In Search of Divine Reality: Science as a Source of Inspiration

Appendix 1. The Illegitimate Components of Knowledge

Appendix 1 THE ILLEGITIMATE COMPONENTS OF KNOWLEDGE e Importance ofAesthetics and the Insu ciency of Observation in Deriving Knowledge The historic dispute involving the Ptolemaic and Copernican systems that scandalized Europe during the outgoing Middle Ages and early Renaissance clearly demonstrates that observation is important for our scientific convictions, and, at the same time, unimportant. The issue concerned the center of the universe. In the Ptolemaic system, the earth is the center; in the Copernican system, the sun. In the late Middle Ages in Europe, the Ptolemaic system was adopted as part of Church dogma, and objective testing and critical analysis of the issue at that time carried serious risks. In the third century B.C. Apollonios of Perge and in the second century A.D. Ptolemy of Alexandria explained the movements of the solar system in terms of the eccentric, epicycles, and deferents. FIGURE  The Ptolemaic system Every planet moves in an epicycle, the small circle in this figure. While it revolves in this orbit, the center of the epicycle moves in a larger circle (the deferent) whose center (the eccentric) is close  1SCHÄFER_PAGES:SCHÄFER PAGES 4/29/10 11:14 AM Page 117 to the position of the earth. Positions of the epicycle at different times of a year are shown. The actual motion of a planet is the composite motion—the superposition of the two cyclic motions. In this model of the solar system, called Ptolemaic not after its inventor, the earth is the center. Planets move in epicycles (epi, meaning upon, besides, on the outside of). Centers of epicycles move in other circles, the deferents (those that carry on). The double system moves around a center, the eccentric, which is close to, but does not coincide with the earth. The actual motion of a planet is the composite motion—the superposition of the two cyclic motions. Using this computational scheme, tables of planetary constellations were compiled that were in agreement with the data of the time. With accumulating observations, discrepancies appeared, but they could be removed by placing a second epicycle on the first, a third on the second, and so on, up to sixty, seventy, and more, for a single planetary orbit. Due to the lack of sufficiently sophisticated computational instruments , the Ptolemaic system soon became hopelessly complicated and inconvenient to use. In addition, it became non-unique; that is, systems with different epicycles could be constructed for a single planetary orbit. At this point the Ptolemaic system lost all its credibility as a model of reality. Interestingly, it had started out as a computational device. Only later, when it worked with success, was it considered a model of reality. In the system proposed by Copernicus (–) in the sixteenth century, the Sun is the center of the universe, and the planets revolve around it in circles. The Copernican system really originated with Aristarchus of Samos in the third century B.C. At that time, however, the concept was rejected because it did not fit the generally accepted religious views. Science must always conform to the style of a time and, when ideas are premature, true or false is not the issue. The circular nature of celestial motion originally was an essential feature, because only circular motion was considered perfect— leading nowhere—and nothing but the most perfect quality was accepted for the objects of the sky. As it turned out, this aspect of the Copernican system was in error. Some fifty years after Copernicus’ death, Johannes Kepler (–) found that circular planetary orbits are not in agreement with the data. Rather, the planets are moving about the Sun in ellipses.  1SCHÄFER_PAGES:SCHÄFER PAGES 4/29/10 11:14 AM Page 118 It is a popular myth that, in the sixteenth century, the Ptolemaic system was rejected because the Copernican system agreed better with the data. This view is not correct. Both models agreed equally well with the existing observations; preference for one over the other was based on different considerations. Some, nevertheless, were ready to kill, others to die, to assert their view of “reality.” The killings and torture were all the more tragic because the whole question was meaningless. First of all, not the center of the universe was at stake but, at best, the center of our solar system. There are millions of suns in the galaxy, millions of galaxies in the universe...