tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post3820664991566390321..comments2024-03-28T09:37:08.486-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Rosenhouse reduxEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger168125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-86561315626335940452011-08-13T09:48:51.689-07:002011-08-13T09:48:51.689-07:00How can "experimentation" demonstrate an...<i>How can "experimentation" demonstrate an "empirical reality" when it must assume that reality in the first place? That is what is technically known as "begging the question" or more popularly as "circular reasoning."</i><br /><br />So when was the last time you tried to walk through a wall?<br /><br />Saying "well maybe we are all brains in a jar presented with a perfectly believable reality" is akin to saying "there is an undetectable dragon living in my garage"... then talking about the properties/abilities of said dragon.StoneTopnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-53766243311981013352011-08-11T09:49:20.014-07:002011-08-11T09:49:20.014-07:00metaphysics is in no way needed to claim that empi...<i>metaphysics is in no way needed to claim that empirical evidence is "real" as it is something that every child learns through experimentation. </i> <br /><br />How can "experimentation" demonstrate an "empirical reality" when it must assume that reality in the first place? That is what is technically known as "begging the question" or more popularly as "circular reasoning."TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-6501550288013891552011-08-10T16:05:26.681-07:002011-08-10T16:05:26.681-07:00It is a metaphysical proposition that empirical ev...<i>It is a metaphysical proposition that empirical evidence is reliable in the first place and not the delusion of a brain-in-a-vat.</i><br /><br />And what would be the difference? If we are just brains in jars hooked up to someones Droid then our empirical theories are only concerned with modeling what occurs inside that simulation.<br /><br />Saying "It is a metaphysical proposition that empirical evidence is reliable" is rather meaningless... unless you can propose a way to differentiate a brain/jar scenario from some other scenario.<br /><br />It is also worth noting that metaphysics is in no way needed to claim that empirical evidence is "real" as it is something that every child learns through experimentation. <br /><br /><i>A proper metaphysics can help you not jump to conclusions where the self-same empirical evidence can support more than one theoretical model.</i><br /><br />So it is a way to understand our on cognition? A tool to help model and understand our own reasoning?StoneTopnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-17351765534065045652011-08-10T12:45:49.265-07:002011-08-10T12:45:49.265-07:00Why is it that the metaphysics always follows the ...<i>Why is it that the metaphysics always follows the empirical evidence, and never leads it?</i> <br /><br />It is a metaphysical proposition that empirical evidence is reliable in the first place and not the delusion of a brain-in-a-vat. <br /><br />They simply are not trying to do the same thing. <br /><br />A proper metaphysics can help you not jump to conclusions where the self-same empirical evidence can support more than one theoretical model.TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-72924258184213473542011-08-10T05:27:08.912-07:002011-08-10T05:27:08.912-07:00Sailors and explorers didn't care whether the ...<i>Sailors and explorers didn't care whether the Earth orbited the Sun or not, all they cared about was where the stars and planets they could see were in relation to their actual position.</i><br /><br />Sure... but then the question wasn't about utilitarian models... it was a question of if the geocentric model was inconsistent with the metaphysics why did it take actual empirical evidence to overturn the geocentric model?<br /><br />Why is it that the metaphysics always follows the empirical evidence, and never leads it?StoneTopnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-48845710375252209302011-08-01T10:06:52.076-07:002011-08-01T10:06:52.076-07:00@Kjetil:
However, that doesn’t change the fact th...@Kjetil:<br /><br /><i>However, that doesn’t change the fact that metaphysics is concerned with the basic assumption behind the physics,</i><br />I did not deny that, see my sentence before going into the etymology:<br /><i>True, Metaphysics as we know it today claims to deal with things beyond the physical realm.</i><br />I was objecting to the "Hence: meta-physics" that TheOFloinn said, as it implies an incorrect etymology. I'm a bit of a pedant when it comes to such things, and meant no offense.ACuriousMindnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-16283352695654262122011-08-01T09:50:18.702-07:002011-08-01T09:50:18.702-07:00ACuriousMind,
“The terminus metaphysics really do...<strong>ACuriousMind,</strong><br /><br /><em>“The terminus metaphysics really doesn't mean anything more than "that books that came after 'physics'" originally, and some Latin guys who knew little greek only justified the terminus in hindsight to mean "that which is beyond physics" to conform to the scholastic view of Aristotle.”</em><br /><br />From an etymological viewpoint you are correct. However, that doesn’t change the fact that metaphysics is concerned with the basic assumption behind the physics, and behind everything else for that matter. That is the content of metaphysics, even if one cannot say that it is inherent in the original use of the word.Kjetil Kringlebottenhttp://www.kjetilkringlebotten.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-20127456785347885392011-08-01T09:07:35.637-07:002011-08-01T09:07:35.637-07:00StoneTop: "the Ptolmic system is also used in...StoneTop: <i>"the Ptolmic system is also used in planetariums, as those systems are only concerned with the view from earth"</i><br /><br />Pardon me for breaking in here, but it would seem to me that the "view from earth" was all that mattered to early astronomers since stars and planets were primarily used as navigation tools. Sailors and explorers didn't care whether the Earth orbited the Sun or not, all they cared about was where the stars and planets <i>they could see</i> were in relation to their actual position.Daniel Smithhttp://thefoolishnessofgod.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-10195980431846514812011-08-01T08:46:29.449-07:002011-08-01T08:46:29.449-07:00However, talking about centricity while we know th...However, talking about centricity while we know that there is no absolute rest is pretty much senseless, too. Heliocentrism is just another "effective theory" (still better than geocentrism, because the sun experiences no force worth mentioning inside the solar system, and is therefore well-suited to attach an inertial frame to when we only talk about the bodies of our solar system), while GR (stating that there is no center at all) is what is reasonbly believed to be true (i.e. conforming to reality) at the moment, although one may suspect that there is still more to be found.ACuriousMindnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-9983790222514366882011-08-01T08:36:20.910-07:002011-08-01T08:36:20.910-07:00Since the other thread seems to have died, I may p...Since the other thread seems to have died, I may participate here as well:<br /><br /><i>Metaphysics does not try to "explain the universe." It is concerned with the basic assumption behind the physics: being as such. Hence: Meta-physics. </i><br />I wish people would stop pointing this out. True, Metaphysics as we know it today claims to deal with things beyond the physical realm. But the origin of the term is just that Aristotle wrote his books on "metaphysics" just after he wrote his "physics". The terminus metaphysics really doesn't mean anything more than "that books that came after 'physics'" originally, and some Latin guys who knew little greek only justified the terminus in hindsight to mean "that which is beyond physics" to conform to the scholastic view of Aristotle.<br /><br /><i>It is a metaphysical principle that empirical evidence is meaningful. </i><br />Yup, it is an axiom of physics (hence: a metaphysical statement in your sense, as the axioms are simply believed to be true without evidence) that what we believe to be true should damn well not contradict the evidence, and that it is without meaning if it relates to no evidence at all. <br />But to claim that there is an alternative to this position is to embrace the idea of Russell's teapot as a meaningful statement about reality, which is absurd on the face of it.<br /><br /><i><br />Actually, it is still used by NASA today for such things as satellite launches or (at one time) moon trips.</i><br /><br />Such systems are called "effective theories". They work (i.e they produce accurate predictions, but we know that they do not actually describe reality - they just yield the right prediction as long as we do not look too close (e.g. subject them to the findings of science as a whole, and see that they are inconsistent with what we know otherwise). Further, all geocentric models compared to a heliocentric one simply fall prey to Occam's Razor: Kepler's laws of planetary movement are evidently more simple than the endless epicircles of Ptolemy, or some of the obscure things in Tycho's view. Some very simple equations, and that's it (except for the precession of mercury, and some other very marginal weirdnesses). The simplest and most accurate description wins.<br /><br />I may say that the phases of venus debate here is pretty much senseless, because the Tychonian model, which is geocentric, explaines them. The phases only disprove Ptolemy. Kepler however used Tycho's data to show that the planets are going around in ellipses, and therefore found a much better description of what was actually going on. Today, we know that Kepler was mainly right, and Tycho was mainly wrong, because we know about gravity - and can thus can explain the solar system much more easily than the old astronomers could.<br />(Remember that Newton only came after all the astronomers.)ACuriousMindnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-36890015009004036492011-07-31T14:22:24.362-07:002011-07-31T14:22:24.362-07:00The Tychonic and Ursine models were not heliocentr...<i>The Tychonic and Ursine models were not heliocentric. The phases of Venus were compatible with these two geocentric models and with the flawed Copernican model.</i><br /><br />So the phases of Venus are not compatible with a heilocentric model?<br /><br />Because I am fairly sure that it is...<br /><br />and really the Tychonic model is heilocentric... as the entire system orbits the sun, which in turn orbits the earth (with the earth only treated as stationary because parallax calculations had yet to show it moving against the background of the stars.)<br /><br /><i>Yet, it contradicted the Aristotelian physics, which did not allow for physically real descants and deferants and such.</i><br /><br />So then the choices are either that Aristotelian Physics was incorrect or the model was incorrect?<br /><br />You seem to be saying simply that nobody cared that the two were highly incompatible... which shows some fairly deep flaws in their thinking.<br /><br /><i>Astronomy was a specialized branch of mathematics, and thus formal rather than physical.</i><br /><br />But it was not a data gathering exercise... so it wasn't really a Science, rather it was an exercise in logic.<br /><br /><i>Actually, it is still used by NASA today for such things as satellite launches or (at one time) moon trips.</i><br /><br />True... but not to describe the solar system. Mathematics is a toolbox, used to build accurate and useful models (the Ptolmic system is also used in planetariums, as those systems are only concerned with the view from earth).<br /><br /><i>Metaphysics does not try to "explain the universe." It is concerned with the basic assumption behind the physics: being as such. Hence: Meta-physics</i><br /><br />Though it is funny, to me at least, how metaphyisics always seems to follow behind the actual physics... producing no new avenues on its own.<br /><br /><i>A basic metaphysical principle at the time was that "nothing is in the mind unless it is first in the senses." It is a metaphysical principle that empirical evidence is meaningful.</i><br /><br />Still following the empirical evidence there, and providing no new insights.<br /><br /><i>The meaning of a datum depends on the metaphysical viewpoint from which it is viewed. The shifting viewpoint from astronomy-as-specialized-math to astronomy-as-branch-of-physics was the important revolution.</i><br /><br />Which came about as the result of new evidence, not a change in metaphysics.StoneTopnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-8318335643731229972011-07-31T10:45:53.739-07:002011-07-31T10:45:53.739-07:00I did not say that the phases of Venus specificall...<i>I did not say that the phases of Venus specifically favored one heliocentric model over another, just that it was evidence for heliocentric models.</i> <br /><br />The Tychonic and Ursine models were not heliocentric. The phases of Venus were compatible with these two geocentric models and with the flawed Copernican model. <br /><br /><i>there is a vast difference between using a mathematical model that may not directly correlate to the world and a mathematical model that is directly contradicted by the evidence.</i><br /><br />One reason the Ptolemaic model lasted as long as it did was that it accurately described the "evidence." Yet, it contradicted the Aristotelian physics, which did not allow for physically real descants and deferants and such. It didn't bother anyone because the mathematics did not have to describe the mechanism, only forecast the outcomes. <br />+ + +<br /><i>I asked if Astronomy was a formal Science, not mathematics.</i><br /><br />Astronomy was a specialized branch of mathematics, and thus formal rather than physical. <br /><br />The great metaphysical revolution was the paradigm shift that began to look at astronomy as describing physically real properties and shifted it from the math department to the physics department. <br /><br /><i>I can construct incredibly complicated mathematical models to describe a system (the Ptolmic system being a rather good example)... but without measurements to support its accuracy it is just a set of equations on a page.</i> <br /><br />Actually, it is still used by NASA today for such things as satellite launches or (at one time) moon trips. <br /><br /><i>But [Galileo] did introduce it to Astronomy... </i> <br /><br />He was one of many, and not always the first; yet ever-willing to argue that he was the first. While a big deal in the 17th century, he remained an important-but-not-key figure until the 19th century, when he was recruited into a pseudo-war that he would have detested. Think of Harriott, Fabricius, Marius, Scheiner, and other pioneers of observational astronomy. Hence: "He <b>helped</b> usher in the gosh-wow-look! era of astronomy." Astronomy was placed on a firm <i>scientific</i> foundation by Cassini. <br />http://thonyc.wordpress.com/2010/06/02/extracting-the-stopper/<br />and<br />http://thonyc.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/one-day-later/<br /><br /><i>So empirical evidence gathering did what thousands of years worth of metaphysics failed to accomplish?</i> <br /><br />a) Metaphysics does not try to "explain the universe." It is concerned with the basic assumption behind the physics: being as such. Hence: <i>Meta</i>-physics. <br /><br />b) A basic metaphysical principle at the time was that "nothing is in the mind unless it is first in the senses." It is a metaphysical principle that empirical evidence is meaningful. <br /><br />c) The meaning of a datum depends on the metaphysical viewpoint from which it is viewed. The shifting viewpoint from astronomy-as-specialized-math to astronomy-as-branch-of-physics was the important revolution.TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-59614855528012792882011-07-30T22:45:30.079-07:002011-07-30T22:45:30.079-07:00at this point Stonetop is arguing just for the sak...at this point Stonetop is arguing just for the sake of arguing.fannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-15101870346585728562011-07-30T20:45:59.459-07:002011-07-30T20:45:59.459-07:00the phases of Venus were evidence against the geoc...<i>the phases of Venus were evidence against the geocentric model being physically real; but they were equally compatible with the Copernican, Tychonic, and Ursine models and so cannot be said to be evidence for one and not for the others. There was still the lack of observable parallax.</i><br /><br />And also once again... I did not say that the phases of Venus specifically favored one heliocentric model over another, just that it was evidence for heliocentric models.<br /><br /><i>even today, a Feynman or a Hawking must occasionally point out that the appearance of a term in a mathematical model does not obligate the appearance of an entity in the real world.</i><br /><br />True... but there is a vast difference between using a mathematical model that may not directly correlate to the world and a mathematical model that is directly contradicted by the evidence. Mathematical models are constructed to describe the evidence, if the maths do not match the measurements then the maths change.<br /><br /><i>a) Mathematics is a formal science.</i><br /><br />Irrelevant... as I asked if Astronomy was a formal Science, not mathematics. I can construct incredibly complicated mathematical models to describe a system (the Ptolmic system being a rather good example)... but without measurements to support its accuracy it is just a set of equations on a page.<br /><br /><i>b) It was not Galileo who "introduced the gathering of evidence."</i><br /><br />But he did introduce it to Astronomy... as you seemed to imply with your statement<br /><br />"He helped usher in the gosh-wow-look! era of astronomy; but that Saturn had handles, the sun had spots, the moon had mountains, or even that Jupiter had moons, did not prove that the earth went around the sun."<br /><br />and<br /><br />"Astronomy was mathematics. They were only trying to accurately predict the movements of the stars, period."<br /><br /><i>the visceral realization that the world was not entirely known, and there were new things to be discovered.</i><br /><br />So empirical evidence gathering did what thousands of years worth of metaphysics failed to accomplish?StoneTopnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-14872332922082391952011-07-30T13:37:12.758-07:002011-07-30T13:37:12.758-07:00the phases of Venus are evidence for the heilocent...<i>the phases of Venus are evidence for the heilocentric model, and evidence against the geocentric model.</i> <br /><br />One last time: the phases of Venus were evidence against the geocentric model being physically real; but they were equally compatible with the Copernican, Tychonic, and Ursine models and so cannot be said to be evidence for one and not for the others. There was still the lack of observable parallax. <br /><br /><i>Since the mathematical models are the physics how can they contradict the physics?</i> <br /><br />Mathematics is not physics. Even today, a Feynman or a Hawking must occasionally point out that the appearance of a term in a mathematical model does not obligate the appearance of an entity in the real world.<br /><br /><i>you are arguing that Astronomy was not a formal Science until after Galileo introduced the gathering of evidence.</i> <br /><br />a) Mathematics is a formal science. Math is as formal as it gets. But it was not a <i>physical</i> science. The only expectation on the calculations is that they produce accurate predictions, not that the algorithms somehow ape physical processes. <br />b) It was not Galileo who "introduced the gathering of evidence." <br /><br /><i>Err... [Columbus' voyage] was the discovery of a new continent... that the world was round was well known among those who were concerned with shipping.</i> <br /><br />Who said anything about "round"? That was well-known to the medievals. I said it was the "discovery of discovery," i.e., the visceral realization that the world was not entirely known, and there were new things to be discovered. <br /><br />Let me suggest <i>Intellectual Curiosity and the Scientific Revolution,</i> by Toby Huff.TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-43216759625791128782011-07-30T08:35:25.839-07:002011-07-30T08:35:25.839-07:00No, they only demonstrated that the Ptolemaic mode...<i>No, they only demonstrated that the Ptolemaic model could not be physically real. That did not mean that the heliocentric models were. Both the Copernican and Tychonic models accounted for the phases of Venus.</i><br /><br />You are contradicting yourself... the phases of Venus are evidence for the heilocentric model, and evidence against the geocentric model.<br /><br /><i>The mathematical model was contrary to the physics. But mathematics was not considered as necessarily reflecting physical reality.</i><br /><br />Since the mathematical models are the physics how can they contradict the physics?<br /><br /><i>And mathematicians were considered mere pencil-pushing calculators compared to the august physicists, who paid little attention to the astronomy. </i> <br /><br />that seems like a fairly big gap... but then you are arguing that Astronomy was not a formal Science until after Galileo introduced the gathering of evidence.<br /><br />That would also mean that the Ptolmic system and Copernican system were not theories in the modern sense... and so talking about them as though they were does not make much sense.<br /><br /><i>The importance of Columbus' voyages becomes apparent: it was "the discovery of discovery."<br /></i><br /><br />Err... it was the discovery of a new continent... that the world was round was well known among those who were concerned with shipping.<br /><br /><i>He didn't have a problem at all. He simply pointed out that a current theory might at some point be falsified by a better one. Essentially, he was doing Popper centuries before Popper. </i><br /><br />That is hardly a remarkable statement... indeed it is so overly general to be meaningless.<br /><br /><i>No, because he was not doing natural philosophy. He was only using it as an example and only pointing out that evidentia naturalis (unlike evidentia potissima) was always subject to possible falsification. </i><br /><br />A true statement... and what is then the point? It certainly does not show that there is "no room in Aristotlian physics for epicycles".StoneTopnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-632155502139405272011-07-29T19:58:44.749-07:002011-07-29T19:58:44.749-07:00the phases of Venus provide evidence for a helioce...<i>the phases of Venus provide evidence for a heliocentric model.</i> <br /><br />No, they only demonstrated that the Ptolemaic model could not be physically real. That did not mean that the heliocentric models were. Both the Copernican and Tychonic models accounted for the phases of Venus. <br /><br /><i>That's why they could live with the contradiction between Ptolemaic astronomy and Aristotelian physics.<br /><br />That rather contradicts what Untenured stated (the post I was replying to).</i> <br /><br />The mathematical model was contrary to the physics. But mathematics was not considered as necessarily reflecting physical reality. <br /><br /><i>After all the epicycles and the like were developed under Aristotelian physics... as a way to rectify observations (retrograde motion and the like) with the underlying principals of Aristotelian physics.</i> <br /><br />No. Astronomy was mathematics. They were only trying to accurately predict the movements of the stars, period. The job title of an astronomer was "mathematicus." And mathematicians were considered mere pencil-pushing calculators compared to the august physicists, who paid little attention to the astronomy. <br /><br />It was not thought that the Ptolemaic system was physically real until very late in the game. No one understood the physical nature of the skies until the telescope revealed that new physical facts could be discovered. The importance of Columbus' voyages becomes apparent: it was "the discovery of discovery."<br /><br />Summa theologica, I, q.32, a.1, ad. 2<br /><br /><i>That sounds more like he had a problem with epicycles, and not geocentrism.</i> <br /><br />He didn't have a problem at all. He simply pointed out that a current theory might at some point be falsified by a better one. Essentially, he was doing Popper centuries before Popper. <br /><br /><i>The statement "some other theory might explain them" is pretty much meaningless unless he offers at least indication of what that theory might be.</i> <br /><br />No, because he was not doing natural philosophy. He was only using it as an example and only pointing out that <i>evidentia naturalis</i> (unlike <i>evidentia potissima</i>) was always subject to possible falsification. <br /><br />A nice essay on the death match among the seven competing astronomical models is here:<br />http://thonyc.wordpress.com/2010/11/12/galileo%E2%80%99s-great-bluff-and-part-of-the-reason-why-kuhn-is-wrong/TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-61125422951286284652011-07-29T19:17:24.231-07:002011-07-29T19:17:24.231-07:00His model was based upon no new evidence, simply a...<i> His model was based upon no new evidence, simply a conviction that heliocentrism "must" be true.</i><br /><br />Which is a pretty terrible reason, scientifically speaking.<br /><br /><i>Galileo presented no actual evidence for a heliocentric system.... The one relevant discovery was that Venus had phases.</i><br /><br />You are contradicting yourself there, the phases of Venus provide evidence for a heliocentric model. Further the moons orbiting Jupiter is also evidence against the Ptolemaic System (as the moons orbited Jupiter, not Earth).<br /><br /><i>The Tychonic system was more accurate than the Copernican system in many areas.</i><br /><br />Very true.. but, as you point out, it was repeated observation (gathering evidence to support the theory) that led to a more accurate system, metaphysics wasn't involved.<br /><br />But then it sounds like the Copernican system was, until the evidence started to accumulate on its side, in a much worse position then String Theory is today... It took evidence, not metaphysics, to overturn geocentrism.<br /><br /><i>That's why they could live with the contradiction between Ptolemaic astronomy and Aristotelian physics.</i> <br /><br />That rather contradicts what Untenured stated (the post I was replying to).<br /><br /><i>No, Aristotelian physics had no room in it for epicycles and the like.</i><br /><br />In what way? After all the epicycles and the like were developed under Aristotelian physics... as a way to rectify observations (retrograde motion and the like) with the underlying principals of Aristotelian physics.<br /><br /><i>"the theory of eccentrics and epicycles is considered as established, because thereby the sensible appearances of the heavenly movements can be explained; not, however, as if this proof were sufficient, forasmuch as some other theory might explain them."<br />Summa theologica, I, q.32, a.1, ad. 2</i><br /><br />That sounds more like he had a problem with epicycles, and not geocentrism. The statement "some other theory might explain them" is pretty much meaningless unless he offers at least indication of what that theory might be.StoneTopnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-85436500558694120162011-07-28T21:13:37.290-07:002011-07-28T21:13:37.290-07:00the Heliocentric models that replaced it only came...<i>the Heliocentric models that replaced it only came about when new evidence was discovered (starting with Galileo).</i> <br /><br />Copernicus lived some 70-80 years before Galileo. He made almost no actual observations of the heavens. His model was based upon no new evidence, simply a conviction that heliocentrism "must" be true. The calculations were based on the then-current Tables, which had become corrupted by copyist errors over the centuries. Hence, its predictions were in many cases <i>less</i> accurate than those of the Ptolemaic system. <br /><br /><i>Why the need for the evidence brought about by Galileo's telescope?</i><br /><br />Galileo presented no actual evidence for a heliocentric system. He helped usher in the gosh-wow-look! era of astronomy; but that Saturn had handles, the sun had spots, the moon had mountains, or even that Jupiter had moons, did not prove that the earth went around the sun. (The Medician Stars did prove that some bodies went around other bodies.) <br /><br />The one relevant discovery was that Venus had phases. This meant that the Ptolemaic system was false, and it was discarded forthwith in favor of the Tychonic system. All of the then-known data were equally well explained by the Tychonic and by the Copernican systems. The Copernican system may have had more epicycles than Tycho. <br /><br />Tycho had undertaken a program of systematic new observations using a variety of pre-telescopic instruments of surpassing precision in order to replace the old corrupted tables that Copernicus and the Ptolemaics had relied upon. They were eventually compiled as the Rudolphine Tables under Tycho's protege and successor as Imperial Mathematician, Kepler. The Tychonic system was more accurate than the Copernican system in many areas. <br /><br /><i>why did it take the Copernicus's Model nearly two hundred years to reach wide acceptance?</i> <br /><br />a) Because it predicted parallax among the fixed stars and no such parallax could be observed. <br /><br />b) Because computationally it was no simpler.<br /><br />c) Because in prediction it was no more accurate. <br /><br />The Copernican and Tychonic systems were mathematically equivalent, being only a shift of coordinates. <br /><br />In fact, the Copernican system was soon discarded in favor of the Keplerian system. What a fortune it was that Tycho had assigned Kepler to work on the orbit of Mars: it is the most eccentric of the then-known planets. Had he been assigned Venus, the most circular of orbits, he might never have had his elliptical insight! <br /><br />Now, the real revolution in astronomy is that the telescope revealed the heavens to be a physical region in which new things could be discovered. It is hard for us to realize, but until then astronomy had been considered a specialized branch of mathematics, and astronomers regarded their mathematical systems merely as gimmicks to make the appearances come out right. They did not suppose that deferants and epicycles were physically real. That's why they could live with the contradiction between Ptolemaic astronomy and Aristotelian physics. <br /><br /><i>it is odd that you would mention Aristotle... as the Ptolemaic system is based off his works</i> <br /><br />No, Aristotelian physics had no room in it for epicycles and the like. <br /><br />Let's see what Aquinas says:<br />"the theory of eccentrics and epicycles is considered as established, because thereby the sensible appearances of the heavenly movements can be explained; not, however, as if this proof were sufficient, forasmuch as <b>some other theory might explain them.</b>"<br /><i>Summa theologica,</i> I, q.32, a.1, ad. 2TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33561035873003685492011-07-28T20:06:37.597-07:002011-07-28T20:06:37.597-07:00This simply isn't true. The history of science...<i>This simply isn't true. The history of science is littered with false theories that were able to make highly accurate predictions within the available limits of testability.</i><br /><br />And within the limits of their "testability" they are, as you say, accurate. Which is what Science is concerned with... creating accurate models <br /><br /><i>And yet philosophers and scientists at the time regularly denied that the Ptolemaic system "accurately" reflected reality because it required the introduction of bizarre novelties like equants and epicycles, and because it was incompatible with Aristotelianism.</i><br /><br />That is rather contradictory... that the Ptolemaic system was accurate (within the measurements available at that time) is rather obvious.<br /><br />That is used "bizarre novelties" to get the job done is certainly a mark against it... but the Heliocentric models that replaced it only came about when new evidence was discovered (starting with Galileo).<br /><br />Incidentally, it is odd that you would mention Aristotle... as the Ptolemaic system is based off his works<br /><br /><i>Even though it was predictively accurate, it would have been perfectly rational to have rejected it on metaphysical grounds.</i><br /><br />If metaphyisics can be used to reject the model then why did it take the Copernicus's Model nearly two hundred years to reach wide acceptance? Why the need for the evidence brought about by Galileo's telescope?<br /><br />As you point out there were theories that are accurate that have since been replaced with more accurate descriptions... Which is again the strength of the Scientific system. Models are refined as new evidence comes in, or overturned when contradictory evidence emerges.StoneTopnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-36069650825320865502011-07-28T08:31:53.236-07:002011-07-28T08:31:53.236-07:00Bravely Anonymous
Feel free to elucidate the chain...Bravely <b>Anonymous</b><br /><i>Feel free to elucidate the chain of inference that begins with naught and yields the existence of the Xtian God.</i> <br /><br />There is no such chain. The classical arguments begin with the fact of that in the world some things change, or with the fact that there is an ordering of efficient causes, or that natures work toward ends. That's not naught.<br />+ + +<br />...too few critics of the argument understand what the argument is.<br /><br /><i>Apparently you have forgotten the root debate - the existence of the Christian God.</i><br /><br />Actually, if you look at the post you will learn (in case you have forgotten or - more likely - never bothered to learn) that the topic is that too many noo atheists do not understand the arguments that they think they are refuting. They simply don't have the chops of people like Nietzsche, Sartre, and the other Old Atheists. <br /><br />You have simply provided a further datum in support of Dr. F's thesis.<br /><br /><i>the reduction of your argument becomes, "God exists because to question the existence of God violates the existence of God." I'm sure you can understand how that argument is insufficiently convincing.</i> <br /><br />Of course, which is why no one has made such a silly argument, except for you, providing another datum in support of Dr. F's contention. <br />+ + +<br /><i>*Why* a metaphysical system?</i> <br /><br />Because it deals with the things that the physics must take for granted <i>a priori.<br /><br />*How* is the (assumed defined) metaphysical system interacting with the physical universe?</i> <br /><br />How does sphere "interact" with physical rubber to form a basketball? <br /><br /><i>*Where* is the requirement that the distinction between the actual and the potential independently validated?</i> <br /><br />You seem under the delusion that everything is natural science. The problem is that without the distinction between what exists only potentially and what exists actually we are left with Parmenides and the paradoxes of Zeno. Motion cannot exist! This makes modern natural science rather problematical. <br /><br />Is it truly said that you cannot simply recognize a difference between <br />a) something that potentially exists and <br />b) something that actually exists? <br />What about the difference between potential energy and kinetic energy? How far did you get in your study of physics?TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-66422579353040975692011-07-28T07:59:03.907-07:002011-07-28T07:59:03.907-07:00Bravely Anonymous
Folks. Of a "certain specie...Bravely <b>Anonymous</b><br /><i>Folks. Of a "certain species". Explain yourself.</i> <br /><br />Of a certain type, group, likeness, cast of mind, etc. In this case, folks who had claimed to be atheists.TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-79058119176206312402011-07-28T07:56:54.195-07:002011-07-28T07:56:54.195-07:00"If a theory makes accurate predictions (and ...<i>"If a theory makes accurate predictions (and thus accumulates evidence) then the theory is said to be accurate. No deeper meta-physics is needed."</i><br /><br />This simply isn't true. The history of science is littered with false theories that were able to make highly accurate predictions within the available limits of testability. Ptolemaic astronomy was extremely accurate at predicting the observed locations of stellar bodies. And yet philosophers and scientists at the time regularly denied that the Ptolemaic system "accurately" reflected reality because it required the introduction of bizarre novelties like equants and epicycles, and because it was incompatible with Aristotelianism. Even though it was predictively accurate, it would have been perfectly rational to have rejected it on metaphysical grounds.Untenurednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-9163296850842312812011-07-27T20:56:14.967-07:002011-07-27T20:56:14.967-07:00You can lead a skeptic to philosophy, but you can&...<i>You can lead a skeptic to philosophy, but you can't make him think.</i><br /><br />I hope you don't mind, but that made me laugh enough that I reposted it on ehmsnbc (attributed to you, of course).E.H. Munrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09038816873823422488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-11052750793723661732011-07-27T19:56:18.711-07:002011-07-27T19:56:18.711-07:00Off topic, I know. But some of Marx's stuff, l...Off topic, I know. But some of Marx's stuff, like the 18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, is very entertaining. Not that I agree with him, but he wrote a couple of interesting pamphlets.<br /><br />Oh, and the Theses on Feuerbach. Those...some kantnoreply@blogger.com