[lit-ideas] Re: Sherlock Holmes on knowledge of the solar system and the workings of the brain
- From: "John McCreery" <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 00:28:39 +0900
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 11:24 PM, John Wager <john.wager1@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 2. Both mathematical models of solar/earthly movement (that the earth is
> stationary, or that the sun is) yield
> equal experiential results: They LOOK the same. There should be no
> observational difference whatsoever;
> the ONLY difference is how complex the mathematical model is that describes
> their interaction. If one uses
> the earth as the starting point in computing trajectories, it gets very
> complicated very fast, with the need to
> create "eipcycles" and other mathematical oddities to account for
> observations. If one begins with the sun
> as the starting point, the mathematical models can be MUCH simpler, using
> circular (or, later and more
> accurately, elliptical paths) to describe the observations. BUT EACH MODEL
> DESCRIBES THE
> OBSERVATIONS WITH EQUAL ACCURACY.
I recall an observation by E. A, Burtt in The Metaphysical Foundations of
Modern Science. According to Burtt, Copernicus' and Ptolemy's models were
equally accurate when it came to the sorts of calculations required for
navigation on the surface of the earth, and, since both assumed that orbits
must be perfect circles, both required epicycles to explain the retrograde
motion of the planets. In these respects the only significant difference
between them was that Copernicus' theory required fewer epicycles. Burtt
noticed, moreover, that at the time that Copernicus advanced his theory, it
appeared to suffer from one important defect; it predicted stellar parallax
(shifts in the apparent position of stars due to observation from different
points on the Earth's orbit around the Sun). Because, however, of the
distance of other stars from the Sun, the predicted shifts were invisible to
the naked eye. Their reality would only be confirmed following the
development of sufficiently powerful telescopes.* Burtt then went on to
argue that the acceptance of Copernicus' theory depended in large part on
the contemporary popularity of Neo-Platonic heliocentric cosmology.
--
*Legend has it that the first printed edition of Copernicus theory appeared
in 1543. The telescope wasn't invented until 1608 and, according to
Wikipedia, "The first successful measurements of stellar parallax were made
by Friedrich Bessel <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Bessel> in
1838."
John
John McCreery
The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN
Tel. +81-45-314-9324
http://www.wordworks.jp/
Other related posts:
