The Birth of History and Philosophy of Science: Kepler's "A Defence of Tycho against Ursus" with Essays on Its Provenance and Significance (review)

614 JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY ~8:4 OCTOBER 199o NicholasJardine. The Birth ofHistoryand PhilosophyofScience:Kepler's"A Defenceof Tycho against Ursus"with Essayson Its Provenanceand Significance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Pp. x + 3oL Paper, $16.95. In the last quarter of a century a distinctive approach to the study of science has become institutionalized: the history and philosophy of science aims to study the nature and development of science in a way that integrates the analysis of epistemological , logical, methodological, and conceptual issues with the establishment of historical facts and the construction of historical narratives. The new discipline differs from mere history of science insofar as it does not study past science for its own sake but with ulterior ("philosophical") motives, and it differs from mere philosophy of science insofar as it does not theorize about science in the abstract but rather in its concrete historical reality. As might have been expected, Cambridge University has pioneered and now excels in this new endeavor. It is therefore entirely fitting that its press and one of its affiliated scholars should have produced a work which may be said to establish the date and circumstances of the birth of the discipline. The genesis is traced back to a work entitled Apologiapro Tychonecontra Ursum,written byJohannes Kepler in 16oo-16oi, first published in 1858, and first translated in this work. Jardine is aware of the difficulties surrounding such claims of pedigree, of the simplifications they embody, and of the qualifications needed to make them informative and fruitful; nevertheless, he makes a convincing and elegant case, and his original thesis must be taken as substantially established. However, this thesis reflects only one of the two main aspects of Jardine's work. In fact, it is even more valuable as a contribution to the history of natural philosophy. This may be seen as follows. In 1588 two works were published which advanced alternatives both to the ancient geostatic and geocentric cosmology of Aristotle and Ptolemy and to the geokinetic and heliocentric system of Copernicus. Tycho Brahe's De mundi aethereirecentioribuspluzenomen /selaborated a compromise in which the planets revolve around the sun, but the sun revolves diurnally and annually around the motionless earth; and in Fundamenturaastronomicura Nicolaus Raimarus Ursus elaborated a cosmology in which the heliocentric planetary system revolves annually around the central earth, while the latter rotates daily. The chief difference between the two systems involved the diurnal motion, which the former attributed to all heavenly bodies, and the latter to the earth. A controversy followed partly because of this substantive similarity, but also for other reasons which Jardine relates but which are too complicated to mention here. The young Kepler became involved because his professional and financial position was such that he had sought and needed the support of each of the two senior and weU-established astronomers . The Apologiais a somewhat incomplete fifty-page essay in which Kepler discusses the scientific, epistemological, and scholarly issues of the controversy. Ursus had questioned Tycho's originality by suggesting that his theories had been anticipated by such authors as Apollonius of Perga and Copernicus, and this accusation was embedded in a skeptical and instrumentalistic attitude toward astronomical theorizing . Kepler's defense begins by discussing the nature of astronomical hypotheses, to BOOK REVIEWS 615 answer Ursus's skeptical arguments and sketch a realistic view according to which astronomical theorizing involves more than the mere prediction of celestial positions; it involves physical and metaphysical considerations because it aims at the true description and representation of physical reality. In the second, historical part Kepler examines the works of the relevant authors to show the untenability of Ursus's anticipation claim, and in the process he sketches an account of the development of astronomy in terms of progress toward the realistic aims he advocates. Jardine provides an edition of the Latin text of the Apologia, an English translation, a detailed account of how it came to be written, a summary of its content, an analysis of its epistemological and historiographical significance, and a brief account of its rhetorical form. Numerous informative notes add to the value of the work. It is interesting to note that, in regard to...