Why Systems of the Heavens Get Built
What makes an account of the sky persuasive, if not proof? Smith locates the force in discomfort: an irregular appearance unsettles the imagination, and a theory that settles it again wins.
Kept in a bedroom bureau since the 1750s and never printed in his lifetime, the history of astronomy asks a psychological question rather than a chronological one. Ptolemy, Copernicus and Newton each succeeded by restoring the imagination's ease after wonder and surprise had disturbed it. How far Smith meant that as scepticism about science is still argued over, since he called Newton's system the greatest discovery anyone had made, in the same pages. The reach of the argument goes past the heavens to how any system of thought gets invented and believed.
- history of astronomy
- scientific explanation
- imagination
- wonder
- philosophy of science
- cosmology
- planetary motion
- heliocentrism
- astronomy
- history of science
- causation
- analogy
- scientific models
- history of philosophy
Enter a dialogue
- The ancients never credited Jupiter's invisible hand with fire burning or stones falling, only with thunder and other irregular events. Why do gods appear only where explanation fails?
- Copernicus says the old system left nature's noblest works without harmony, and that troubled him first. Should a tidy pattern count as evidence a theory is true?
- You separate wonder at what is new, surprise at what is unexpected, and admiration of what is great. Which of them first sets people to studying the heavens?
- Newton concluded the Earth bulges at the equator though every measure seemed to show the opposite, and preferred his computations. When should a theory overrule the evidence?