See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/327862242

Copernicus and Scientific Revolutions

Thesis · March 2007

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17227.03365

CITATIONS READS
3 6,279

1 author:

James Cusick
IEEE Computer Society
140 PUBLICATIONS   377 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

History of Science View project

Advancing IT and Software Engineering View project

All content following this page was uploaded by James Cusick on 25 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Copernicus and Scientific Revolutions

by

James Cusick
Polytechnic University
j.cusick@computer.org

for

Prof. Romualdas Sviedrys

Polytechnic University

Seminar in History of Science

March 24, 2007

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 3
The Copernican Revolution ................................................................................................ 3
The Ancient View ............................................................................................................... 4
The Work of Copernicus ..................................................................................................... 5
Reactions to the Copernican System................................................................................... 7
Kuhn’s View of Scientific Revolution ................................................................................ 9
Kuhn and Copernicus ........................................................................................................ 10
Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 12
References ......................................................................................................................... 13

2
 Copernicus and Scientific Revolutions

Introduction

S
cience proceeds in a myriad of steps, some large and some small. Many of these
steps proceed within the given framework of understood knowledge. These steps
often refine what is known in incremental ways. But occasionally large steps are
taken which sometimes overthrow the knowledge foundations of an area of science.
These are what Thomas Kuhn called Scientific Revolutions. He argued that these
revolutions have a structure and develop according to certain patterns of thought and
behavior within the scientific community. In this paper we will examine such a great
revolution by reviewing the work of Copernicus and assessing the impact, reaction, and
eventual acceptance of his work in the field of science and beyond. We will first examine
the context of his work with respect to the ancient thinking in planetary systems and then
examine his contributions and the reaction to his work. Next, we will review the models
presented by Kuhn to understand such revolutions in Science and finally discuss the
Copernican revolution with respect to Kuhn’s models. It is hoped that this discussion will
shed light on how scientific revolutions progress the state of science as well as providing
a detailed review of the work and impact of Copernicus.

The Copernican Revolution

N icholas Copernicus (1473-1543) of all scientists truly produced a revolution in

science. Prior to Copernicus man believed himself to be in the center of the
universe with all that implied. While some had proposed other wise, it was
Copernicus’ theory for a heliocentric universe that changed our perceptions forever. This
change took upwards of 150 years to be fully realized with the work of Newton and much
later for ultimate proof with the first measurement of stellar parallax. If anyone’s work
both put science on edge and required such a long period of acceptance it was
Copernicus. A “… great system of scientific and religious thought” had been built up to

3
explain an earth centered view [ARMI47]. Copernicus was a product of his time and the
belief structures of that place. He had to overcome these beliefs to propose his alternate
view. By examining the ancient views on the universe, we can see how far he traveled in
thought to arrive at his theory.

The Ancient View

P ythagoras (sixth century BC) was the first to claim the Earth was a sphere in space
and viewed the heaven in many circles. Philolaus proposed the Earth revolving
around a “central fire” (not the sun) and all planets and the sun also revolved in
this way. However, it was “Aristotle’s mental picture of the Universe [that] was widely
accepted … right into the seventeenth century. It formed the backbone of the resistance
which the ideas of Copernicus encountered” [ARMI47].

Aristotle’s view incorporated a limited sphere of a universe with everything inside the
sphere and nothing outside of it. The center was the Earth (which was not moving), from
there layers and spheres carried the sun and the planets, fixed stars were made of
“aether”. The Greeks later invented deferents and epicycles to account for retrograde
motion, these were used all the way up to Copernicus’ time [APPL05].

In the 4th century BC Heraclides suggested Venus & Mercury may revolve around the
Sun with the sun still revolving around the Earth. Aristarchus expanded this view to put
the Earth in motion around the sun which would not be accepted for 1800 years.
Aristarchus (310-230) of Samos proposed a heliocentric universe with the sun fixed at the
center and the Earth circling the sun as a planet. “Putting the earth in motion and giving it
planetary status violated ancient authority, common sense, religious belief, and
Aristotelian physics …” [LIND92]. Also, Ecphantus attributed to the Earth an axis of
rotation [GILL71]. None of these theories gained permanent ground but would be
rediscovered centuries later and used by Copernicus in his reasoning for a heliocentric
view.

Ptolemy (second century AD) solidified the Earth centered view in his Almagest. No one
would seriously challenge Aristotle and Ptolemy until Copernicus; however, it is possible
that Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464) may have presaged some of his thinking. Cusa “had
been willing to entertain the idea that the Earth might be in motion. In fact it has been
suggested that Copernicus owed to Cusa his view that a sphere set in empty space would
begin to turn without needing anything to move it” [HORN01]. Nevertheless,
Copernicus, as we shall see, was the first to truly see “… the hopelessness of the
Ptolemaic theory and cast about for some new basis for a reconstruction of astronomy.
He was the Einstein of his day” [STET30].

4
The Work of Copernicus

A
s Copernicus was born the Renaissance flourished and also the Reformation.
Greek works were rediscovered, and the age of discovery had begun making
astronomy more important for nautical navigation, also affecting the spread of
knowledge was printing [ARMI47].

When Copernicus was a university student in Cracow starting in 1491 [GILL71]

astronomy was still taught in the Medieval manner based on Aristotle’s teachings. Early
influences in astronomy for Copernicus were Profs Domenico Maria da Novara of
Bologna and Girolamo Fracastoro in Padua who may have influenced or encouraged him
to break with the Ptolemaic system. Copernicus became a Dr. of Cannon Law at age 30 in
1503 with training in medicine, liberal arts and what would be called sciences. Elected as
cannon of Frauenburg Cathedral he began his work there and in Heilsberg nearby
[ARMI47]. There he built an observing tower and had at least three instruments, a
parallactic, a quadrant, and an astrolabe [GILL71].

In 1512 he wrote a short paper on ideas on a sun centered universe, the paper was called
the “Little Commetary” (or De hypothesibus motuum coelestium a se constitutes
commentariolus) [GILL71]. Eventually several such papers would form his book to be
published 30 years later. The book was first drafted at Frauenburg in 1512-1516. He also
made many observations with various instruments. Rumors of his work leaked out and
selected people knew of his theories. He was mocked by some like Luther and praised by
others like Papal secretary John Widmanstad [ARMI47].

His book was called Six Books Concerning the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres (De
Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestrium Libri VI). In it he argues that Aristotle and Ptolemy
had divergent models so one more could not hurt. He references Philolaus, Heraclids,
Aristarchus as having promoted alternate models. In actual fact he kept much of
Aristotelian views, eg, circles as the motion of planets, but put the Earth in motion and
rotating on its axis. This was the true breach from normative thinking at the time. The
Moon still circled the Earth, but in his model, you could largely disregard the epicycle,
but he left the nature of the stars as ambiguous. He also set up a new calendar but could
not prove parallax of the stars to prove his heliocentric theories [ARMI47]. Among other
objections Copernicus had to argue with the ancients such as Ptolemy. In arguing for a
rotating Earth Copernicus stated “… Ptolemy has no cause to fear that the earth … will
be disrupted by a rotation …” [GILL71].

When Copernicus was lying on his death bed he was brought a copy of his book “De
Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium”. But the book had been given a preface by Osiander
the publisher stating that Copernicus simply viewed the heliocentric theory as an
interesting concept and not a real approach to how the heavens worked [STET30]. Proof
of his theory was not found until Foucault’s pendulum in 1851 and the reporting of stellar
parallax a for 61 Cygni in 1838 [GILL71].

5
 Figure 1 – The Copernican System from Revolutions

Copernicus showed that much of the eccentric movement of the planets could be
explained simply if the earth as in motion.

It is hard to underestimate the importance of this work: it challenged the

age long views of the way the universe worked and the preponderance of
the Earth and, by extension, of human beings. The realization that we, our
planet, and indeed our solar system (and even our galaxy) are quite
common in the heavens and reproduced by myriads of planetary systems
provided a sobering (though unsettling) view of the universe. All the
reassurances of the cosmology of the Middle Ages were gone, and a new
view of the world, less secure and comfortable, came into being. Despite
these ``problems'' and the many critics the model attracted, the system was
soon accepted by the best minds of the time such as Galileo. [WUDK98]

In a fine point on his theory there has been some recent discussion as to the extent to
which Copernicus eliminated the use of the epicycle. Here is an argument that the theory
did not fully remove it:

Thus, in the Copernican model the Sun was at the center, but the planets
still executed uniform circular motion about it. … the orbits of the planets
are not circles, they are actually ellipses. As a consequence, the
Copernican model, with it assumption of uniform circular motion, still

6
 could not explain all the details of planetary motion on the celestial sphere
without epicycles. The difference was that the Copernican system required
many fewer epicycles than the Ptolemaic system because it moved the Sun
to the center. [CARD07]

Copernicus essentially proposed more than discovered the following facts, that:
▪ The Earth is a rotating planet (diurnal rotation);
▪ The Earth revolves around a fixed sun (annual revolution);
▪ Also, that there was a motion of declination (tilted axis);
▪ That the Planets also revolve around sun, Mercury and Venus inside the earth’s
orbit and the rest outside the earth’s orbit;
▪ And to nearly correctly calculate the distance of the planets from the sun as ratios
of earth-sun distance.

This last point helped explain the apparent retrograde motion of the outer planets, Jupiter,
Saturn, and Mars, as Copernicus wrote:

This happens by reason of the motion, not of the planet, but of the earth
changing its position in the grand circle. This regression is most notable
when the earth is nearest to the planet, this is, when it comes between the
sun and the planet at the evening rising of the planet. [GILL71]

On balance Copernicus’ work served to eventually revolutionize the field of astronomy

but also had wide ranging social impacts in philosophy and religion. Some of these
reactions are noted below.

Reactions to the Copernican System

ome people accepted Copernicus’ system of planetary organization right away but

S it was not fully proved out until Newton’s theories were published in 1687, thus
150 years passed until general acceptance. In fact Copernicus’ ideas could not be
proven scientifically at the time he lived. His theories were also at odds with common
sense and religion. His book was downplayed and originally seen for its planetary tables
and reaction from church was slow [ARMI47].

Following his death in 1543 and the publication of Revolutions reaction began. At first
the book was only read among astronomers and specialists, but several prominent
thinkers began to be swayed by the Copernican theories. By 1556 Recorde of England
was a Copernican and in 1576 Digges followed [ARMI47]. The heliocentric model of
Thomas Digges (1546-1595) was published and enlarged the Copernican system by
asserting that the stars are not fixed in a celestial orb but dispersed throughout the
universe [WUDK98].

7
Giordano Bruno thereafter (1548-1600) put the sun in motion also in the year 1584. He
introduced the idea of an infinite space with other solar systems in abundance. He was
burned at the stake for departures from church doctrine in such thinking [ARMI47].

Tycho Brahe rejected the Copernican system and proposed his own theory:

The slow progress of the heliocentric model was also apparent among
part of the scientific community of the time; in particular Tycho Brahe, the
best astronomer of the late 16th century, was opposed to it. He proposed
instead a ``compromise'': the earth moves around the sun, but the rest of
the planets move around the Earth (Fig. 3.5). Brahe's argument against
the Copernican system was roughly the following: if the Earth moves in
circles around the Sun, nearby stars will appear in different positions at
different times of the year. Since the stars are fixed they must be very far
away but then they should be enormous and this is ``unreasonable''
[WUDK98]

Kepler (1571-1630) was influenced by Prof Maestlin of University of Tubingen who was
a Copernican. Eventually Kepler went to study under Brahe and used his observations to
publish the 1609 “New Astronomy” with his first 2 laws of planetary motion having them
move in ellipses. These laws were only meaningful in a Copernican system. [ARMI47]

Galileo became a true champion of the Copernican system. The discovery of Jupiter’s
moons established that there were other centers of motion in the universe. Further,
Galileo published in 1632 a dialogue called “Dialogue on the Two Great World Systems –
Ptolemaic and Copernican” which made a strong case for the Copernican view
[APPL05].

Copernican views had many implications. They demoted man’s place in the universe and
went against scripture. This put Galileo at odds with the church and he lived under house
arrest for the later part of his life as a result. However, the theory of geocentricity was not
easily abandoned by others. It had over 1500 years of scholasticism supporting it
[STET30]. Finally, Newton established the Copernican system firmly with his laws of
motion.

“Thus the revolution in thought begun by Copernicus has grown through

the centuries into the conviction that the material Universe is a single
whole, no part of which enjoys any special privilege.”[ARMI47]

These profound reactions to Copernicus lead us to consider what revolutions in science

are and what they can wrought. To do so we will introduce the thinking of Thomas Kuhn
on this subject.

8
Kuhn’s View of Scientific Revolution

T homas Kuhn1 (1922-1996) set out a critical essay called The

Structure of Scientific Revolutions in 1962. This work has been
used to understand the progress or lack of progress in Science
ever since. There are numerous principles that Kuhn presents. These
principles have a direct bearing on the work and impact of Copernicus.
First we will review the basics of Kuhn’s model of scientific
revolutions and paradigms and then we will discuss how they relate to
the work of Copernicus.

Kuhn believed that a scientific community cannot practice its trade without some set of
received beliefs and that "normal science often suppresses fundamental novelties because
they are necessarily subversive of its basic commitments.” Furthermore, A shift in
professional commitments to shared assumptions takes place when an anomaly "subverts
the existing tradition of scientific practice" [PAJA07].

A scientific revolution is a non-cumulative developmental episode in which an older

paradigm is replaced in whole or in part by an incompatible new one. Whereas normal
science is the cumulative and incremental effect of the clarification of an accepted
paradigm. A scientific revolution that results in paradigm change is analogous to a
political revolution [PAJA07]. Consequently, the assimilation of either a new sort of
phenomenon or a new scientific theory must demand the rejection of an older paradigm.

Thus in this way science does not progress in linear accumulation of new knowledge but
instead undergoes periodic revolutions or “paradigm shifts”. In these shifts a revolution
takes place in the thinking of a field of science. Kuhn further distinguishes between types
of science, Presciene which is lacking a paradigm, normal science where the central
paradigm is advanced, and finally at a crisis point leading to a new paradigm takes over
which is called revolutionary science [KUHN70].

During periods of normal science, the primary task of scientists is to bring

the accepted theory and fact into closer agreement. As a consequence,
scientists tend to ignore research findings that might threaten the existing
paradigm and trigger the development of a new and competing paradigm.
For example, Ptolemy popularized the notion that the sun revolves around

1
Thomas Samuel Kuhn was born on July 18, 1922, in Cincinnati, Ohio, United States. He received a Ph. D. in physics from Harvard
University in 1949 and remained there as an assistant professor of general education and history of science. In 1956, Kuhn accepted a
post at the University of California--Berkeley, where in 1961 he became a full professor of history of science. In 1964, he was named
M. Taylor Pyne Professor of Philosophy and History of Science at Princeton University. In 1979 he returned to Boston, this time to
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology as professor of philosophy and history of science. In 1983 he was named Laurence S.
Rockefeller Professor of Philosophy at MIT. Thomas Kuhn died on Monday, June 17, 1996, at the age of 73 at his home in
Cambridge, Massachusetts. Source [ANON07] http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/Kuhnsnap.html

9
 the earth, and this view was defended for centuries even in the face of
conflicting evidence. In the pursuit of science, Kuhn observed, "novelty
emerges only with difficulty, manifested by resistance, against a
background provided by expectation.” [ANON07]

While most scientists were seen by Kuhn as working in “normal science” slowly
advancing the accepted paradigm even by aligning their work to reinforce its
assumptions, the revolutionary scientist works after long periods of investigation in a
given area and makes sweeping changes such as a Newton or an Einstein.

There are multiple paths to challenging scientific knowledge within a paradigm.

Only when these attempts at articulation fail do scientists encounter the

third type of phenomena, the recognized anomalies whose characteristic
feature is their stubborn refusal to be assimilated to existing paradigms.
This type alone gives rise to new theories. [KUHN70]

And with new paradigms there are three key characteristics to be kept in mind a)
observation of anomalies; b) observational and conceptual recognition; and c) change of
paradigm categories, procedures and the existence of resistance [KUHN70]. In the case
of Copernicus all of these characteristics of both paradigm shift and scientific revolution
were present.

Kuhn and Copernicus

T hese definitional statements help us understand how Kuhn viewed Copernicus.

Kuhn states that Copernicus produced “major paradigm changes” [KUHN70]. In
his The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn discusses paradigm-induced
changes in scientific perceptions during the first half century after Copernicus's new
paradigm was proposed. He states:

"The very ease and rapidity with which astronomers saw new things when
looking at old objects with old instruments may make us wish to say that,
after Copernicus, astronomers lived in a different world. In any case, their
research responded as though that were the case." [HORN01]

In Kuhn's 'The Copernican Revolution' Copernicus is presented as a highly proficient

mathematical astronomer whose very narrow mindedness outside of his chosen domain
blinded him to the destructive consequences that his technical reform of astronomy
entailed for the entire traditional world-view [HORN01].

The revolution that Copernicus began was a true political revolution caused by a
scientific revolution.

10
 No longer was humanity at the centre of the universe, about which all else
revolved, but rather humanity was but one small part of a much larger
system in constant movement. With the importance of humanity being
decentred, people began to question more than that which faith held in
high regard. This resulted in original and creative thought beginning to
develop outside of the revered institutions of education, and what emerged
were fresh original minds, aching to be freed from the shackles of
traditional thought [HORN01].

In actual fact, Kuhn argues that Copernicus opened the door to a logical set of
observations made by many in this period. In fact astronomy had reached its crisis point
and required revolutionary science to move it forward. Kuhn declares “The state of
Ptolemaic astronomy was a scandal before Copernicus’ announcement” [KUHN70]. He
further states that

"By the early sixteenth century an increasing number of Europe's best

astronomers were recognizing that the astronomical paradigm was failing
in application to its own traditional problems. That recognition was
prerequisite to Copernicus' rejection of the Ptolemaic paradigm and his
search for a new one." [HORN01]

Kuhn asserts that astronomy was in a “classic crisis state” and that “complexity [in its
theory] was increasing for more rapidly than its accuracy” [KUHN70]. Ptolemaic
astronomers had failed to solve the inherent puzzles in the field and it was time for
another approach. This state of affairs had continued for over 1300 years. This was ample
time for any reconstitution of the paradigm to have taken place, but none had come
forward. In the replacement of the Ptolemaic system for the Copernican system we have a
true replacement of one paradigm for another. As Kuhn records, “the decision to reject
one paradigm is always simultaneously the decision to accept another …” [KUHN70].
Both have to be compared with each other and with nature. It was Copernicus, Kuhn
writes, who saw that there was a “counterinstance” as opposed to flaws in matching
theory to observation. Thus, while no other ancient system worked so well there were
fundamental problems with planetary positions and the precession of the equinoxes that
did not conform with the best available observations [KUHN70]. This is where
Copernicus focused in recognizing the anomalies with the existing paradigm and
proposing a new theory that established a new paradigm as well.

A key point in Kuhn’s model is that “discovery commences with the awareness of
anomaly …” [KUHN70]. Copernicus realized that there were ample anomalies in the
movement of the planets and by realizing that there must be a better way to explain these
motions he (re)discovered the heliocentrinc view. He was well aware that this view was a
paradigm shift so much so that he did not publish his complete views until on his
deathbed.

Once the paradigm has shifted normal science resumes the “mopping-up” and work of
paradigm articulation begins. In the case of Copernicus many people began the mopping

11
up work to get the new paradigm set correctly. These included Bruno, Galileo, Kepler,
and even Newton. Even Tycho Brahe reacted to Copernicus by not accepting his theory
altogether. This is a form of paradigm reaction.

A few other points should be made on what Kuhn felt a paradigm is in reflection to our
understanding of the Copernican revolution. A paradigm should a) be sufficiently
unprecedented so as to attract a group of adherents, and b) open ended enough to allow
others to resolve problems. This was certainly the case for the Copernican revolution as
we have seen. What normal science focuses on includes the determination of fact,
matching facts to theory, and articulation of theory [KUHN70]. With Copernicus’ theory
people followed in each of these areas. The calculation of stellar parallax was meant to
determine fact about the theory, Kepler’s work in planetary motion expanded the
Copernican view by matching new facts to expanded theory, and Galileo articulated the
theory through adding facts of new discovery.

Finally, Kuhn makes the proposition that after Copernicus astronomers began making
new discoveries that may have been right before their eyes previously but were blocked
by the prevailing paradigm of Ptolemaic thought. Specifically, the discovery of Uranus as
a new planet came in the wake of the Copernican revolution. In this case, Western
astronomers had a hard time accepting their observations as true since they were still of
the mind that the heavens were fixed and nothing new could be uncovered. Interestingly,
this was not true of Chinese astronomy and they often discovered new things in the sky
[KUHN70]. This blindness prior to a paradigm shift and the new eyes following the
paradigm shift is a further impact of Copernicus’ work.

Conclusions

I n this paper we have taken a detailed look at the life and work of Copernicus and the
reaction to his work. From there we outlined the key concepts of Kuhn’s work on
what is meant by a Scientific Revolution and then analyzed Copernicus’ work from
this perspective. What we are left with is the fact that Copernicus greatly influenced our
modern scientific world as well as that of our social and religious outlooks.

His planetary theories profoundly effected man's relation to God and the
universe and further, were catalytic to the transition from a medieval to a
modern Western society. The Copernican theory created tremendous
controversies in religion, philosophy and social theory which have set the
tenor of the modern mind. [HORN01]

Moreover, from every angle provided by Kuhn, Copernicus did in fact set in motion a
paradigm shift and a scientific revolution of wide scale impact. Ptolemaic astronomy was
in crisis and full of anomalies. Copernicus recognized these and sought out an alternate
basis for explaining them thus establishing a new paradigm. This new paradigm was
resisted broadly at the same time it was accepted by some. It also generated 150 years of
follow on work in theory articulation.

12
 The impact of Copernicus cannot be understated. Using Kuhn to understand this impact
and how it came about is a very useful mechanism Kuhn himself used Copernicus
abundantly as a model in explaining his theories of scientific revolution. Both Copernicus
and Kuhn thus have a special relationship with each other: one demonstrating the
concepts of the other boldly and emphatically; the other explaining how such actions take
place in science.

References
1. [ANON07] Anonymous, Thomas Kuhn,
http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/Kuhnsnap.html, viewed 3/12/07.
2. [APPL05] Applebaum, Wilber, The Scientific Revolution and the Foundations of
Modern Science, Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut, 2005.
3. [ARMI47] Armitage, Angus, Sun Stand Thou Still: The Life and Work of
Copernicus the Astronomer, Henry Schuman, New York, 1947.
4. [CARD07] Cardall & Daunt, The Copernican Model: A Sun-Centered Solar System,
Dept of Physics & Astronomy University of Tennessee, viewed 3/14/07,
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/retrograde/copernican.html
5. [GILL71] Gillispie, C. C., ed., Copernicus, Nicholas, Dictionary of Scientific
Biography, Vol III, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1971.
6. [HORN01] Hornsby, Roy, How did the Copernican revolution contribute to the
emergence of a scientific world-view?,
http://www.royby.com/philosophy/pages/copernicus.html, viewed 3/12/07.
7. [LIND92] Lindeberg, D. C., The Beginnings of Western Science: The European
Scientific Tradition in Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context, 600
BC to AD 1450, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1992.
8. [KUHN70] Kuhn, Thomas, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed., The
University of Chicago Press, Chicgo,1970.
9. [PAJA07] Pajares, Frank, Outline and Study Guide for Structure of Scientific
Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn, Emory University,
http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/Kuhn.html, viewed 3/12/07.
10. [STET30] Stetson, Harlan True, Man and the Stars, Whittlesey House, McGraw-
Hill Book Company, Inc, New York, 1930.
11. [WUDK98] Wudka, Joe, The Copernican Revolution
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node41.html, 9/24/1998, viewed
3/12/07.

13

View publication stats