Kepler didn't just state that planets move on eclipses in general. Here's his three laws [1]:
> 1. The orbit of a planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of the two foci.
> 2. A line segment joining a planet and the Sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time.
> 3. The square of a planet's orbital period is proportional to the cube of the length of the semi-major axis of its orbit.
The first two laws are extraordinarily specific heliocentric. He did not just state his laws, he backed them with numbers. With tens of thousands of observations tallied over many decades by Tycho Brahe and himself. Whoever claims Kepler did not have proof, has now idea what they are talking about.
Parallax by Alan Hirshfeld is a good book which tracks various efforts to find the evidence for the rotation of earth culminating in evidence of parallax of nearest stars.
Also of interest is Book that Nobody Read by Owen Gringerich in which he explores the diffusion of Copernican ideas of heliocentric system after its publication. The book is also a personal journey of the author finding/cataloging extant copies of De Revolutionibus.
> 1728. Building on efforts by Flamsteed, Hooke, and others attempting to detect that old bugaboo, parallax, James Bradley detects stellar aberration [2] in γ-Draconis (Phil. Trans. Royal Soc., 1729).
> A similar phenomenon appears when you drive through a snow storm. Even though the snow is falling straight down, it appears to originate at some point forward of your car. This is because as snow falls, your car is moving toward the snow. Similarly, as the starlight falls down the telescope tube, the telescope tube is moving with the earth and the light ray will hit the side of the tube instead of the eyepiece unless the telescope is tilted slightly.
> The effect is small, and detectable only with special instruments, but it counts as a proof that the Earth is moving.
> Jun-Sep, 1791. In a series of experiments, Giovanni Guglielmini, a professor of mathematics at the University of Bologna, drops weights from the Torre dei Asinelli in Bologna -- the same tower used earlier by Riccioli and Grimaldi -- and finds an eastward (and southward) deflection. Concerned with windage, he repeats the experiment down the center of the spiral staircase at the Instituto della Scienze and finds a 4 mm Coriolis deflection over a 29 m drop; thus providing direct empirical evidence of the rotation of the Earth. These experiments are later confirmed in Germany (using a mine shaft) and in the United States.
* Ibid
Finally:
> 1806. Giuseppi Calandrelli, director of the observatory at the Roman College publishes "Ozzervatione e riflessione sulla paralasse annua dall’alfa della Lira," reporting parallax in α-Lyrae. This provides a simple direct observation of the revolution of the Earth.
> Keplerian heliocentrism had been accepted because it was computationally easier and because it popped out mathematically from Newton’s theory like Athena from the brow of Zeus. But now, finally, 263 years after Copernicus, the dual motions are established by empirical fact. Hot diggity.
* Ibid
Copernicus had an interesting idea, Galileo picked it up but didn't really add to it (though made improvements on telescope design), Kepler introduced a simplified mathematical model [3] (which just happened to be right) based on Tycho Brahe's observations.
Stellar parallax has know about since at least Aristotle, and as he mentions in his On the Heavens (II.14), since it is not observed then it is reasonable to conclude that there is no motion (it took several thousand years to develop instruments to actually measure it).
This article is interpreting events in a way that casts a revealing shadow. There is a subtle and difficult concept - it is a terrible idea to force people to behave in line with the best available evidence.
In this era, it is hard to point that out without mentioning COVID so, y'know. COVID. But it has been true for long before that and it'll be true after the COVID response is forgotten.
People should be allowed to behave in ways that are inconsistent with the best available scientific knowledge. Otherwise, ironically, misconceptions will persist more readily.
> force people to behave in line with the best available evidence.
I think this… really depends on the behavior.
I think, pretty much universally we should never force someone to pretend their beliefs conform to such evidence.
But, in certain circumstances, I think it’s absolutely appropriate to force people to conform to our understanding of the world.
Consider exaggerating this principle to an extreme degree (to demonstrate that, at least there exists a line where we should force people to conform). Let’s suppose we say it’s illegal to stab a person, because according to our understanding of biology, stabbings make it much more likely that the victim is seriously injured or dies. Suppose there is a person that does not believe stabbing causes injuries. We *should not* force them to change their beliefs. We should not force them to hide their beliefs, or to lie about their beliefs. They should be allowed to openly expesss their views—contrary as they are to our current knowledge.
But we should force them not to stab people. We absolutely should force their actions to match our understanding of the world.
To take it to a more plausible scenario, imagine someone has an extremely communicable and terminal disease. All our scientific understanding says that, if they deliberately cough in someone’s face, the victim is likely to be harmed or killed. This infected person does not believe in this science. It’s okay that they don’t believe in the science. It’s fine for them to argue that the science is wrong. It should still be illegal for them to deliberately cough in someone’s face if they know they are currently infected.
That implies that best scientific knowledge may be faulty or even wrong. And in terms of scientism, this is heresy, or "science denial". In the era of Rationalism (TM), if something is not done in the best current knowledge of this moment, in the most efficient way, allocating all available resources for it, you will inevitably be accused of literally murdering people. Even if the next moment it turns out that knowledge was wrong and following it actually led to the actual deaths of people. The ones that followed the BASK are absolved, since they were pure of heart, but those who dissented from BASK, even if post-factum they were proven right objectively, are condemned, since they did it Without Evidence, impurely, and that's the capital sin.
I think this is a consequence of mythologizing the scientific process as being purely following empirical evidence and being moved just by gathering evidence and explaining it in the most convincing form, and whatever the current best one is, must be followed as if it were the truth.
I don't see how that follows at all. Academic arguments about the structure of the heavens are irrelevancies except to the people in the argument (and those threatened by it). Sure, absolutely: you don't censor opinions about astronomy just because they seem "probably wrong" or demand blind adherence to the best available theory. You do the science, because sometimes scientists are wrong.
But pandemic advice isn't about doing good science, it's about risk management. If your goal is to keep as many people alive as possible, you bet on the consensus science because it's probably right. And it was.
The trial was more to do with precedence and academics though. Galileo was only punished in the 2nd trial because he had broken an order given to him in the first trial.
The corrections and withdrawals of work were the right of the Roman Inquisition which had oversight over the Vatican's academic publishing process. They were a publisher in their own right, and if they granted an Imprimatur for a book, it would be treated as if they had supported it as truth.
Hence, Copernicus had to be corrected to be "hypothetical" in 1615, so that it would accurately represent the truth known at the time.
Galileo had managed to get his Imprimatur on his Dialogue without the proper oversight it should have had. He arranged it so it was checked page by page by his Nuncio who didn't have the right competencies. When the Inquisition asked the Sacred Master of the Palace if they had indeed granted their Imprimatur, they hadn't, and it was an embarrassment for them.
What about those who deny "HIV causing AIDS", and don't take their medications?
I guess it's really about people. And if the people in charge have your best interests at heart.
With COVID, I feel like it was a bunch of technocrats, that had no "human touch".
As for "heliocentric / geocentric" - didn't that all become irrelevant once we've learned there's no "ether"?
All models are equally valid/invalid.
Or perhaps I'm missing something.
I don't think this is the right conclusion. It's more: people with no expertise and hidden agendas should be forced to behave in line with the best available evidence unless there are no other recourses for them. People with expertise, using the standards of high-quality data gathering and analysis, should be exploring alternative hypotheses. Galileo, Kepler, Newton et. al. all fell in the latter camp. COVID denial and flat earthism is an example of the former.
This really just boils down to saying: there is a rigorous evidence-based standard for updating our best available knowledge, and people who don't know how to adhere to that standard should be disqualified from recommending deviation (they are of course welcome to believe and do unto themselves as they wish, they just shouldn't be allowed from promoting it unless they have solid evidence for their claims).
"Evidence" is used 7 times in the body of the article, "proof" only once. This is a case of the headline not corresponding to the body of the text. The text itself makes some good points about the models of the time and sometimes their lack of supporting evidence. As does throw0101b's timeline in the comment here.
credit_guy|2 years ago
Kepler didn't just state that planets move on eclipses in general. Here's his three laws [1]:
The first two laws are extraordinarily specific heliocentric. He did not just state his laws, he backed them with numbers. With tens of thousands of observations tallied over many decades by Tycho Brahe and himself. Whoever claims Kepler did not have proof, has now idea what they are talking about.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_laws_of_planetary_m...
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
the-mitr|2 years ago
Also of interest is Book that Nobody Read by Owen Gringerich in which he explores the diffusion of Copernican ideas of heliocentric system after its publication. The book is also a personal journey of the author finding/cataloging extant copies of De Revolutionibus.
throw0101b|2 years ago
* https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-great-ptolemaic-sma...
First evidence for Earth's motion:
> 1728. Building on efforts by Flamsteed, Hooke, and others attempting to detect that old bugaboo, parallax, James Bradley detects stellar aberration [2] in γ-Draconis (Phil. Trans. Royal Soc., 1729).
> A similar phenomenon appears when you drive through a snow storm. Even though the snow is falling straight down, it appears to originate at some point forward of your car. This is because as snow falls, your car is moving toward the snow. Similarly, as the starlight falls down the telescope tube, the telescope tube is moving with the earth and the light ray will hit the side of the tube instead of the eyepiece unless the telescope is tilted slightly.
> The effect is small, and detectable only with special instruments, but it counts as a proof that the Earth is moving.
* https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/9-great-ptolemaic-smack...
Then for rotation:
> Jun-Sep, 1791. In a series of experiments, Giovanni Guglielmini, a professor of mathematics at the University of Bologna, drops weights from the Torre dei Asinelli in Bologna -- the same tower used earlier by Riccioli and Grimaldi -- and finds an eastward (and southward) deflection. Concerned with windage, he repeats the experiment down the center of the spiral staircase at the Instituto della Scienze and finds a 4 mm Coriolis deflection over a 29 m drop; thus providing direct empirical evidence of the rotation of the Earth. These experiments are later confirmed in Germany (using a mine shaft) and in the United States.
* Ibid
Finally:
> 1806. Giuseppi Calandrelli, director of the observatory at the Roman College publishes "Ozzervatione e riflessione sulla paralasse annua dall’alfa della Lira," reporting parallax in α-Lyrae. This provides a simple direct observation of the revolution of the Earth.
> Keplerian heliocentrism had been accepted because it was computationally easier and because it popped out mathematically from Newton’s theory like Athena from the brow of Zeus. But now, finally, 263 years after Copernicus, the dual motions are established by empirical fact. Hot diggity.
* Ibid
Copernicus had an interesting idea, Galileo picked it up but didn't really add to it (though made improvements on telescope design), Kepler introduced a simplified mathematical model [3] (which just happened to be right) based on Tycho Brahe's observations.
Stellar parallax has know about since at least Aristotle, and as he mentions in his On the Heavens (II.14), since it is not observed then it is reasonable to conclude that there is no motion (it took several thousand years to develop instruments to actually measure it).
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37757574
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_(astronomy)#Discove...
[3] There were actually seven models in contention at one point: https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-great-ptolemaic-sma...
GloucesterBoy|2 years ago
wtcactus|2 years ago
Kepler, for instance, had very clear proof, from the observations of planetary positions he "inherited" from Tycho Brahe
Duke__Leto|2 years ago
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
zubairq|2 years ago
anonymouskimmer|2 years ago
rurban|2 years ago
roenxi|2 years ago
In this era, it is hard to point that out without mentioning COVID so, y'know. COVID. But it has been true for long before that and it'll be true after the COVID response is forgotten.
People should be allowed to behave in ways that are inconsistent with the best available scientific knowledge. Otherwise, ironically, misconceptions will persist more readily.
ncallaway|2 years ago
I think this… really depends on the behavior.
I think, pretty much universally we should never force someone to pretend their beliefs conform to such evidence.
But, in certain circumstances, I think it’s absolutely appropriate to force people to conform to our understanding of the world.
Consider exaggerating this principle to an extreme degree (to demonstrate that, at least there exists a line where we should force people to conform). Let’s suppose we say it’s illegal to stab a person, because according to our understanding of biology, stabbings make it much more likely that the victim is seriously injured or dies. Suppose there is a person that does not believe stabbing causes injuries. We *should not* force them to change their beliefs. We should not force them to hide their beliefs, or to lie about their beliefs. They should be allowed to openly expesss their views—contrary as they are to our current knowledge.
But we should force them not to stab people. We absolutely should force their actions to match our understanding of the world.
To take it to a more plausible scenario, imagine someone has an extremely communicable and terminal disease. All our scientific understanding says that, if they deliberately cough in someone’s face, the victim is likely to be harmed or killed. This infected person does not believe in this science. It’s okay that they don’t believe in the science. It’s fine for them to argue that the science is wrong. It should still be illegal for them to deliberately cough in someone’s face if they know they are currently infected.
smsm42|2 years ago
I think this is a consequence of mythologizing the scientific process as being purely following empirical evidence and being moved just by gathering evidence and explaining it in the most convincing form, and whatever the current best one is, must be followed as if it were the truth.
ajross|2 years ago
But pandemic advice isn't about doing good science, it's about risk management. If your goal is to keep as many people alive as possible, you bet on the consensus science because it's probably right. And it was.
transportguy|2 years ago
The corrections and withdrawals of work were the right of the Roman Inquisition which had oversight over the Vatican's academic publishing process. They were a publisher in their own right, and if they granted an Imprimatur for a book, it would be treated as if they had supported it as truth.
Hence, Copernicus had to be corrected to be "hypothetical" in 1615, so that it would accurately represent the truth known at the time.
Galileo had managed to get his Imprimatur on his Dialogue without the proper oversight it should have had. He arranged it so it was checked page by page by his Nuncio who didn't have the right competencies. When the Inquisition asked the Sacred Master of the Palace if they had indeed granted their Imprimatur, they hadn't, and it was an embarrassment for them.
avloss11|2 years ago
With COVID, I feel like it was a bunch of technocrats, that had no "human touch".
As for "heliocentric / geocentric" - didn't that all become irrelevant once we've learned there's no "ether"? All models are equally valid/invalid. Or perhaps I'm missing something.
AkshatM|2 years ago
This really just boils down to saying: there is a rigorous evidence-based standard for updating our best available knowledge, and people who don't know how to adhere to that standard should be disqualified from recommending deviation (they are of course welcome to believe and do unto themselves as they wish, they just shouldn't be allowed from promoting it unless they have solid evidence for their claims).
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
csours|2 years ago
anonymouskimmer|2 years ago