3 ms·

A lot of Kuhn's argument about "paradigm shift" centred on Copernicus vs Ptolemy. Owen Gingerich wrote an article disputing this view which is available here: h

A lot of Kuhn's argument about "paradigm shift" centred on Copernicus vs Ptolemy. Owen Gingerich wrote an article disputing this view which is available here: https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/4258973/Crisis%20vs%20Aesthetic%20OGingrich.pdf?sequence=2 https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/4258973/Crisis%2...

dwaltrip 9y ago
Interesting article, thanks for sharing. It seems Gingerich mainly focuses on how a shift occurs -- he makes a strong critique of the supposed crisis in Ptolemic astronomy that was the precursor to Copernicus and instead argues for that broader sociocultural developments enabled the change in cosmological perspective. For me, the concept of paradigms themselves was the most fundamental part of the book. Gingerich doesn't seem to take issue with this, at least not in this article.
joe_the_user 9y ago
I think this article misses a point that has become standard. My understanding is that the historical consensus already was that the Copernican system was no more accurate than previous Ptolemaic system and for that reason in practice had as many ad-hoc corrections as the Ptolemaic system. The only thing the Ptolemaic system had was conceptual simplicity, simplicity in it's outline and that really can't be determined by a direct comparison of tables. That increased conceptual simplicity was a response to practical complexity may seem a bit strange but only if you want to ignore fairly natural intellectual impulses (if your system is moving towards complexity-overload, organizing it with simple principles seems like something worth investing in even if you see immediate improvements). And naturally, "intelligent design" proponent Owen Gingerich might not the most unbiased in his judgments of obviousness here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Gingerich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Gingerich
- westoncb 9y ago
  The above is my understanding of the situation too (based on E.A. Burtt's 'The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science', in my case). Additionally, in Kuhn's book, there is an abstract argument in addition to many examples. Copernicus is one example—and a good one because of its clarity via the whole epicycle vs ellipse 'refactor'—but not the only one).

dwaltrip 9y ago

Interesting article, thanks for sharing. It seems Gingerich mainly focuses on how a shift occurs -- he makes a strong critique of the supposed crisis in Ptolemic astronomy that was the precursor to Copernicus and instead argues for that broader sociocultural developments enabled the change in cosmological perspective. For me, the concept of paradigms themselves was the most fundamental part of the book. Gingerich doesn't seem to take issue with this, at least not in this article.

joe_the_user 9y ago

I think this article misses a point that has become standard. My understanding is that the historical consensus already was that the Copernican system was no more accurate than previous Ptolemaic system and for that reason in practice had as many ad-hoc corrections as the Ptolemaic system. The only thing the Ptolemaic system had was conceptual simplicity, simplicity in it's outline and that really can't be determined by a direct comparison of tables. That increased conceptual simplicity was a response to practical complexity may seem a bit strange but only if you want to ignore fairly natural intellectual impulses (if your system is moving towards complexity-overload, organizing it with simple principles seems like something worth investing in even if you see immediate improvements). And naturally, "intelligent design" proponent Owen Gingerich might not the most unbiased in his judgments of obviousness here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Gingerich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_Gingerich

westoncb 9y ago
The above is my understanding of the situation too (based on E.A. Burtt's 'The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science', in my case). Additionally, in Kuhn's book, there is an abstract argument in addition to many examples. Copernicus is one example—and a good one because of its clarity via the whole epicycle vs ellipse 'refactor'—but not the only one).