From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Apr 05 2003 - 21:12:58 BST
Sam and all:
Sam wrote:
I still want to know how you describe the shift. If you say it isn't
epistemology, what is it? Can you say anything other than that the
Copernican system was somehow 'better' than the Ptolemaic (more beautiful -
so it's not epistemology, it's aesthetics)? How do you characterise the
change?
DMB says:
Contrary evidence. That's what it comes down to. The Ptolemaic system had
some problems, chief among them was a thing called "stellar paralax". To
make a long story short, increasing accuracy in astronomical observations
was showing that the heavens were far bigger than anyone imagined.
Interesting that the emphasis is always placed on the shift to a
sun-centered solar system... Its a more dramatic image, I guess. But that
was most definately part of it too. The earth-centered model made it wierd
and complicated to predict and explain the movement of the planets. I've
only offered a sketchy telling, but its true enough.
Its not aesthetics or epistemology. It was a new astronomical model, a new
cosmology that precipitated a shift in the Western worldview.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 05 2003 - 21:15:59 BST