Affiliation:
1. University of Oklahoma
2. University of Pittsburgh
Abstract
We question the claim, common since Duhem, that sixteenth century astronomy, and especially the Wittenberg interpretation of Copernicus, was instrumentalistic rather than realistic. We identify a previously unrecognized Wittenberg astronomer, Edo Hildericus (Hilderich von Varel), who presents a detailed exposition of Copernicus’s cosmology that is incompatible with instrumentalism. Quotations from other sixteenth century astronomers show that knowledge of the real configuration of the heavens was unattainable practically, rather than in principle. Astronomy was limited to quia demonstrations, although demonstration propter quid remained the ideal. We suggest that Oslander’s notorious preface to Copernicus expresses these sixteenth century commonplaces rather than twentieth century instrumentalism, and that neither ‘realism’, nor ‘instrumentalism’. in their modern meanings, apply to sixteenth century astronomy.
Subject
History and Philosophy of Science,Multidisciplinary
Reference71 articles.
1. “Peurbach’s Theorcae novae planetarum: a Translation with Commentary.”;Aiton,1987
2. “The Role of Religion in the Lutheran Response to Copernicus.”;Barker,2000
3. “Stoic Contributions to Early Modern Science.”;Barker,1991
Cited by
9 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献