3 ms·
You have a point, but the most useful answer is that science does not work that way, in practice. By the time the textbooks are written, a clear answer has emer
by mannykannot 7y ago
You have a point, but the most useful answer is that science does not work that way, in practice. By the time the textbooks are written, a clear answer has emerged, but science happens in the time when there are competing theories. The significance of Copernicus was that he was on the right track to a greater understanding than any refinements to epicyclic heliocentric models would likely achieve.
- throw0101a 7y agoCopernicus' shift in think was certainly his major contribution to the field (IMHO). And Galileo was certainly gifted in many things (being a bit of a poly-math, as many were at that time: art, medicine, optics), but I'm not sure what value he added to the cosmological conversation. Kepler published his defense of the Copernican system in 1596. He then published his first two laws in 1609 using Brahe's (pre-telescopic?) observations; the first patent for the telescope was in 1608. So even by then things were moving toward what 'reality' actually is. More generally, I think that the 'Galileo affair' is portrayed as being a bigger deal than it actually was. I also think that people underestimate how much "politics" was a blood sport at that time.
- Symmetry 7y agoThe discovery of moons orbiting Jupiter was certainly a strong piece of evidence that Jupiter and Earth were the same sort of thing, planets.
- mannykannot 7y agoThe popular story has cetainly inverted the significance of Galileo and Kepler to the scientific story. The rise in prominence of Galieo's story is partly due to its use in anti-clerical, and often specifically anti-catholic, rhetoric in the 18th. and 19th. centuries.