Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T14:33:23.533Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Importance of Historical Accuracy in Philosophy of Science: The Case of Curd's Conception of Copernican Rationality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Keith A. Nier
Keith A. Nier*
Affiliation:
Thomas A. Edison Papers, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

General discussions of the appropriate relations between history and philosophy of science must be complemented by examinations of particular studies involving both fields. Martin Curd's attempt to illuminate the rationality of theory change through analysis of the Copernican Revolution is such a study; his work is undercut by serious flaws and actually displays an ahistorical approach. The result misleads both about the Copernican Revolution and the general problem of theory change in science. The study does illustrate several types of failing that can vitiate efforts to bring historical considerations into philosophical discussion, namely, pitfalls in the characterization of theories, arguments, range of choices, and criteria.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 53 , Issue 3 , September 1986 , pp. 372 - 394
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aiton, E. J. (1972), The Vortex Theory of Planetary Motions. New York: American Elsevier.Google Scholar
Aiton, E. J. (1981), “Celestial Spheres and Circles”, History of Science 19: 75–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armitage, A. (1962), Copernicus, Perpetua Ed. New York: A. S. Barnes.Google Scholar
Asquith, P. D., and Hacking, I. (eds.) (1981), PSA 1978, Vol. 2. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Boas, M. (1962), The Scientific Renaissance 1450–1630. New York: Harper & Bros.Google Scholar
Burian, R. M. (1977), “More Than a Marriage of Convenience: On the Inextricability of History and Philosophy of Science”, Philosophy of Science 44: 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butts, R. E., and Pitt, J. C. (eds.) (1978), New Perspectives on Galileo. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cellarius, A. (1661), Harmonia Macrocosmica. Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Cohen, I. B. (1960), The Birth of a New Physics. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copernicus, N. (1976), On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres. Trans. A. M. Duncan. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Copernicus, N. (1978), On the Revolutions. Ed. J. Dobrzycki, Trans. E. Rosen. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Curd, M. V. (1962), “The Rationality of the Copernican Revolution”, PSA 1982, Vol. 1. Asquith, P. D. and Nickles, T. (eds.). East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Debus, A. G. (1978), Man and Nature in the Renaissance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dijksterhuis, E. J. (1961), The Mechanization of the World Picture. Trans. C. Dikshoorn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Donahue, W. H. (1975), “The Solid Planetary Spheres in Post-Copernican Natural Philosophy”, in The Copernican Achievement, Westman, R. S. (ed.). Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Dreyer, J. L. E. (1963), Tycho Brahe. Dover Ed. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Galilei, G. (1953), Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. Trans. S. Drake. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Gingerich, O. (1973), “From Copernicus to Kepler: Heliocentrism as Model and as Reality”, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 117: 513–22.Google Scholar
Glymour, C. (1980), Theory and Evidence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Grant, E. (1978), “Aristotelianism and the Longevity of the Medieval World View”, History of Science 16: 93–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heidelberger, M. (1976), “Some Intertheoretic Relations between Ptolemean and Copernican Astronomy”, Erkenntnis 10: 323–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heidelberger, M. (1980), “Towards a Logical Reconstruction of Revolutionary Change: the Case of Ohm as an Example”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 11: 103–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jardine, N. (1979), “The Forging of Modern Realism: Clavius and Kepler against the Sceptics”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 10: 141–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kearney, H. (1971), Science and Change 1500–1700. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Kleiner, S. A. (1979), “Feyerabend, Galileo and Darwin: How to Make the Best out of What You Have—or Think You Can Get”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 10: 285–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koertge, N. (1976), “Rational Reconstructions”, in Essays in Memory of Imre Lakatos, Cohen, R. S., Feyerabend, P. K., and Wartofsky, M. W. (eds.). Boston and Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Koyré, A. (1957), From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Koyré, A. (1973), The Astronomical Revolution, Trans. R. E. W. Maddison. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Krige, J. (1980), Science, Revolution and Discontinuity. Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1957), The Copernican Revolution. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1970), “Reflections of My Critics”, in Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I., and Zahar, E. (1975), “Why Did Copernicus' Research Program Supersede Ptolemy's?”, in The Copernican Achievement, Westman, R. S. (ed.). Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. (1977), Progress and Its Problems. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. (1979), “Historical Methodologies: An Overview and Manifesto”, in Current Research in Philosophy of Science, Asquith, P. D. and Kyburg, H. E. Jr. (eds.). East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Manier, E. (1980), “Darwin's Language and Logic”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 11: 305–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McMullin, E. (1979), “The Ambiguity of ‘Historicism‘”, in Current Research in Philosophy of Science, Asquith, P. D. and Kyburg, H. E. Jr. (eds.). East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Millman, A. B. (1976), “The Plausibility of Research Programs”, in PSA 1976, Vol. 1. Suppe, F. and Asquith, P. (eds.). East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Neugebauer, O. (1962), “Appendix I. The Ptolemaic System”, in The Exact Sciences in Antiquity, Torchbook Ed. New York: Harper & Bros.Google Scholar
Oresme, N. (1968), Le Livre du ciel et du monde. Menut, A. D. and Denomy, A. J. (eds.). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Pedersen, O., and Pihl, M. (1974), Early Physics and Astronomy. New York: American Elsevier.Google Scholar
Popkin, R. H. (1979), The History of Scepticism from Erasmus to Spinoza, Revised and expanded edition. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, D. J. de S. (1959), “Contra-Copernicus: A Critical Re-estimation of the Mathematical Planetary Theory of Ptolemy, Copernicus, and Kepler”, in Critical Problems in the History of Science, Clagett, M. (ed.). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Ptolemy, C. (1952), The Almagest, Great Books ed. Trans. R. C. Taliaferro. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica.Google Scholar
Ptolemy, C. (1984), Ptolemy's Almagest. Trans. and annot. G. J. Toomer. London: G. Duckworth.Google Scholar
Rabb, T. K. (1975), The Struggle for Stability in Early Modern Europe. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rosen, E. (1959), Three Copernican Treatises, 2nd ed. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Rosen, E. (1977), “How the Shackles were Forged and Later Loosened”, Journal of the History of Ideas 38: 109–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruse, M. (1983), “The New Dualism: 'Res Philosophica' and 'Res Historica”', in Nature Animated, Ruse, M. (ed.). Boston and Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherburne, E. (1675), “A Catalogue of the Most Eminent Astronomers, Ancient and Modern”, in The Sphere of Marcus Manilius, E. Sherburne (ed. and trans.). London.Google Scholar
Small, R. (1963), An Account of the Astronomical Discoveries of Kepler. Reprint. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Issue, Special (1981), “Fine Structure History of Science: Lessons for Methodology”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 12: 173–259.Google Scholar
Suppe, F. (1977), “Afterword—1977”, in The Structure of Scientific Theories, 2nd ed. Suppe, F. (ed.). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Swerdlow, N. M. (1973), “The Derivation and First Draft of Copernicus' Planetary Theory: A Translation of the Commentariolus with Commentary”, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 117: 423–512.Google Scholar
Swerdlow, N. M. (1976), “PSEUDODOXIA COPERNICANA: or Enquiries into Very Many Received Tenents and Commonly Presumed Truths, Mostly Concerning Spheres”, Archives internationales d'histoire des sciences 26: 108–58.Google Scholar
Toulmin, S., and Goodfield, J. (1961), The Fabric of the Heavens. New York: Harper & Bros.Google Scholar
Wartofsky, M. W. (1976), “The Relation between Philosophy of Science and History of Science”, in Essays in Memory of Imre Lakatos, Cohen, R. S., Feyerabend, P. K., and Wartofsky, M. W. (eds.). Boston and Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Westman, R. S. (1975a), “The Melanchthon Circle, Rheticus, and the Wittenberg Interpretation of the Copernican Theory”, Isis 66: 165–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westman, R. S. (1975b), “Introduction: The Copernican Achievement”, in The Copernican Achievement, Westman, R. S. (ed.). Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westman, R. S. (1975c), “Three Responses to the Copernican Theory: Johannes Praetorius, Tycho Brahe, and Michael Maestlin”, in The Copernican Achievement, Westman, R. S. (ed.). Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westman, R. S. (1980), “The Astronomer's Role in the Sixteenth Century: A Preliminary Study”, History of Science 18: 105–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westman, R. S. (ed.) (1975d), The Copernican Achievement. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, C. A. (1975), “Rheticus, Ravetz, and the ‘Necessity’ of Copernicus' Innovation”, in The Copernican Achievement, Westman, R. S. (ed.). Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Wykstra, S. J. (1980), “Toward a Historical Meta-Method for Assessing Normative Methodologies”, in PSA 1980, Vol. 1. Asquith, P. D. and Giere, R. W. (eds.). East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar