
Yes No
6) Was Copernicus influenced by humanism?
Yes
7) Were there strong arguments against
heliocentrism?
Yes
8
Reception of Copernican System (1543-1600)
Who accepted the Copernican theory why?
The earliest known figures who embraced it were
mathematicians.
Who rejected the Copernican system why?
There were many strong reasons for rejecting it.
1) common sense observations
2) Aristotelian physics
3) no stellar parallax
4) conflicts with biblical passages
Thomas Digges (1576)
9
Primary Source 1
I can reckon easily enough, Most Holy Father,
that as soon as certain people learn that in
these books of mine . . . I attribute certain
motions to the terrestrial globe, they will
immediately shout to have me and my opinion
hooted off the stage . . . But my friends made me
change my course in spite of my long-continued
hesitation and even resistance. First among them
was Nicholas Schonberg, Cardinal of Capua, a man
distinguished in all branches of learning next
to him was my devoted friend Tiedeman Giese,
Bishop of Culm . . . Not a few other learned and
distinguished men demanded the same thing of me,
urging me to refuse no longer . . . to contribute
my work to the common utility of those who are
really interested in mathematics . . .
Nicolaus Copernicus, dedication of De
revolutionibus (1543)
10
Primary Source 2
At rest, however, in the middle of everything is
the sun. For in this most beautiful temple, who
would place this lamp in another or better
position than that from which it can light up the
whole thing at the same time? For, the sun it
not inappropriately called by some people the
lantern of the universe, its mind by others, and
its ruler by others. The Thrice Greatest labels
it a visible god . . . Thus indeed, as though
seated on a royal throne, the sun governs the
family of planets revolving around it . . .
Nicolaus Copernicus, Chapter 10, De
revolutionibus (1543)
11
Primary Source 3
Since the newness of the hypothesis of this work-
which sets the earth in motion and puts an
immovable sun at the center of the universe- has
already received a great deal of publicity, I
have no doubt that certain of the savants have
taken grave offense and think it wrong to raise
any disturbance among the liberal disciplines . .
. However, it is the job of the astronomer to
use painstaking and skilled observation in
gathering together the history of the celestial
movements, and then- since he cannot by any line
of reasoning reach the true causes of these
movements- to think up or construct whatever
causes or hypotheses he pleases such that, by the
assumption of these causes, those same movements
can be calculated from the principles of geometry
. . . it is not necessary that these hypotheses
should be true, or even probably true but it is
enough if they provide a calculus which fits the
observations . . . let us permit these new
hypotheses to make a public appearance among the
old ones which are themselves no more probable .
. .
Andreas Osiander, anonymous preface to De
revolutionibus
12
Primary Source 4
Copernicus is expert indeed in the sciences of
mathematics and astronomy, but he is very
deficient in the sciences of physics and
dialectic. Moreover, it appears that he is
unskilled with regard to Holy Scripture, since he
contradicts several of its principles . . . The
lower science receives principles proved by the
superior. Indeed, all the sciences are connected
mutually with one another in such a way that the
inferior needs the superior and they help one
another. An astronomer cannot be perfect, in
fact, unless he has studied the physical
sciences . . . A man cannot be a complete
astronomer and philosopher unless through logic
he knows how to distinguish between the true and
the false in disputes . . . Hence, since
Copernicus does not understand physics and logic,
it is not surprising that he should be mistaken
in his opinion and accepts the false as true,
through ignorance of these sciences . . . it is
stupid to contradict an opinion accepted by
everyone over a very long time for the strongest
reasons, unless the impugner uses more powerful
and incontrovertible demonstrations and
completely dissolves the opposed reasons. But he
Copernicus does not do this in the least.
Giovanni Tolosani (1470- 1549)