The Rationality of the Copernican Revolution Author(s): Martin V.

Curd Source: PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1982, Volume One: Contributed Papers (1982), pp. 3-13 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Philosophy of Science Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/192651 . Accessed: 10/10/2011 11:14
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press and Philosophy of Science Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association.

http://www.jstor.org

The Rationality

of the Copernican Martin V. Curd Purdue University

Revolution

Given the central importance of the Copernican theory to the birth to learn that there were it is somewhat surprising of modern science, remarkably few committed Copernicans prior to 1600. In a recent study, Westman (1980) finds only ten, of whom fewer than five were major in this period The vast majority of scientists scientific figures. to accept the Earth-centered continued astronomy of Ptolemy or later switched to the geoheliocentric system of Tycho Brahe. This widespread the following reluctance to adopt the heliocentric theory suggests When and why did it become about the Copernican Revolution: questions the Ptolemaic theory as false? When and why did it to reject rational to accept the Copernican theory as true? become rational Or, to put in the more familiar these questions language of the epistemologist: that the Ptolemaic When and why did the beliefs theory is false and beliefs? that the Copernican theory is true become justified are now widely these to The traditional answers questions The Copernican theory, contrary to as being unsatisfactory. recognized in its predictions more accurate popular myth, was not significantly sense in any straightforward was it neither than the Ptolemaic, 1970; Babb, 1977). Indeed, at least (Palter, simpler than its rival Thomas Kuhn, has of science, and philosopher one prominent historian turned upon Revolution that the Copernican reached the conclusion that reduce to "matters of taste." and subjective factors irrational (Kuhn 1957, p. 171). has not gone unchallenged. conclusion This extreme and unpalatable the from its inception, Lakatos and Zahar (1975) have argued that, and empirically Copernican research programme was both heuristically to its Ptolemaic rival. with respect They base the second progressive half of this conclusion on the claim that the essential geometric for example in the of the heliocentric structure theory (as presented, the which for them constitutes of the Commentariolus, postulates Aristarchan hard-core of the Copernican programme), had excess PSA 1982, Copyright V lume 1, pp. 3-13 C 1982 by the Philosophy

of Science

Association

4 predictive power over the geocentric theory, some of which immediately corroborated the new theory. This claim rests in turn, however, on the of Zahar's revised of what constitutes a 'novel adoption conception that a novel fact fact', according to which it is no longer necessary be previously unknown as long as it was not used in the construction of the theory. In a similar vein, though on sounder grounds, Glymour (1980a; to 1980b) argues that the Copernican theory was objectively superior the Ptolemaic with respect to its ability to explain and be tested by the then-known facts of positional astronomy. Related claims have been made by Hall (1970), Millman (1976) and Heidelberger (1976). These claims are important because they attempt to give a clear sense to the judgment that, prior to Galileo's telescopic discoveries, Newton's gravitational aberration of stellar theory and the detection and stellar the heliocentric not parallax, theory, though more accurate, was nonetheless better than quantitatively objectively It should be noted however, that neither Lakatos and Zahar Ptolemy's. nor Glymour wish to draw any direct from this judgment conclusions of either about the rationality the Copernican theory as accepting true or of pursuing the Copernican programme in the 16th and 17th centuries. about this. He uses the comparison Glymour is explicit between the heliocentric and the geocentric theories merely as an illustration of the analysis of theory and confirmation testing in his book. Nevertheless, both sets of authors claim to presented have shed significant factors which lie behind light on the objective admiration for the systematic the pro-Copernican harmony and unity, in the writings of men coherence of the heliocentric theory expressed not and Kepler. These considerations are manifestly like Rheticus or merely aesthetic as Kuhn and others have irrational, subjective, I shall Due to limitations of space, sometimes insisted. briefly and considerations explain only the most important of these objective of the rationality then comment on their significance for assessing the Copernican Revolution. We first note that Equation (1) is derivable of the Copernican system: geometric structure (1) 1/T p = 1/T e + 1/S p from the essential

of the planet where T is the heliocentric period P, Te is the heliocertric 365.25 days-- the mean period of the Earth (approximately solar year) and S is the interval of time between successive episodes of the retrogradePmotion of P as viewed from the Earth. The plus sign the minus sign when P is a holds when P is an inferior planet, motion occurs Since only at inferior superior planet. retrograde for the and at opposition for the inferior planets conjunction S is the period of, or the time taken to complete, superior planets, one cycle of anomaly, which is approximately constant for each planet. is reckoned with In the Ptolemaic where epicylic rotation system, to the center the center of the epicycle to the line joining respect

5 of the deferent, S is the period of the major epicycle for each is that it is an observable about S The importRnt fact planet. without presupposing from Jbservations It can be calculated quantity. Since T is also known from the truth of any astronomical theory. theory to Equation (1) can be used in the eopernican observation, the heliocentric calculate planets Mercury and periods of the inferior When we values of 88 days and 225 days respectively. Venus, yielding turn to the superior planets, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn, all three of known from independent T , T and S are already the quantities T represents the period of the In ?he PtolemaicPsystem observations. Thus the Copernican theory predicts deferent for each superior planet. that Equation (1) holds in the case of the three superior planets and tested in these three cases. This is an important part is successfully of the excess theory over the power of the heliocentric predictive with Equation theory is consistent theory. While Ptolemy's geocentric or explain that theory does not predict (1) for the superior planets, in the Ptolemaic is represented it. The relationship theory by the and epicyclic fact that once the deferential periods are chosen as T the radius of the major epicycle and S respectively, always remains the Earth to the Sun. Thus the solar to the line joining parallel remains an planets component in the apparent motion of the superior as a natural fact in the Ptolemaic theory but follows unexplained the of the heliocentric theory. Similarly, consequence geometric unlike the Ptolemaic, provides a simple geometric Copernican theory, of the inferior for the restricted planets and elongation explanation in the values of S as the planets are more distant for the decrease from the Earth in either direction. and the distances of planetary Next we turn to the determination distances In the Ptolemaic order of the planets. planetary theory, from the Earth can be determined neither as absolute magnitudes nor as if one remains from observation ratios of a common unit alone, The most that one can of that theory. within the limits strictly is the ratio r /R , where r is the radius from observation calculate deferent and R is the radi&s gf the planetary of the major epicycle for eaci planet but unknown). Thus the order of (which is different of R . Such order be based on the values the planets cannot of Pan additional on the basis were made, however, assignments with the size of its P: The period of a planet increases postulate, from the fixed center of revolution. that is, with its distance orbit, in De and defended Such a postulate was annunciated by Aristotle The fixed center in the Ptolemaic system Caelo, Book II, Chapter X. the order of course, the Earth. Thus for the superior planets, is, from the known values of the deferential Saturn follows Mars, Jupiter, P. But for the inferior planets, periods with the help of postulate since of order remains arbitrary Mercury and Venus, the assignment their are the same as that of the Sun. Once an deferential periods the to estimate order had been decided upon, it was also possible orbits on the basis of a further relative sizes of the planetary to as 'the plenitude which is sometimes referred principle': postulate of one planet from the Earth The greatest lower bound on the distance is the same as the least upper bound on the distance between the Earth

6 and the next interior this requires going itself. (Kuhn 1957, pp. 80-81, of the the resources

planet. beyond

174). But, Ptolemaic

again, theory

In the In the Copernican stand much better. things theory, of from the center all distances heliocentric planetary system from revolution (which is now taken to be the Sun) are determinable (Kuhn as ratios of one basic unit, the Earth-Sun distance. observation a more sophisticated for Grafton see (1973) pp. 174-5; 1957, from these then follow Order assignments discussion). directly P. Of and confirm postulate and thus test distance determinations of the heliocentric confirmation this is not an empirical course demonstrates theory since P is not known to be true, but it clearly of the Copernican theory, a feature the unity and systematic integrity and which pl yed a major role in lacking in the Ptolemaic noticeably Rheticus and Kepler. the arguments of Copernicus, to the Ptolemaic is superior Given that the Copernican theory tested by the same (being better theory in the sense just explained and greater and data unity systematic possessing positional for our fact of this what is the relevance power), explanatory Let us of the Copernican Revolution? of the rationality understanding from the belief as the transition the Copernican Revolution define of the Ptolemaic structure that the essential system is true to the structure of the Copernican system is true. that the essential belief of the Copernican Revolution in this Defined way, the rationality two decisions: of the following (A) The depends on the rationality of the of the Ptolemaic theory as false; (B) The acceptance rejection of the the as true. superiority By itself, theory Copernican to the explanation Copernican theory over the Ptolemaic with respect to determine data fails of the positional and systematic integration This is because of two additional of either decision. the rationality in the historical are epistemologically factors that significant the Tychonic theory, of a third alternative, the availability context: the Copernican of important and the presence problems confronting theory. in outline The Tychonic by Brahe in 1588, published theory, arrangement in which the Earth is central proposes a geohfliocentric The superior and inferior and stationary. planets all revolve about about the Earth. Thus, in the Tychonic the Sun which in turn revolves system all the planets have the Sun's apparent orbit as their deferent If orbits as their major epicycle. and their Copernican, heliocentric the the Tychonic (unlike fixed the one ignores system stars, to the and kinematically is equivalent Ptolemaic) geometrically of having two main centers of the inelegance Copernican. Thus despite revolution (the Earth and the Sun), the Tychonic system enjoys the data as with respect to the positional same methodological superiority of it allows the derivation does the Copernican system. In particular, from the distances of planetary Equation (1) and the determination of of the restricted elongation Sun, and provides a simple explanation between the two decision Thus any rational the inferior planets.

7 theories grounds. must be made on other, that is, on physical and dynamical

The two most important problems for the Copernican theory were (1) and (2) the apparent dynamical evidence that the Earth is stationary, two of these stellar Neither the absence of detectable parallax. and Tychonic systems since they the Ptolemaic difficulties afflicted to adopt the were forced The pro-Copernicans are both geostatic. of arguing that neither defensive (1) nor (2) are actually strategy terrestrial motions required by with the two principal inconsistent is a difficult became successful When this their strategy theory. question to answer, but in regard to problem (1) I do not think we can on dynamics; and mature writings than Galileo's place it any earlier I think were good grounds for there time (the 1630's) by this did Even when this strategy the Ptolemaic theory as false. rejecting the issue between the Copernican and Tychonic it still left succeed, I propose In the light of these considerations theories unresolved. of the of the rationality answers to the question the following the Ptolemaic theory as Decision (A), to reject Copernican Revolution. first became rational early in the 17th century as a clearly false, of the of the precise of Galileo's observations result configurations cleared also of Venus. These observations (which up a phases the relative concerning problem for all three theories long-standing with of Venus) are consistent in the observed brightness constancy both the Copernican and Tychonic theories (in which Venus and Mercury with the but they cannot be reconciled both go round the Sun), of the Ptolemaic system (in which Venus structure essential geometric and Mercury do not go round the Sun). Decision (B), to accept the when Newtonian as true, became rational only Copernican theory for grounds provided reasonable physical theory gravitational towards the end of the 17th the Tychonic theory as false rejecting century. is The choice and the Tychonic theories between the Copernican somewhat by the appearance of semi-Tychonic complicated systems in the 16th and early These systems, late 17th centuries. proposed by were identical with and Longomontanus among others, Reymers, Gilbert that a diurnal the Tychonic except they attributed arrangement rotation to the Earth while at the game time denying the Earth an The attraction of such revolution about the Sun. annual were two-fold. all the First, semi-Tychonic systems they enjoyed which the Tychonic advantages system shared with the Copernican. the conspicuously of a Second, they avoided inelegant postulation diurnal motion to each celestial separate body, and in particular allowed the fixed stars to be stationary, as in (ignoring precession) the Copernican system. This was an important factor once it became reasonable to accept the principle inertia as a of rectilinear fundamental law of motion. The principle of rectilinear inertia forces to sustain (Newton's First Law of Motion) requires centripetal motion of discrete bodies about an axis of revolution. As any circular Newton explained in The System of the World, it is physically inconceivable that the centripetal forces required for diurnal stellar

8 motion could be generated by the North-South celestial axis which is an imaginary line in space. (Newton 1687, pp. 553-4). Thus, given the of inertia, the diurnal rotation of the Earth becomes principle But until the overwhelming success of Newton's physically necessary. to maintain that plausible gravitational theory, it was not similarly the annual motion of the Earth about the Sun is also physically necessary. What conclusions follow from this brief analysis of the Copernican if we regard a theory as a set of statements Revolution? from First, deducible as in the hypotheticowhich other statements are logically deductive model of scientific theories (rather than regarding theories as fundamentally entities such as Kuhnian paradigms or non-linguistic that a theory is as 'inference and if we regard the belief tickets') that it is false as appropriate kinds of epistemic true and the belief is for these beliefs attitude to hold towards it, then justification the issue to come by. In the Copernican episode, rather difficult but also on the rational turned not merely on observation crucially alone of a new fundamental theory of dynamics. Observation acceptance was impotent to decide between the Copernican theory and its Tychonic One begins to have some sympathy for those Jesuit alternatives. many of whom were proponents of the Tychonic theory, who astronomers, demonstrate the Galileo's claim to be able to conclusively challenged (This is in no way intended as an truth of the Copernican theory. endorsement of the way in which the Church dealt with Galileo.) grounds could be objective Second, we have seen that excellent and given and were given for taking the Copernican theory seriously some of for trying to develop a theory of dynamics which would resolve in the debate over its pressing problems. The fact that participants such as to other factors also the heliocentric appealed theory of the number six with Holy Writ (Brahe), the perfection compatibility and the in the Copernican system) (Rheticus) (the number of planets of placing the Sun at the and theological appropriateness metaphysical from this point. Of does not detract center of the universe (Kepler), new in pursuing7their course the Copernicans were rationally justified so too were the Tychonists. Perhaps theory but then, if I am right, who propose new that most scientists inevitable it is psychologically and to developing their time and energies theories and devote that they to believe a strong temptation defending them, experience to have new more effective are true. Perhaps it is also sociologically than believers theories by disinterested by ardent championed ones is a are justified But whether or not these beliefs spectators. of science can answer. analysis question that only an epistemological

Notes Westman lists Bruno, Galileo, Digges, Hariot, Diego de Zuniga, Rothmann and Kepler. As Westman notes, Stevin, Rheticus, Maestlin, in this (1543-1600) many astronomers period conservatively adopted only those parts of the Copernican theory that were independent of the claim that the Earth is in motion, but were strongly physical reluctant to endorse the theory as a whole. Even after 1600 there were who argued against still the Copernican prominent thinkers accepting See Stimson (1917) and theory as true, notably Mersenne and Riccioli. Hine (1973). is based on what I call 2Aristotle's 'the friction reasoning Since the planetary direction argument'. spheres move in the opposite to the swifter diurnal motion of the sphere of the fixed stars, the move more slowly, the closer planets they are to the stellar sphere: "the nearest one is most strongly counteracted by the primary motion, and the farthest (Aristotle least, owing to its distance." 1939, p. Postulate P is not directly to the Tychonic applicable 199, 291 7-10.) of revolution, the Earth system in which there are two major centers and the Sun. In the Copernican with the stellar sphere system, P is an intuitively but stationary, plausible ordering principle without an independent means of determining and distances planetary it remains untestable. As Kepler realised, the reason why velocities, the more distant have longer is not heliocentric planets periods simply because their orbits are larger but also because they move more of this slowly. Kepler proposed an (erroneous) explanation physical decrease of velocity with distance from the Sun. P follows as a deductive consequence of Newton's gravitational theory and applies not only to the solar system but also to the gravitational system of moons. Jupiter's 3Chalmers (1981) has recently criticized those who claim that the Copernican theory is superior to the Ptolemaic because in the former, but not in the latter, one can calculate the ratios of the average sizes of planetary orbits. Chalmers objects that the difference between the two theories in this respect is due solely to the position of the observer in the planetary system and thus should not be accorded For a critical to any fundamental significance. reply Chalmers on this point see Curd (1982). For details of the Tychonic system see Boas and Hall (1959), and Gingerich As Schofield (1973). (1965) notes, Moesgaard (1972) Brahe was not the first to suggest a geoheliocentric arrangement in the 16th century since such systems had already been suggested by Rothmann and Viete. What distinguished Brahe was Reinhold, Lonicerus, his conviction that the Tychonic system was true. I am indebted to Professor Westman for these examples. Gilbert in fact also assigned a precessional motion to the Earth's axis as well as a diurnal rotation and attributed both to magnetic causes. (Gilbert 1600, pp. 347-352).

10 Galileo two main physical or dynamical arguments (1632) presents motion around the Sun, the argument from sunspots for the Earth's and the argument from the tides As (pp. 416-465). (pp. 347-355) in himself the argument from the annual variations Galileo concedes, since the same trajectories the paths of the sunspots is inconclusive of solar spots can be produced in a geostatic model, as long as the is inclined at a constant angle to the Sun's axis of monthly rotation But as Drake (1970, axis of the ecliptic pp. 177-199) plane. convincingly argues, Galileo is also concerned with the absence of any model In a geostatic in the positions of the spots. daily variation this requires that the Sun always turn nearly the same face toward the of the resulting Earth. The dynamical implausibility complex of solar the diurnal motion to motions makes a powerful case for attributing the Earth and not to the Sun, but it leaves the question of the Sun's tidal argument is more difficult annual motion unresolved. Galileo's the the phenomenon, of the of because to evaluate complexity of weakness and the of Galileo's assumptions implausibility is Mach (1933), The classic criticism theories. alternative pp. to make a more which attempt 262-264. For more recent analyses favorable case for Galileo's theory, see Burstyn (1962), Shea (1970), The first and Brown (1976). Machamer (1973) adequate really behavior of the tides was provided by of the large-scale explanation Newton's gravitational theory. criteria between and offers 7Laudan (1977) distinguishes (different) In his reply to Westman, Laudan (1981) and pursuit. for acceptance to pursue but agrees that on his model it might have been rational to accept the Copernican theory in the 16th was not rational certainly not a theory", means by "accepting however, century. Laudan, that it is true" (as assumed in this paper) but "treating "believing it as if it were true." (Laudan 1977, p. 108). Moreover, the judgment to pursue both the in this expressed paper that it was rational in the 16th century is not based Copernican and the Tychonic theories to pursue any research on Laudan's dictum that "it is always rational tradition which has a higher rate of progress than its rivals" (Laudan with it. inconsistent 1977, p. 111), though it is not obviously notion of the Rather, my judgment is based on a more accomodating of pursuit, roughly the concept of promise that Laudan is rationality in maximal rates whether or not this is reflected trying to explicate, of progress at a given time.

11 References Aristotle. as On the Heavens. De Caelo, (As reprinted W.K.C. Guthrie. Harvard University Cambridge: Press, (1977). Babb, S.E., Jr. "Accuracy of Planetary for Mars." Isis 68: 426-434. Boas, M. and Hall, A.R. (1959). "Tycho Brahe's QQcasionrl Notes of the Roval Astronomical (1976). Brown, H.I. in the gistorv Burstyn, H.L. Moves." Chalmers, A. British Theories, System Society (trans.) 1939.) Particularly of the World." 3: 252-263. Studies the Earth

the Elements, and the Tides." "Galileo, and PhilosoPhv of Science 7: 337-351. "Galileo's 161-185. Attempt to Prove that

(1962). Isis 53: (1981). Journal for

Distances in Copernican "Planetary Theory." the PhilosoDhv of Science 32: 374-375. of the Copernican manuscript. Ann Arbor: University Theory: A

"The Superiority (1982). Curd, M.V. Reply to Chalmers." Unpublished Drake, Galilei, S. (1970), Press. Galileo Studies.

of Michigan

G. (1632). Florence: Dialogo di massimi Sistemi del Mondo. G.B. Landini. as pialogue (As reprinted Concerning the Two Chief S. Drake. (trans.) L.ord Systems. of Berkeley: University California Press, 1953.) W. (1600). P.F. (trans.) 1958.) (1973). 87-101. De Macnete. London: Peter Short. (As reprinted New York: Dover Publications Mottelay. Inc., "Copernicus Theory and Tycho." Scientific Princeton:

Gilbert,

0. Gingerich, 229(6):

American Princeton Nous

Glymour, C. (1980a). Press. University ---------14: (1980b). 31-50.

and Evidence.

"Explanations,

Tests,

Unity and Necessity."

Michael Maestlin's Account of Copernican Planetary Grafton, A. (1973). Proceedings of the American Philosoohical Theory." Society 117: 523-550. Hall, R.J. "Kuhn and the Copernican (1970). Journal for the Phijosophy of Science 21: Revolution." 196-197. British

M. (1976). "Some Intertheoretic Relations Heidelberger, Between Ptolemean and Copernican Astronomy." n 10: 323-336. rkenntnls

12

Hine, W.L.

(1973).

"Mersenne and Copernicanism." Revolution.

Isis

64:

18-32. Harvard

The Copernican (1957). Kuhn, T.S. Press. University

Cambridge:

Research "Why Did Copernicus's Lakatos, I. and Zahar, E. (1975). Achievement. In The CoDernican Programme Supersede Ptolemy's?" Press. of California Edited by R. Westman. Berkeley: University with a hitherto unpub(This paper is reprinted Pages 354-383. lished postscript Pages 168-192.) by Lakatos in Lakatos (1978).
.---------.

Research Programmes, The Methodologv of Scientific (1978). J. Worrall and G. Currie. (eds.) Philosophical Papers, Volume 1. Press. Cambridge University Cambridge: and Its Problems. Berkeley: University of

Progress Laudan, L. (1977). Press. California ---------.

In PSA 1978, ." of Progress.. "The Philosophy (1981). East Lansing, Edited by P.D. Asquith and R.N. Giere. Volume 2. Pages 530-547. Philosophy of Science Association. Michigan: historischEntwickelung Die Mechanik in Ihrer E. (1933). (As F.A. Brockhaus. 9th ed. dargestelll, Leipzig: kritisch and Historical A Critical as The Science of Mechanics: reprinted La Salle, T.J. McCormack. (trans.) Account of Its Development. The Open Court Publishing Company, 1960.) Illinois:

Mach,

of The Interpretation "Feyerabend and Galileo: Machamer, P.K. (1973). Studies in the of Experience." and the Reinterpretation Theories, 1-46. and Philosophv of Science 4: Jistorv In of Research Programs." "The Plausibility Millman, A.B. (1976). East PSA 1976, Volume 1. Edited by F. Suppe and P.D. Asquith. Pages Association. of Science Philosophy Lansing, Michigan: 140-148. Influence "Copernican (1972). Moesgaard, K.P. The Reception of CoDernicus' Heliocentric Reidel. Boston: Pages 31-55. Dobrzycki. In on Tycho Brahe." Edited by J. Theorv.

Mathematica. Principia Naturalis Philosophiae (1687). Newton, I. as Sir Isaac Newton's (As reprinted London: Royal Society. and his System of of Natural philosoDhy Mathematical Principles revised by F. Cajori. A. Motte, (trans.) 2 vols. the World. of California Press, 1973.) University Berkeley: Palter, of Early Astronomy." "An Approach to the History R. (1970). Studies in History and PhilosoDhv of Science 1: 93-133.

13 C. (1965). "The Geoheliocentric Schofield, Sixteenth Century Planetary Theory." History of Science 2: 291-296. Shea, W. (1970). "Galileo's History of Science 5: Claim to Fame." 111-127. Mathematical Hypothesis for British Journal Journal for in the the

British

The Gradual Accentance of the Cooernican Theory of Stimson, D. (1917). Columbia University. the Universe. Ph.D. Dissertation, (As MA: Peter Smith, 1972.) reprinted Glouster, "The Astronomer's Role in the Sixteenth (1980). Westman, R.S. A Preliminary 105-147. Study." History of Science 18: Century: