Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-31T23:04:46.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Was There a Crisis Before the Copernican Revolution? A Reappraisal of Gingerich’s Criticisms of Kuhn

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2023

Robert I. Griffiths
Robert I. Griffiths*
Affiliation:
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In this essay I will discuss and appraise two conflicting answers to the question of whether there was a crisis in Ptolemaic astronomy prior to the Copernican revolution. I will begin by giving a brief account of why anybody should be interested in this question. I will discuss the two conflicting answers of Kuhn (1962, 1970), who claims to present evidence which shows that Ptolemaic astronomy was anomaly-ridden at the time of Copernicus, and of Gingerich (1975), who claims that the supposed anomalies, which have been passed down in the historical literature due to poor scholarship, are fictitious. Finally I will appraise Gingerich’s criticism of Kuhn, giving my own evaluation of Gingerich’s arguments. I conclude that Gingerich’s arguments against the existence of a technical crisis in Ptolemaic astronomy prior to Copernicus appear to be, either arguments against the efficacy of the Copernican system, or arguments based on definitions of complexity which are not directly attributable to Kuhn.

Type
Part IV. History of Science
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1988 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1988 , 1988 , pp. 127 - 132
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1988

Footnotes

1

Special thanks are due to Professor Peter Barker who provided critical comments during preparation of an earlier version of this paper for his Philosophy of Science Course at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

References

De Solla Price, D. “Contra Copernicus” in Critical Problems in the History of Science. Edited by Clagget, (1959). University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
De Vaucouleurs, G. (1957). Discovery of the Universe. London.Google Scholar
Dreyer, J.L.E. (1953). A History of Astronomy from Thales to Kepler. Dover Publications.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P.K. (1975). Against Method: outline of an anarchist theory of knowledge. Redwood Burn Limited.Google Scholar
Gingerich, O. (1975). “‘Crisis’ Verses Aesthetic in the Copernican Revolution.” In Vistas in Astronomy (Vol. 17). Edited by Beer, A.. Oxford: Pergamon, pp. 85–94.Google Scholar
Gholson, B.R. and Barker, P. (1985). “Kuhn, Lakatos, and Laudan: applications to the history of physics and psychology.” American Psychologist 40: 755–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutting, G. (1980). Paradigms and Revolutions: appraisals and applications of Thomas Kuhn’s philosophy of science. University of Notre Dame.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. (1957). The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western thought. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1978). The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. London and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, L. (1977). Progress and its Problems. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Laudan, L., et al. (1986). “Scientific Change: Philosophical Models and Historical Research.” Synthese, 69, pp. 141–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swerdlow, N.M., and Neugebauer, O. (1984). Mathematical Astronomy in Copernicus’s De Revolutionoibus. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar