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.

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, it’s 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)

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.

Cambridge Illustrated History of Astronomy (1997)

In this legend there is no truth: Copernicus’s detailed models are every bit as complicated as Ptolemy’s. 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]

The Creation & Expulsion from Paradise (ca. 1445)

By Giovanni di Paolo

Nuremberg Chronicle (1493)

Cosmographia (1539)

by Petrus Apianus

Retrograde

De revolutionibus (1543)

by Nicolaus Copernicus

Retrograde

Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543): Why did he do it?

Questions:

1) Did new observations lead him to heliocentricism?

2) Did new mathematical techniques lead him to it?

3) Did new instruments lead him to it?

4) Is it better able to predict planetary motions?

No

No

No

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

Reception of Copernican System (1543-1600)

Who accepted the Copernican theory & why?

Who rejected the Copernican system & why?

The earliest known figures who embraced it were mathematicians.

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)

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 . . .

Primary Source #1

Nicolaus Copernicus, dedication of De revolutionibus (1543)

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 . . .

Primary Source #2

Nicolaus Copernicus, Chapter 10, De revolutionibus (1543)

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 . . .

Primary Source #3

Andreas Osiander, anonymous preface to De revolutionibus

[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.

Primary Source #4

Giovanni Tolosani (1470- 1549)