3 ms·

> The theory that the Earth was the center of the universe dates from at least the time of Ancient Greece and is probably more ancient. There's nothing Christia

> The theory that the Earth was the center of the universe dates from at least the time of Ancient Greece and is probably more ancient. There's nothing Christian about it, in fact Christian scholars probably took the idea from Ancient Greeks, whom they revered (particularly the Platonists). It should be noted that the Ancient Greeks did consider the idea of the Earth moving, but there was no empirical evidence for it. Specifically no parallax as even Aristotle wrote in De Caelo (II.14): > Again, everything that moves with the circular movement, except the first sphere, is observed to be passed, and to move with more than one motion. The earth, then, also, whether it move about the centre or as stationary at it, must necessarily move with two motions. But if this were so, there would have to be passings and turnings of the fixed stars. Yet no such thing is observed. The same stars always rise and set in the same parts of the earth. * http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/heavens.2.ii.html http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/heavens.2.ii.html * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Heavens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Heavens Bradley noticed stellar aberration in ~1728: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bradley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bradley Giuseppi Calandrelli finally directly measures parallax in α-Lyrae in 1806.

YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago
Very good point. In general, the way I understand it is that most of what the ancients believed about the universe was based on empirical observations. They didn't just come up with some arbitrary theory, they had observations and they were trying to explain them. The epicyclical model persisted all the way to Copernicus (whose model also had epicycles) just because it was so good at predicting future observations. I think their main axiomatic assumption that was based on their metaphysical beliefs, rather than actual observations, was the assumption that the luminaries must move on circular orbits. Again, to my understanding, they had a mechanistic view of the universe that demanded order and symmetry, and they just couldn't imagine how a planet would move in any other orbit than a circle- hence why they were mystified by the apparent "retrograde" motion of the planets and had to come up with epicycles to model it. The combination of their axiomatic belief in a mechanistic universe and the limited observations they could make with the naked eye conspired to keep them from a better model.
- throw0101a 5y ago
  > The combination of their axiomatic belief in a mechanistic universe and the limited observations they could make with the naked eye conspired to keep them from a better model. A mechanistic view of the universe, taken up later by Christianity, is what allowed science (in the modern sense) to be created. Contrast it with a worldview in which phenomena occurred because of the will(s) of deity(s). * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)#Providing_assumptions_required_for_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)#Provid... Things have causes with-in themselves. If you deny secondary causation you tend to fall into Occasionalism. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_causation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_causation * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occasionalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occasionalism

YeGoblynQueenne 5y ago

Very good point. In general, the way I understand it is that most of what the ancients believed about the universe was based on empirical observations. They didn't just come up with some arbitrary theory, they had observations and they were trying to explain them. The epicyclical model persisted all the way to Copernicus (whose model also had epicycles) just because it was so good at predicting future observations. I think their main axiomatic assumption that was based on their metaphysical beliefs, rather than actual observations, was the assumption that the luminaries must move on circular orbits. Again, to my understanding, they had a mechanistic view of the universe that demanded order and symmetry, and they just couldn't imagine how a planet would move in any other orbit than a circle- hence why they were mystified by the apparent "retrograde" motion of the planets and had to come up with epicycles to model it. The combination of their axiomatic belief in a mechanistic universe and the limited observations they could make with the naked eye conspired to keep them from a better model.

throw0101a 5y ago
> The combination of their axiomatic belief in a mechanistic universe and the limited observations they could make with the naked eye conspired to keep them from a better model. A mechanistic view of the universe, taken up later by Christianity, is what allowed science (in the modern sense) to be created. Contrast it with a worldview in which phenomena occurred because of the will(s) of deity(s). * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)#Providing_assumptions_required_for_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)#Provid... Things have causes with-in themselves. If you deny secondary causation you tend to fall into Occasionalism. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_causation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_causation * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occasionalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occasionalism