Jonathan and Clarke & MD.
Thanks for the initial agreement Jonathan, the below are just small
points.
> What is interesting about Copernicus is that he didn't make any claim
> to a new philosophy. He looked at Ptolemy's complicated mathematics
> and found that he could provide an equivalent but simpler mathematical
> description of planetary movements by using the Sun rather than the
> Earth as a fixed reference point. Copernicus believed that all he was
> changing was the description, not the reality.
The Ptolemaian-Copernican transition is much used as a
demonstration of an inside-out turning of things. How nothing
changes, but everything changes It was Immanuel Kant who coined
the "Copernican Revolution" expression first and in ZAMM Pirsig
applies it to his Quality Revolution. The point is that you cannot get
the two maps to fit at the edges by any amount of wrinkling.
> Bo is right. The centrality of planet earth was never even considered
> an issue until it became an issue. The same is true of the existence
> of God, the eternity of the British Empire and the rock-steadiness of
> American democracy. Such is the nature of all assumptions.
Well said, but a bit off the mark. The Copernican system - once it
was understood - could not be "called back" rationally, while the
existence of God (the Semitic variant at least) is the reverse
process, it was self-evident but became dubious. About empires
and democracy I don't think anyone believe that such
configurations are eternal. Even at the hey-day of the Roman
Empire the thinkers surely were able to consider a future with no
RE, and knew of a history before the RE. But before Copernicus
nobody knew of a world other than the earth and could not
contemplate any other reality.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Just a point of clarification where none may be necessary...though
> Copernicus is hailed as a revolutionist in terms of the smashing of
> the earth-centered paradigm, it was arguably an incremental leap in
> scientific thought in that he worked overtime to prove that though the
> sun was the center of our universe, the fact that the earth and
> planets revolved in perfect circular revolutions was proof of the
> existence of God. Because the math didn't add up in terms of the
> astrological variance in these supposed perfect circles, he surmised
> that the twiring bodies must move in smaller concentric perfect
> circles to explain the apparent location of other heavenly bodies. It
> was of course Kepler who then came along and proved the elliptcal
> nature of the planets' revolutions.
> Clarke
Hi Clarke
Thanks for the input which is correct, but again my point is that the
two paradigms don't overlap; it's the one or the other. The Greeks
of old had in fact calculated the earth's circumference (very
accurate) and thus, knew it was a sphere, yet, it was the world, the
heavenly bodies a mere backdrop. Also we know of myths of a
world held up by a turtle, but again: It was it all.
I don't deny that there might have been "something in the air"
around the Renaissance, that there might have been other who had
started to doubt the old paradigm (Bruno is one) and contemplated
another universe with great fear - not of the Inquisition
necessarily, but from their own conscience. P of ZAMM went
insane from the enormity of his idea. This shows the immense
power of the Social value.
Thanks for reading
Bo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
