Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Copernican Controversy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Defending Copernicus and Galileo

Part of the book series: Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science ((BSPS,volume 280))

  • 1709 Accesses

Abstract

If the geostatic world view provides the intellectual background for the Copernican controversy, and the latter provides the conceptual background for the Galileo affair, then the exposition of the geostatic world view (Chapter 1) must now be followed by an exposition of the Copernican controversy. In accordance with our stress on critical reasoning, this controversy will be described in terms of the arguments in favor and the arguments against the key claim of the Copernican system, the thesis that the earth moves. Now, it is obvious that this key Copernican thesis is the contradictory of the main Ptolemaic claim that the earth stands still. Thus, as a first approximation, the arguments in favor of Copernicanism are also arguments against the geostatic world view, and the arguments against the Copernican system are also arguments in favor of the geostatic thesis. Moreover, if we define an objection to some position to be an argument against that position, then we can also say that the focus of this chapter will be the arguments and the objections on both sides of the Copernican controversy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For more details, see Kuhn (1957, 160-165), Finocchiaro (1997a, 132-133, 245).

  2. 2.

    For more details on explanatory coherence, see Lakatos and Zahar (1975, 368-381), Millman (1976), Thomason (1992). But note that their terminology is different.

  3. 3.

    This diagram is adapted from a passage in Galileo’s Dialogue; cf. Favaro 7: 371 and Galilei (1967, 343).

  4. 4.

    This argument is stated and criticized in Favaro 7: 273-281, Galilei (1967, 247-256; 1997, 212-220).

  5. 5.

    Cf. Favaro 7: 362, Galilei (1967, 334-335; 1997, 236-237; 2008, 243-244).

  6. 6.

    Cf. Favaro 7: 357-60, Galilei (1967, 334; 1997, 235-236; 2008, 243).

  7. 7.

    Cf. Favaro 7: 349, Galilei (1967, 321; 1997, 225-226; 2008, 236).

  8. 8.

    The reason why the observed variation in apparent brightness of Mars presented a serious difficulty for the Copernican system but not for the Ptolemaic system was that in the latter the relevant quantities (distance, epicycle, and so on) could be adjusted to correspond to the actual observations, whereas in the former the variation could be derived from other elements of the system, because of its greater coherence mentioned above.

  9. 9.

    Cf. Favaro (7: 385-386, 404-407), Galilei (1967, 358-359, 377-380; 1997, 247-248, 264-267).

  10. 10.

    This figure is taken from Galileo’s Dialogue, in Favaro 7: 407, Galilei (1967, 380; 1997, 268).

  11. 11.

    For more details, including an answer, see Favaro 7: 164-167, Galilei (1967, 138-141; 1997, 155-159; 2008, 222-226), Chapter 6 below.

  12. 12.

    Cf. Favaro 7: 193-197, Galilei (1967, 167-171; 1997, 145-147; 2008, 215-216).

  13. 13.

    Cf. Favaro 7: 167-175, Galilei (1967, 141-149; 1997, 159-170; 2008, 225-233).

  14. 14.

    See “Galileo’s Reply to Ingoli,” in Favaro 6: 545-646, and in Finocchiaro (1989, 184-185).

  15. 15.

    See the Dialogue, in Favaro 7: 170-171, and in Galilei (1967, 144-145; 1997, 163-165).

  16. 16.

    Cf. Favaro 7: 214-244, Galilei (1967, 188-218; 1997, 171-212), and Chapter 5 below.

  17. 17.

    Cf. Favaro 7: 57-62, Galilei (1967, 32-38; 1997, 83-90).

  18. 18.

    Cf. Favaro 7: 281-289, Galilei (1967, 256-264).

  19. 19.

    For more details see Galileo’s “Letter to Castelli” and Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina, in Favaro (5: 281-288, 309-348), Finocchiaro (1989, 49-54, 87-118), and Galilei (2008, 103-145). See also Chapters 4 and 9 below.

  20. 20.

    For more details, see Bellarmine’s letter to Foscarini and Galileo’s “Considerations on the Copernican Opinion” and Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina, in Favaro (12: 171-172, 5: 351-370, 5: 309-348), Finocchiaro (1989, 67-69, 70-118), and Galilei (2008, 109-167). Again, see also Chapters 4 and 9 below.

  21. 21.

    Oreggi (1629, 194-195), quoted in Sosio (1970, 548-549, n. 1). Cf. Fantoli (2003b, 230), Mayaud (2005, 3: 652-653), Speller (2008, 375-380).

  22. 22.

    As mentioned, Galileo does not explicitly criticize the divine-omnipotence objection at the end of the Dialogue, where he gives a statement of it; cf. Favaro 7: 488-489, Galilei (1967, 464; 1997, 306-308). However, it should be noted that other passages in the book provide partial and indirect discussions of various points related to this objection; such is the case for the comparison of human and divine understanding (Galilei 1997, 107-116) and for the possibility of a miracle explanation of the tides (Galilei 1997, 285-286). Moreover, he (Galilei 1890-1909, 7: 565-566) does explicitly criticize a version of the objection advanced by Morin (1631, 31-32). For more details on the interpretation, analysis, and evaluation of the divine-omnipotence argument and of Galileo’s attitude toward it, see Beltrán Marí (2006, 412-437), Besomi and Helbing (1998, 2: 899-902), Bianchi (2000; 2001), Camerota (2004, 406-417), Finocchiaro (1980, 8-12; 1985; 1997a, 306-308), Morpurgo-Tagliabue (1981, 99-107), Speller (2008, especially 375-396), Wisan (1984).

  23. 23.

    He discussed some of these objections in Book One of his great work; see, for example, Copernicus (1992, 7-50).

  24. 24.

    On the instrumentalist response to Copernicus, see Barker and Goldstein (1998), Goddu (1990), Westman (1972; 1975b; 1975c; 1975d; 1980; 1987; 1990; forthcoming). On related issues in the longer history of the controversy between instrumentalism and realism, see Duhem (1908; 1969), Jardine (1984, 225), Lloyd (1978), Morpurgo-Tagliabue (1947-1948; 1981), Popper (1963, 99 n. 6).

  25. 25.

    For more details on Tycho, see Mosley (2007).

  26. 26.

    Of course, Kepler is an important and interesting figure in his own right. Cf., for example, Bucciantini (2003), Field (1988), Jardine (1984), Koestler (1959, 225-424), Kozhamthadam (1994), Voelkel (2001a,b), Westman (1972; forthcoming).

  27. 27.

    But see the new evidence and arguments in Bucciantini (2003).

References

  • Barker P, Goldstein BR (1998) Realism and instrumentalism in sixteenth-century astronomy. Persp Sci 6:232-258

    Google Scholar 

  • Beltrán Marí A (2006). Talento y poder: historia de las relaciones entre Galileo y la Iglesia católica. Laetoli, Pamplona

    Google Scholar 

  • Besomi O, Helbing M (eds) (1998) Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo, tolemaico e copernicano. 2 vols. Critical edition and commentary. Antenore, Padua

    Google Scholar 

  • Bianchi L (2000) Interventi divini, miracoli e ipotesi soprannaturali nel ‘Dialogo’ di Galileo. In Canziani et al. 2000:239-251

    Google Scholar 

  • Bianchi L (2001) Agostino Oreggi, qualificatore del Dialogo, e i limiti della conoscenza scientifica. In Montesinos and Solís 2001:575-586

    Google Scholar 

  • Bucciantini M (2003) Galileo e Keplero. Einaudi, Turin

    Google Scholar 

  • Camerota M (2004) Galileo Galilei e la cultura scientifica nell’età della Controriforma. Salerno, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiaramonti S (1633) Difesa al suo Antiticone. Florence

    Google Scholar 

  • Copernicus N (1992) On the revolutions. Rosen E (Trans. and ed). Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  • Duhem P (1908) SOZEIN TA PHAINOMENA: Essai sur la notion de theorie physique de Platon à Galilée. Hermann, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Duhem P (1969) To save the phenomena. Doland E, Maschler C (Trans) University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Field JV (1988) Kepler’s geometrical cosmology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Finocchiaro MA (1980) Galileo and the art of reasoning: rhetorical foundations of logic and scientific method. Reidel, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Finocchiaro MA (1985) Wisan on Galileo and the art of reasoning. Ann Sci 42:613-616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finocchiaro MA (trans. and ed) (1989) The Galileo affair: a documentary history. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Finocchiaro MA (trans. and ed) (1997a) Galileo on the world systems: a new abridged translation and guide. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Galilei G (1890-1909) Le opere di Galileo G. 20 vols. Favaro A (ed) Rpt. 1929-1939:1968

    Google Scholar 

  • Galilei G (1967) Dialogue concerning the two chief world systems. Drake S (trans and ed) 2nd revised edn. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Galilei G (1997) Galileo on the world systems: a new abridged translation and guide. Finocchiaro MA (trans and ed). University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Galilei G (2008) The essential Galileo. Finocchiaro MA (ed and trans). Hackett Publishing Co., Indianapolis and Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Goddu A (1990) The realism that Duhem rejected in Copernicus. Synthese 83:301-316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goddy A (2006) Reflections on the origins of Copernicus’s cosmology. J Hist Astron 37:37-53

    Google Scholar 

  • Jardine N (1984) The birth of history and philosophy of science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Koestler A (1959) The sleepwalkers. Macmillan, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozhamthadam J (1994) The discovery of Kepler’s laws. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn TS (1957) The copernican revolution. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakatos I, Zahar E (1975) Why did Copernicus’ research program supersede Ptolemy’s?” In Westman 1975a:354-383

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd GER (1978) Saving appearances. Classical Q 28:202-222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayaud P-N (ed) (2005) Le conflit entre l’astronomie nouvelle et l’Écriture Sainte aux XVIe et XVIIe siècles. 6 vols. Honoré Champion, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Millman AB (1976) The plausibility of research programs. In PSA 1976, Suppe F, Asquith PD (eds) Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing, 1:140-148

    Google Scholar 

  • Morin JB (1631) Famosi et antiqui problematis de Telluris motu vel quiete, hactenus optata solutio. Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Morpurgo-Tagliabue G (1947-1948) I processi di Galileo e l’epistemologia. Rivista di storia della filosofia, vol. 2, nos 2-3; vol. 3, no. 1

    Google Scholar 

  • Morpurgo-Tagliabue G (1981). I processi di Galileo e l’epistemologia. Armando, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosley A (2007) Bearing the Heavens: Tycho Brahe and the astronomical community of the late sixteenth century. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Oreggi A (1629) De Deo uno tractatus primus. Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper KR (1963) Conjectures and refutations. Harper, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sosio L (ed) (1970) Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo tolemaico e copernicano. Einaudi, Turin

    Google Scholar 

  • Speller J (2008) Galileo’s inquisition trial revisited. Peter Lang, Frankfurt

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomason N (1992) Could Lakatos, even with Zahar’s criterion for novel fact, evaluate the Copernican research programme? Br J Philos Sci 43:161-200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voelkel JR (2001a) The composition of Kepler’s astronomia nova. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Voelkel JR (2001b) Giovanni Antonio Magini’s ‘Keplerian’ Tables of 1614 and their implications for the reception of Keplerian astronomy in the seventeenth century. J Hist Astron 32:237-262

    Google Scholar 

  • Westman RS (1972) Kepler’s theory of hypothesis and the ‘Realist Dilemma’ Studies Hist Philos Sci 3:233-264

    Google Scholar 

  • Westman RS (1975b) The Melanchthon circle, Rheticus, and the Wittenberg interpretation of the Copernican theory. Isis 66:165-193

    Google Scholar 

  • Westman RS (1975c) Three responses to the Copernican theory. In Westman 1975a:285-345

    Google Scholar 

  • Westman RS (1975d) The Wittenberg interpretation of the Copernican theory. In Gingerich 1975

    Google Scholar 

  • Westman RS (1980) The astronomer’s role in the sixteenth century. Hist Sci 18:105-147

    Google Scholar 

  • Westman RS (1987) La Préface de Copernic au pape: Esthétique humaniste et réforme de l’Eglise. Hist Technol 4:359-378

    Google Scholar 

  • Westman RS (1990) Proof, poetics, and patronage. In Lindberg and Westman 1990:167-205

    Google Scholar 

  • Westman RS (Forthcoming) The Copernican question. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Wisan WL (1984) On the art of reasoning. Ann Sci 41:483-487

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, USA

    Maurice A. Finocchiaro

Authors
  1. Maurice A. Finocchiaro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maurice A. Finocchiaro .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Finocchiaro, M.A. (2010). The Copernican Controversy. In: Defending Copernicus and Galileo. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol 280. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3201-0_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation