Koyaanisqatsi

Although I know I'm on your "ignore" list, Bede, it's nonetheless interesting to me that you don't conclude that his model came in spite of his beliefs; that it wasn't (as others have suggested) an issue of cognitive dissonance for him, just as Einstein had problems with the idea of "god" playing dice with the universe.

I see this more of an example where (to paraphrase the Bard), "the truth will out." His observations demonstrated to him that the cult was wrong about how our solar system works and he rationalized this within his beliefs (as so many cult members continue to do so to this day, present company included).

Indeed, there's a whole sub-set of cult members who have even named this process of rationaliziation that you are, admittedly, a proud adherent of: apologetics.

Thus, there are actually two completely separate issues here. One is the scientific fact that the Earth orbits the Sun, the other is how this fact of nature could be reconciled with the then accepted cult dogma that contradicted it.

Which won out, as is almost always the case (historically speaking, of course)? Science, of course, which is why as the scientific method grew and discovered more and more truths contradicting biblical claims, apologetics became a necessary evil (and the cult started forming universities to control and manipulate this radical way of actually looking at the universe and trying to discover how it came about; a topic I know is near and dear to your particular branch of rationalizations).

Cult indoctrination, as you know, is extremely powerful. It has historically resulted in mass murder as well as mass suicide. Our allegedly "modern" world is right now held captive by cult indoctrination, based on mythology that is over two thousand years old.

Thankfully, however, for we atheists, the truth will out in spite of the apologetic attempt to obfuscate and rationalize it according to cult beliefs, just as it did in Cop's time. What he believed (in a cult context) or even rationalized is, therefore, irrelevant.

It only seems relevant, because he was right and could prove his claim in spite of insistence to the contrary that dogma proved him wrong. Had he claimed that the Sun was god's candle and it existed in our atmosphere, for example, no one would ever remember his name.

His observations/proof, however, were not based on religious faith and that's the point. His religious faith (in the relevant dogma) may have changed based upon his observations/proof (instead of what should have happened for such a logical mind, of course), but then, that is, sadly, nothing new.

As we see abundant evidence of even today, people will go to just about any length to rationalize the ridiculous and the reasons are rarely (if ever) reasonable; merely wish-fulfilling. If only those wishes weren't implanted, manipulated and maintained, we'd have utopia.

Bede

Familyman,

You mention the context of the times. We all agree that all these early scientists were Christians (rather than that they we just pretending to be) and that this was deeply ingrained in them. So what could be more natural than their religious belief leading them, in the logical and rational way Copernicus sets out, towards the belief that elegant theories are best. You have not given us any alternative reason for them to think this. Honestly, the burden is on you to actually show Copernicus was not led to that conclusion by his religon, preferably by suggesting how he was. As it is, you seem to be using the argument from increduality, you just can't believe relgion had a hand in this and therefore it didn't.

Your second point is a matter of taste but I can entirely accept that to an atheist it is true. Contra Robert Boyle, who claimed any atheist who studied science and remained an atheist was a fool, science has not proven God. Natural Theology has not delivered. But this has nothing whatsoever to do with our discussion and looks to science's future rather than his own times, as you rightly say we must do. You seem to assume that because religon played a part in the rise of science, I would assume this is evidence that the religion is true. It isn't. If we could ditch this subtext, we might have more success. And it is not a historical non-question just because it doesn't prove Christianity. It remains a vital and fascinating historical question in its own right.

So, could you tell us why simply theories are better than complicatedo ones in the context of the sixteenth century?

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith an reason

PS: Koy, you said it.

Vorkosigan

<frown> From which doctrine did Copernicus draw the idea that the Earth orbited the Sun?

Bede

Dunno. We are looking at links to neo-Platonism and hermetism. Certainly not from the Bible! I am reading Yates's chapter on this in Bruno at the moment and will report back soon.

In his first post Familyman said simple[elegant] theories are better than complicated ones. I'm trying to find out why he thinks Copernicus thought this, if not because we expect 'the movements of the world machine, created for our sake by the best and most systematic Artisan of all’ to reflect that artisan.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Family Man

Bede, I've posted what I've thought about this twice already and you've ignored it twice. To whit:

Think about this for a minute. When scientists present a new theory, they will usually appeal to the explanatory power, simplicity, and clarity of the new theory. All scientists relate to an argument like that, and serious contenders for adoption as an accepted scientific theory are identified quickly because they have this characteristics. This is because this is standard, scientific practice. Scientists have a strong and identifiable motivation for making their theories simple, elegant, yet with a great deal of explanatory power. It is an accepted and critical part of the institution of science.

This was not the case with the early Christian scientists. Copernicus's theory was not immediately considered a serious theory. The Wittenberg Interpretation reduced it to an intellectual curiosity. It wasn't even discussed at the Council of Trent, while alchemy was discussed at length and condemned. According to the Lindberg/Numbers book, in the late 16th century only 7 persons could be identified as subscribing to Copernicus's theory. Copernicus's work wasn't even added to the Index of Prohibited Books until the 1615, and then only after evidence started piling up that it was a viable theory. Christendom at the time did not recognize the power of Copernicus's theory, because simplicity and elegance was not the institutional requirement of Christianity that it is in science today. Thus, we can't conclude that Copernicus was externally compelled to seek a better explanation because of the requirements of his religion. It simply wasn't part of the Christian lexicon at the time.

So we're left with taking Copernicus's statement at face value, which you know perfectly well isn't good historical analysis. Heck, in America, we have athletes that will work out and practice for hours to condition themselves and hone their skills. But when something good happens, they'll give all the credit to Jesus. Do we now have a Proof From Athletic Prowess for the existence of God? Of course not. The personal piety and willingness to give credit to the divine of any one individual is not evidence of anything. This applies to Copernicus just as much as it does to Kurt Warner.

The bottom line, Bede, is that there is no good reason to accept Copernicus's statement as anything other than personal piety. To demonstrate that his faith caused him to conduct his research (as opposed to a secular reason that he didn't decide to share with us), and that he wasn't just justifying his works to his beliefs, you need to show that there was something in the faith itself that would cause him to do such a thing. But, as I've repeatedly pointed out on this thread, that doesn't appear to be the case.

Hugo Holbling

Unfortunately this wasn't the case and reference to observations cannot - in this instance at least - explain why Copernicus proposed his ideas. There were no "fundamental astronomical discover[ies], no new sort of astronomical observation [that] persuaded Copernicus of ancient astronomy's inadequacy or of the necessity for change". (Kuhn) Indeed, there were no significant changes in the available data until 50 or so years later. This is of course why we are - and others have - speculating as to where Copernicus got the idea.

Hugo Holbling

It is as well they weren't, then, because Copernicus' theory gave empirical preditions that were worse than the Ptolemaic system he already considered empirically adequate (there are a number of papers in back issues of Isis demonstrating this). This need not trouble us because Copernicus was critical of the older ideas for theoretical reasons. Indeed, he disregarded certain troublesome aspects apparently because he saught the mathematization of theory, which i have already suggested (tentatively) came from Neo-Platonic influences.

Your remarks on this subject are interesting but i have already explained that Kuhn very much considered that Copernicus' faith preceded his theory. Moreover, Copernicus was vexed by the problem of predicting holy days (as Westman explains). These appear on the face of it to be both motivated by his faith so it would perhaps be useful to see if they help us.

Family Man

Agreed.

Of course his faith preceded his theory. But there is a difference between motivation and cause. Kurt Warner might have been motivated by his faith to work out everyday, but that doesn't imply that his faith caused his success. (I could have worked out everyday myself, using faith as a motivator, and not made my high school football team.) Similarly, we can't assume that Copernicus proposed a simpler system because he was motivated by his faith to look at the problem. There is a correlation here, but not necessarily a causal relation.

the_cave

It was from the Renaissance admixture of pre-Socratic, Platonic, Hellenistic, and Neoplatonic beliefs. One part Pythagoreanism, one part Plato, one part Plotinus,plus the odd number of Greek heliocentrists...all adds up to Platonic Renaissance heliocentrism...I believe Copernicus says it himself in one of his works--Kuhn mentions this point in his excellent study. I don't know where you'd find it in Yates, but it's probably in there somewhere.

Quote:

In his first post Familyman said simple[elegant] theories are better than complicated ones. I'm trying to find out why he thinks Copernicus thought this, if not because we expect 'the movements of the world machine, created for our sake by the best and most systematic Artisan of all’ to reflect that artisan.

I'd easily believe that this was a motivation.

[edit to add: just read all of Hugo's posts. He's right on.]

Tyler Durden

A massive case of correlation of contingencies (personal motives, historical context, etc) is being confused for ahistorical, ideological causation. Why?