Peter Kirby

I am impressed. I like the way you think, Vorkosigan.

I wonder if you could comment and correct on my own rather amateur efforts above. Do you think I've made a good point by distinguishing between intuitive and hypothesis formation processes and methodological and confirmational justification in terms of where lies the epistemological foundation of science? Or is how scientists get their ideas very important to the question of the epistemological foundation or what is implicitly presupposed by all those who do science?

best,
Peter Kirby

Hugo Holbling

I suppose it is fortunate, then, that no-one was suggesting it does.

Perhaps you could expand on the relative proportions and what you mean by "personal and communal reasoning"?

There is probably room and time for both. If a number of ideas that we consider to have been good ones came from a certain belief or methodology then it may be worth investigating. Some people suggest this was the case with Christianity. On the other hand, if a number of bad ideas so arose therefrom, or there is an indication that a number of good ideas were prevented, then it may be worth investigating for the same general reason: beliefs are likely to effect both methodology and epistemology, for there is no non-theoretical observation language. Your last question to Vork is answered by this very point, of course.

Can i expect a reply in the other thread, Peter?

Family Man

Just a note, so that people -- particularly Bede -- don't think I've disappeared for no reason. The shit has hit the proverbial fan in my life, and I need to go away for a while so I can concentrate on more important things (such as finding a job, which actually might be possible). This has been a great discussion, and I regret leaving it, but sometimes sacrifices have to be made.

Bede

Be well, Family Man.

I will be randomly off line for a few days as I move to my new college and try to get online up there. Today was the last day at work and it feels slightly weird.

B

Peter Kirby

Yes. If you ever get anxious, PM me. I won't decline a request, and I don't drop threads intentionally. I am seriously involved in too many threads--from Philosophy to BC&H to EoG to S&S to PD to MCR to ~~E~~ and the code names are even starting to confuse me. I will get to both of your posts later, after maybe some time for sleep and school. Priorities, obviously.

Loop up all those ongoing threads and you will see the workings of ... me. Very busy. Many of them related to the present question, to which I don't have a firm answer. It's an important question though, which is why I am going to stick with it.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

Hugo,

I would like to respond to your two posts not by quoting lines of words as riffs for my own lines of words, but by striking at the heart of the matter. If that is OK with you.

See here:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=64294

That is my answer to you, Bede, Vorkosigan, and various ghosts of the past that have journeyed with me through the internet concerning Philosophy.

I have not found the question that computes to 42. I have just come to believe that rational humans implicitly believe that there is such a Question and Answer to life, the universe, and everything.

best,
Peter Kirby

Hugo Holbling

I shall try to avoid wasting my time similarly in the future.

Vorkosigan

I don't think epistemology is very important to where scientists get their ideas from (if ideas=insight).


Vorkosigan

Bill

This is a somewhat fascinationg thread from the standpoint of somebody just walking in off the street (me) since nobody appears to have done any actual research to try to answer what appears to me to be Bede's real question here.

I've looked up the Copernicus story at the MacTutor History of Mathematics archive and it jogged my memory about just why Copernicus was disturbed at the Ptolomaic model: The big "problem" with the Ptolomaic system was the fact that the outer planets would occasionally "move backwards in the sky" (now called "retrograde motion") which seemed to be impossible for an Earth-centered universe and that such a "model ‘contradicts the first principles of uniform motion’ that is that motion should be constant and circular."

So, if the motion of the planets around the earth was supposed to be "constant and circular," then retrograde motion was impossible. This meant rejecting Ptolomy's model along with Aristotle's model.

The most obvious model which would produce retrograde motion while conforming to "'the first principles of uniform motion’ that is that motion should be constant and circular" is a heliocentric model, and in spite of his inability to construct the proper mathmatical model (probably leading to its easy rejection by the Church), the overall idea was close enough to obviously correct to convince Galileo and many other scientist/astronomers.

At least, this is my reading for the answer to Bede's question.

== Bill

Vorkosigan

Well, it's not quite that simple. The retrograde motion problem was alleged to be solved by the expedient of adding more epicycles and other stuff. The interesting part of Copernicus' argument was that he invoked ideas like simplicity and symmetry in arguing against this ad hoc solution to the problem of retrograde motion.

As for influences on Copernicus' thinking that Hugo and Bede were hoping to identify, the primary one was the failure of Ptolemy and the intriguing ideas of certain Greco-Roman thinkers. In his preface Copernicus describes the process by which he came to his conclusions. By reflecting on Ptolemy and his revisers, Copernicus came to the conclusion that the best explanation was to toss out current ideas. He noted that Ptolemaic explanations were essentially inconsistent, ad hoc, and unclear, and did not account for observed behavior. In this explanation he invoked principles like simplicity and symmetry and consistency of explanation, for scholars "in determining the motions not only of these bodies also of the other five planets, they do not use the same principles, assumptions and explanations of the apparent revolutions and motions." For example, the Ptolemaic system had to be fudged. The scandal was, the earth was not really the true center of the universe in Ptolemy's system (if motion was to be perfectly circular). This made everyone, including Copernicus, unhappy.

He then notes that after he had reflected on it for a long time, he then decided to explore the classics and see what was thought in the past. And lo and behold, there was an alternative tradition. He identifies Cicero, Hicetas, and people mentioned by Plutarch that others held that the earth moved. Inspired by this, he then went on to consider that the earth moved and found that this consideration rendered everything perfectly comprehensible.

<shrug>

This may be post-facto rationalization/idealization on his part, but it is a clear explanation.

So Bede's question:
is answered by Copernicus himself. Simple is better because it is not ad hoc, inconsistent and incorrect. Bede's question about moving the Sun to the center is interesting though, because Copernicus' preface focuses more on the motion of the earth than on the location of the Sun, which he only mentions three times, and one of those is in a quote from Plutarch. It looks as though setting the sun at the center is a consequence of making the earth move, at least for Copernicus.

Copernicus himself states that the Sun's location is a consequence of apprehending the correctness of the movement of the earth:

• If, then, the earth too moves in other ways, for example, about a center, its additional motions must likewise be reflected in many bodies outside it. Among these motions we find the yearly revolution. For if this is transformed from a solar to a terrestrial movement, with the sun acknowledged to be at rest, the risings and settings which bring the zodiacal signs and fixed stars into view morning and evening will appear in the same way. The stations of the planets, moreover, as well as their retrogradations and [resumptions of] forward motion will be recognized as being, not movements of the planets, but a motion of the earth, which the planets borrow for their own appearances. Lastly, it will be realized that the sun occupies the middle of the universe. All these facts are disclosed to us by the principle governing the order in which the planets follow one another, and by the harmony of the entire universe, if only we look at the matter, as the saying goes, with both eyes.

In other words, putting the Sun in the center is fallout from realizing that the earth moves: "All these facts are disclosed to us by the principle governing the order in which the planets follow one another." Copernicus' universe may have been sun-centered, but his thinking certainly was not.

Vorkosigan