Copernican Theory vs Ptolemy System - Essay Example

The Copernican Revolution Copernicus’ contributions to astronomy can be properly characterized as revolutionary on the basis of the principles of Thomas Kuhn’s structure of a scientific revolution. Kuhn, a respected American philosopher, defined a scientific revolution as something in which a new paradigm or model takes over an older one. A revolution may either be big or small but all revolutions have the same underpinning: they are born out of a crisis in which the older paradigm is besieged by issues which cannot be resolved within its structural parameters giving rise to a need to find answers outside it. Thus, a new anomaly-resolving paradigm is born.1 Copernicus’ heliocentric theory was revolutionary because it set into motions a paradigmatic shift from the Ptolemaic system of cycles and epicycles and geocentric planetary system to the present single theory of planetary motion and heliocentric system of the universe. It is vital, at this point, to know what constitutes a scientific revolution. In this regard, Thomas Kuhn whose book The Structure of Scientific Revolution has greatly influenced the history and philosophy of science, should be consulted. According to him, a scientific revolution can be recognized by the following characteristics: the presence of anomalies in the previous paradigm and the failure of scientific recourse to resolve them; the ability of the new paradigm to provide solutions to such anomalies; the incommensurability of the old and new paradigms; the invisibility of scientific revolutions; the creation of a community shift with respect to the relevant area of science, and; finally, a change, on the part of scientists from being puzzle solvers to paradigm testers after the new paradigm takes over. 2 Taking into consideration the above principles, it is appropriate at this juncture to scrutinize the work of Copernicus vis-à-vis the Ptolemaic system. According to Copernicus, the then acknowledged system were incoherent because they lack a common methodical consensus in ascertaining the movements, they failed to obtain their purpose, and the mathematicians cannot define the shape and pattern of the universe. Since he cannot explain these anomalies within the existing geocentric paradigm, Copernicus read ancient writers and philosophers’ works and discovered the idea of a moving earth and declared that if “the motions of the of the rest of the planets be brought into relation with the circulation of the earth […] the heavens themselves become so bound together.” 3 Although Copernicus’ idea of a moving earth was not entirely original, the idea of a moving earth never became a paradigm in astronomy prior to him. Also, Copernicus’ extensive work on the subject combining mathematics, physics and other sciences ultimately swayed other scientists to make further studies on the subject. As a matter of fact, it was the subsequent works of Galileo Galilei and Thomas Kepler which solidified the revolutionary nature of the Copernican theory some fifty years after his death and publication of his book De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium. These scientists contributed theories that furthered the heliocentric view and convinced the entire scientific theory of the falsity of the Ptolemaic system. Kepler’s work validated the heliocentric theory and at the same time perfected it by proposing that Mars move in an elliptical orbit and the formulation of the law of equal areas, totally discarding the cycles and epicycles of the Ptolemaic system. 4 On the other hand, Galileo enhanced the Copernican system by solving some of the problems that hampered its ultimate acceptance to the scientific community. One of the objections to the Copernican theory was that the system of mechanics belied the proposition that the earth is moving from east to west. A ball, for example, if dropped from a tower should fall, according to Copernican oppositionists, to the west of the tower when it finally settles on the ground if the Copernican theory is true. Galileo proposed the inertia theory which posits that “a body in motion continues to move in uniform velocity until something external operates to change it.” The inertia theory, in effect, answers the objection relative to motion against the Copernican theory. 5 The revolutionary character of the Copernican theory, as subsequently validated and perfected by Galileo and Kepler, is further proven by its incommensurability with the Ptolemaic system. The Ptolemaic astronomy subscribed to a universe that revolves around a static Earth 6 while Copernicus proposed a universe where a static sun is the center and all planets revolve around it. 7 Although it can be said that the Copernican theory, to a certain extent, is a rearrangement of the Ptolemaic universe, the two theories are simply incompatible with each other. The fact that the Ptolemaic system simply became obsolete and useless after the acceptance and validation of the new Copernican paradigm likewise bolsters their incommensurability. Another characteristic of a scientific revolution according to Kuhn is its invisibility. The Copernican Revolution did not happen overnight in a phenomenal fashion but occurred over a long period of time beginning from Copernicus to Kepler and then Galileo. 8 The ultimate paradigm shift in community perspective of science, another scientific revolution characteristic, from a geocentric view to one that is heliocentric resulted. Scientists are then free to test the validity of the new system as illustrated by scientists like Isaac Newton. 9 The contribution of Copernicus to astronomy was revolutionary because it set into motion the validation, confirmation and perfection of the heliocentric view of the universe which resulted in the ultimate paradigm shift. According to Cohen, “Copernicus’ book finally led to a ferment in the thinking about the nature of the universe, and about the earth, that would eventually produce a profound change. […] The problems posed and their implications penetrated the very foundations of physics and astronomy.” 10 In short, it gave birth to the Copernican Revolution. The fact that it was initially imperfect and needed further contributory works of Galileo and Kepler cannot dampen its revolutionary character because it was the one pivotal idea that inspired both Galileo and Kepler to develop their own heliocentric proofs. Neither could the contention that the Copernican system was a mere rearrangement of the Ptolemaic system change such nature because the former totally contradicted the latter and both do not share essential common grounds. As a matter of fact, the ultimate validation and acceptance of the Copernican system totally rendered the Ptolemaic system subsequently useless and without purpose. Bibliography Applebaum, Wilbur. The Scientific Revolution and the Foundations of Modern Science. Edition: illustrated, annotated, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2005 Cohen, Bernard. The Birth of New Physics . New York: WW Norton & Company, 1985. Copernicus, Nikolaus. “The Copernican Revolution” Scientific Revolutions: Primary Texts in the History of Science by Baigrie, Brian S., ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson/Prentice-Hall, 2004. Marcum, James A. Thomas Kuhn's Revolution: An Historical Philosophy of Science, Edition: reprint. Continuum International Publishing Group, 2005. Westfall, Richard S. The Construction of Modern Science: Mechanisms and Mechanics, Edition: illustrated. Cambridge University Press, 1977. Read More