KeithHarwood

Ptolemy stuck to circles because they are easier to deal with mathematically. The observations which require epicycles were made by anyone with a vague familiarity with the sky and Ptolemy had access to much more precise observations. However, even then the number of epicycles was quite modest even in a geocentric coordinate system (even fewer in a heliocentric system). Ptolemy's system has good predictive power and passed all observational tests for over a millenium. It did, howeer, conflict rather badly with the crystal sphere model of the universe, which was something of a sore point. It was only when Brahe made his much more precise measurements that the cracks really began to show. Brahe himslef got rid of the biggest epiccycles by having the sum and the moon revolve about the earth and all the other planets revolve about the sun.

But that wasn't enough. Using the full precision of the observations required a ridiculous number of epicycles and Kepler had to dump the circularity and the uniform motion notions in order to make the calculations tractable.

The observational data led Ptolemy to propose his theory. It's just a curve-fitting exercise. The epicycles were there from the beginning and the trick was to determine the diameter and period of each cycle by fitting to the observations. To the precision of the available observational techniques Ptolemy's theory was good enough and there was no way to distiguish it from any other theory.

And, yes, this is exactly what scientists do today.

Starboy

Vanderzyden,

The experiment you propose has been tried already. It was a disaster. It was practiced prior to the scientific revolution during medieval times. You may recall some of the more spectacular failures such as medieval medicine, alchemy and astrology. Scientific explanations are limited to naturalism because it works. We would not be having this conversation if it didn’t. I am not an historian, but my guess is that there have been plenty of attempts to carry out what you propose and I suspect they are all failures simply because they had no success to speak of. Instead of asking why we don’t allow supernatural explanations perhaps you could outline something that hasn’t been tried already that could have a chance of being anywhere near as successful as naturalistic science.

My guess is you couldn't give a rat’s a** about making science work better. You are here because you have a political agenda. If science weren’t THE MOST SUCCESSFUL HUMAN ENDEVOUR FOR UNDERSTANDING OUR SURROUNDINGS IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND, we would not be having this discussion. Why don’t you come clean and just admit that you suffer from science envy, that deep down inside you don’t have faith in your own convictions and that is why you are trying this lame attempt to change something that is working just fine. It is working so well that apparently it shakes your beliefs to the core.

Challenges? Comments?

Starboy

[ August 16, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

pseudobug

hehe...MAybe ol' verdan and Thio are sockpuppets..

Starboy

Vanderzyden,

A naturalistic view is the only view that practicing scientists can hold. This is because:

--Observed or deduced phenomena or results of any scientific experiment or observation are automatically considered to be natural. By definition any observed or experimentally deduced phenomena IS natural.

--Since the only method of verification of a scientific idea or theory is by experiment and observation, they ARE automatically by definition restricted to the natural.

--Using these definitions any supernatural explanation could not be tested, and therefore could not be considered as science. Any practicing scientists that held supernatural views would have to suspend them while they were doing science, otherwise they would not be able to do science. This is similar to the claim that you cannot suck a lemon and play the flute at the same time. And if it can be done the music is not very good and the player can't enjoy the lemon.

Starboy

[ August 16, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>