Kuhn, Paradigms, and Astronomy

Kuhn, Paradigms, and Astronomy: Astronomy as a Case Study of Kuhnian Paradigms
Author(s): J. Bruce Brackenridge

Source: Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society , Dec., 1985, Vol. 129, No. 4
(Dec., 1985), pp. 433-455
Published by: American Philosophical Society
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/986938
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
American Philosophical Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society
This content downloaded from

176.61.158.237 on Wed, 03 Feb 2021 15:16:34 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Kuhn, Paradigms, and Astronomy:
Astronomy as a Case Study of Kuhnian Paradigms
J. BRUCE BRACKENRIDGE
I. INTRODUCTION other's [sic] answers, he created his own."

Clearly, the scientific activity described and
T homas Kuhn's The Structure of Scien- the terms employed are familiar to the
tific Revolutions is a small book pub- working physicist. In contrast to Popper's
lished in 1962 by a young physicist "falsification" and Lakatos's "competing
turned historian of science turned philospher programmes," the average physicist can rec-
of science.' In the twenty years following itsognize Kuhn's analogy of "normal science"
publication it has sold more than half a mil- with "puzzle solving." His use of "anomaly"
lion copies of its two English editions plus to identify a particularly difficult puzzle that
translations into eighteen languages. The is not yet solved fits into many textbook de-
Science Citation Index for 1981 lists nearly scriptions of scientific activity. "Crisis" as a
one hundred articles published in that year state that may be produced by extremely
alone that cite SSR. The Social Science Citation persistent anomalies (black-body radiation,
Index for the same year lists more than three for example) and the ensuing "scientific rev-
times that amount.2 It has been reviewed in olution" that bends established rules (Quan-
a variety of scholarly journals3 and has been tum postulates) are all familiar to the in-
the subject of a very large number of schol- structor in physics. Even Kuhn's elusive
arly articles.4 But its scholarly success should concept of a "paradigm" strikes a sympa-
not imply that it was or is universally ac- thetic chord with many physicists, particu-
cepted as a new dogma of "what science is." larly in the more restricted form of a "set of
Quite the contrary, it is enthusiastically ac- exemplars."
claimed by some, vigorously opposed by The comments on Kuhn's work range
others, but rarely is it ignored. What is clear, from "brilliant new insights" to a "brilliant
however, is that it offers to opponents and wrong idea." But brilliant or banal, Kuhn has
supporters alike a fresh, incisive, and mean- become a factor to deal with for anyone with
ingful view of the complex activity called an interest in the structure of science. It may
science. be, as some have claimed, that "Kuhn's
Perhaps Kuhn's initial appearance of overall idea about science is wrong-and
"freshness" came from his lack of profes- many of those who think it is right have
sional training in the humanities. The work simply misunderstood it." I shall argue,
was written after he finished his formal however, that many of those who are most
training in physics and before being indoc- vocal in attacking Kuhn have not fully un-
trinated into the formal language of the his- derstood an important aspect of his views.
torian and philosopher of science. As one In any event, there is ample support for
reviewer put it, "It is a tribute to the power reading the work, right or wrong. The review
of Kuhn's mind that, instead of grasping in The Chronicle of Higher Education [note 2]
PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY, VOL. 129, NO. 4, 1985
433

176.61.158.237 on Wed, 03 Feb 2021 15:16:34 UTC
434 J. BRUCE BRACKENRIDGE
concludes with the following appraisal: ence in 1962 with the publication of his book
"Across the board, however, professors agree The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. It is
that it is invaluable as a textbook, and as a because of this precise sequence of interests,
starting point for any discussion of the phi- first a practicing physicist, then a historian
losophy of science. . . . Nearly everyone of science, and finally a philosopher of sci-
agrees that there are countless valuable in- ence, that Kuhn has been capable of new
sights in his book." insights generally denied philosophers not
The goal of science is to create a model of trained in physics. The price he had to pay,
the world that scientists can understand. The however, was that he has had to battle to
goal of philosophy of science is to create a achieve a sense of historical perspective that
model of science that philosophers can un- normally is part of the training of the hu-
derstand. It is Kuhn's intent in SSR to offer manist, but not of the scientist. The final
an alternative to the traditional Baconian combination of these two elements, one
view of science as an inductive process that "obvious" to the trained physicist and the
moves from naive facts to sophisticated hy- other "obvious" to the trained historian, are
pothesis in some natural fashion. In what employed by Kuhn in his key concept of a
follows, I neither defend nor attack Kuhn's "paradigm." It is at once the solution to and
analysis of the structure of science and its the source of the problems that Kuhn faces
progress. Nor do I offer any evaluation of it from his multiple critics.
except to applaud it as an attempt to give an
alternative view of the complex activity that The concept of paradigms proved to be the miss-
is science. Rather, I use astronomy as a case ing element I [Kuhn] required in order to write
the book [SSR].. . . Unfortunately, in that process,
study to present my views of Kuhn's views
paradigms took on a life of their own.. . . Having
of progress in science.
begun simply as exemplary problem solutions
[that aspect obvious to the physicist], they ex-
II. THE SENSES OF "PARADIGM" panded their empire to include first, the classic
books in which these accepted examples initially
The key to understanding Kuhn is a bio- appeared and, finally, the entire global set of
graphical one. And no one understands it commitments shared by the members of a partic-
better than Kuhn himself. There are constantular scientific community [that aspect obvious to
references to "autobiographical information" the historian]. That more global use of the term
as he attempts to develop his thesis. He was is the only one most readers of the book have
first trained as a physicist, and from an anal- recognized, and the inevitable result has been
confusion.. .. Clearly, I have made unnecessary
ysis of this training he was to gain his first
difficulties for many readers.5
original insights for his model of Normal
Science. Then, after completing his Ph.D. in Despite the difficulty inherent in under-
physics, he had the opportunity to spend standing the concept of paradigms as set
three years as a Junior Fellow at the Society forth in SSR, Kuhn defends their importance.
of Fellows of Harvard University, and it was In an essay entitled, "Second Thoughts on
here that, as Kuhn puts it, "James B. Conant Paradigm," he states, "However imperfectly
* . first introduced me to the history of sci- I [Kuhn] understood paradigms when I wrote
ence and thus . . . initiated the transfor- the book, I still think them worth much at-
mation in my conception of the nature of tention."6
scientific advance." This interest in the his- The inherent confusion in Kuhn's initial
tory of science gave rise in 1957 to his book discussion of paradigms is set forth in an es-
The Copernican Revolution, and he entered say by Margaret Masterman entitled "The
the lists of professional philosophers of sci- Nature of a Paradigm," in which she takes

176.61.158.237 on Wed, 03 Feb 2021 15:16:34 UTC
KUHN, PARADIGMS AND ASTRONOMY 435
to task Kuhn's multiple use of the word par- exemplars." It is this global sense of para-
adigm.7 Masterman's essay was not in the digm, the disciplinary matrix, that most
nature of a controversial commentary; quite readers have recognized. It is the more re-
the contrary, she is very supportive of Kuhn's stricted sense, the set of exemplars, that, de-
work. In her opening line she stated, "The spite its primary and concrete nature, has
purpose of this paper is to elucidate T. S. escaped most historians and philosophers
Kuhn's conception of a paradigm; and it is who have commented upon Kuhn's work.
written on the assumption that T. S. Kuhn
is one of the outstanding philosophers of our A. PARADIGM AS A "SET OF EXEMPLARS"
time." She admitted, though, that "Kuhn, of

This restricted sense of paradigm is as ob-
course, with that quasipoetic style of his,
vious to the physicist as it is elusive to the
makes paradigm-elucidation genuinely dif-
humanist. Kuhn's genius was to see how it
ficult for the superficial reader."8 To dem-
could serve to give insights into the larger
onstrate the challenge of understanding
structure of science. Put very simply, physics
Kuhn's "poetry," she added that "on my
is what physicists do and physicists do what
counting, he uses 'paradigm' in not less than
they are taught to do. Moreover, physicists
twenty-one different senses," and she then
are taught from textbooks. And it was an
identified all twenty-one. She then at-
attempt to understand this textbook tradition
tempted masterfully to condense all twenty-
of physics that led Kuhn to his initial insights
one into three main categories.9
into the entire structure of physics. He de-
In a postscript added to his second edition
scribed this attempt in his preface to his col-
of SSR, Kuhn refers directly to Masterman's
lected essays.
analytical index of the different senses in
which the term"paradigm" is used in the At that time I [Kuhn] conceived normal science
body of his text, but he tacitly rejects her as the result of a consensus among members of a
classification schemes.'0 In what may be scientific community. Difficulties arose, however,
taken to be a masterful understatement he when I tried to specify that consensus by enu-
claims "that most of the differences [in the merating the elements about which members of
way in which the term 'paradigm' is used] a given community supposedly agree.. . . I had
to attribute to them agreement about the defining
are, I now think, due to stylistic inconsisten-
characteristics of such quasi-theoretical terms as
cies . . . and they can be eliminated with
'force' and 'mass', or 'mixture' and 'compound'.
relative ease."11 In this new edition, how-
But experience, both as scientist and historian,
ever, he does not attempt that "editorial"
suggested that such definitions were seldom
task of removing the "stylistic inconsisten- taught.. . . What I finally realized early in 1959
cies" in the body of the essay, but in a post- was that no consensus of quite that kind was re-
script he does clarify how it could be done. quired. If scientists were not taught definitions,
But with that editorial work done, Kuhn they were taught standard ways to solve selected
states, "two very different usages of the term problems in which terms like 'force' or 'com-
[paradigm] would remain, and they require pound' figured. If they accepted a sufficient set
separation. Until the term [paradigm] can be of these standard examples, they could model
freed from its current implications, it will their own subsequent research on them without
needing to agree about which set of characteristics
avoid confusion to adopt another [term for
of these examples made them standard.. . . That
it]."'2 He adopts in fact two new terms, one
procedure seemed very close to the one by which
for each of the distinct uses of the term par-
students of language learn to conjugate verbs and
adigm that he is to identify: the "more global decline nouns and adjectives.. . . The usual En-
use" to be called a "disciplinary matrix" and glish word for the standard examples employed
the more restricted use to be called a "set of in language teaching is 'paradigms,' and my ex-

176.61.158.237 on Wed, 03 Feb 2021 15:16:34 UTC
This class IIscientific

tension of that term to standard is described by Stegmiiller
problems as
like the inclined plane and conical pendulum did "the set I of intended applications deter-
it no apparent violence.13 mined by paradigmatic examples."''7 Without
The importance of such "standard sets of attempting to develop the careful and com-
examples" is clear to every instructor in plex analysis of Stegmiiller, which Kuhn ap-
physics. When students report that "they plauds,'8 I wish merely to emphasize that it
have read the chapter of their text, under- is a "set of exemplars" (plural) that Kuhn
stood it perfectly, but nonetheless had dif- identifies as capturing his original intent and
ficulty solving the problems at the end of the that he stresses the need to distinguish be-
chapter,"'14 the temptation for the instructor tween the two "senses" of paradigm.
is to smile. For it is clear that the "under- An example of one of the many who fail
standing" resides in the ability to produce to make such a distinction and thus fail to
problem solutions, not in the "reading of the understand Kuhn's original intent is a re-
chapter." One need only look at the typical viewer of The Essential Tension. He claims
examination in physics to realize that the that central to Kuhn is the hermeneutic
payoff is in the problem replication and not problem of understanding scientific docu-
in the demonstration of having read and un- ments of an earlier period. Further, he claims
derstood (in a literal sense) the chapter. And that the implied answer given by Kuhn is as
it was the realization of how important this follows:
aspect of the education of the physicist was,

Basically, and cutting away most of the philo-
that led Kuhn to his first use of the word
sophical verbiage which Kuhn himself admits to
"paradigm" (literally, he says it means
be superfluous in his "Second Thoughts on Par-
"standard examples"). "[Textbooks] exhibit adigms", one goes to scientific textbooks of the
concrete problem solutions that the profes- period under study and discovers what the "con-
sion has come to accept as paradigms.""15 sensus" of scientists is on any given matter. Then,
And in learning to produce such solutions, and only then, can one read a scientific document
students learn much more than is, or can be, of that period with some security.19
stated explicitly in the chapter. They have to
But Kuhn has pointed out that no such verbal
learn to "think physically," whatever that
means. or formulaic "consensus" is directly articu-
This central element, however, is de- lated in textbooks (see note 13). The entire
scribed by Kuhn as "the most novel and least point of paradigm in the restricted sense (set
understood aspect of this book." As an ex- of exemplars) was to speak to the absence
ample of one of the few who does under- of such a clear consensus. But the reviewer
stand what he means by this central element, has chosen to ignore such distinctions, and
Kuhn points to the work of Wolfgang Steg- he continues throughout the remainder of
muller: the review to flail away at paradigm as the
"consensus found in textbooks." The re-
Though both senses [of paradigm] seem to me viewer has failed to understand the impor-
important, they do need to be distinguished and
tance Kuhn places on the role of the set of
the word 'paradigm' is appropriate only to the
exemplars in textbooks.
first [exemplars]. Clearly I have made unnecessary
Why has this "restricted" sense of para-
difficulties for many readers. . . . Wolfgang
digm been so completely overlooked by
Stegmiiller has been especially successful in find-
ing his way through these difficulties. . . . He Kuhn's commentators? One answer may be
that
discusses three senses of the term, and the second, they are not teaching introductory sci-
ence courses and hence are not aware of the
his Class II, captures precisely my original intent
[exemplars]."6 importance of concrete problem replication

176.61.158.237 on Wed, 03 Feb 2021 15:16:34 UTC
in textbooks of science. It follows that they ences as a practising historian of science. What
would thus be less likely to grasp the subtle we find above all is the influence of his discovery
sense in which, for Kuhn, the textbook and in 1947 of "the connected rudiments of an alter-
its sets of exemplars (the restricted sense ofnative way of reading (historical) texts," according
to which in order to understand why, say, Aris-
paradigm) reflects the nature of the disci-
totelian physicists said what they did, it is nec-
plinary matrix (the global sense of paradigm).
essary "to some extent (to leam) to think like one"
Put most simply, there are important aspects
(p. xi and p. xii). This discovery which-as Kuhn
in the teaching and practice of science that himself notes (p. xiii)-is commonplace among
cannot be articulated literally but that nev- historians, was for him nothing short of "decisive"
ertheless play important roles. Kuhn's failure (p. xii), influencing many of his views about the
to find a consensus in the descriptive material correct way of practising history of science, the
in scientific textbooks led him to his restric- origins of modern science and the nature of sci-
tive sense of paradigm, and this discovery entific change.20
then led to the more global sense, the dis- In order to "think like" an Aristotelian
ciplinary matrix. physicist, the historian of science must
Moreover, Kuhn may still be guilty in his somehow be able to shift from his contem-
postscript of the "stylistic inconsistencies" porary world view to that of the Aristotelian,
that he acknowledges in his original essay. or at least to be aware of and responsive to
Further confusion concerning the term "ex- such differences. It is not part of the training
emplar" occurs when it is seen to be a single of the contemporary physicist to be aware
major work (such as Newton's Principia) or that such differences exist and are important.
as a single problem solution (such as the Quite the contrary, modern textbooks in
planetary ellipses, Proposition XI, Book I) physics, Kuhn would claim, are written to
after which all other solutions are somehow obscure such differences and to ascribe to
imperfectly modeled (see footnote 13). And the discipline a linear development. Primary
Kuhn's rather indiscriminate use of the sin- sources such as Newton's Principia are not
gular and plural forms of paradigm for "ex- read (for the work is, in fact, quite incom-
emplars" or for "sets of exemplars" adds to prehensible to a contemporary physicist).
this confusion. In his attempt to eliminate Instead, the textbook presents the material
"stylistic inconsistencies" he would have in the most efficient way and gives the source
been well advised to be consistent in iden- credit for what it "should" have said. It rarely
tifying the central element of the disciplinary
seems important in understanding contem-
matrix by a single phrase, and I suggest that porary science to try to "think like" Newton,
"set of exemplars" would be most appro- much less like Aristotle. It was as a historian,
priate. however, in the attempt to understand such
world views, i.e., such global sets of com-
B. PARADIGM AS A "DISCIPLINARY MATRIX"
mitments, that Kuhn was led to his concep-
If the more restricted sense of paradigm tion of the larger sense of paradigm, the dis-
(set of exemplars) came from Kuhn's initial ciplinary matrix.
training as a physicist, then this more global If the problem of understanding Kuhn's
sense (disciplinary matrix) came from his original meaning for paradigm as "a set of
subsequent training as a historian. As an- exemplars" is that it is so restrictive, then the
other reviewer of Kuhn's collected essays problem of understanding his meaning for
puts it: paradigm as "a disciplinary matrix" is that
it is so global. It is called " 'disciplinary' be-
One of the more striking aspects of Kuhn's work cause it refers to the common possession of
is how much of it is shaped by his early experi- the practitioners of a particular discipline;

176.61.158.237 on Wed, 03 Feb 2021 15:16:34 UTC
'matrix' because it is composed of ordered be made only within the context of a given
elements of various sorts, each requiring usage. But a choice must be made if confu-
further specification." Kuhn gives three of sion is to be avoided.21
the "ordered elements" of the matrix: (1)
symbolic generalization, (2) metaphysical Matrix Elements
parts, and (3) shared values. This listing does
There is, however, still more to be gained
not constitute "an exhaustive list," however,
from further inspection of the individual
but contains simply "the main sorts of com-
elements of the disciplinary matrix that Kuhn
ponents of a disciplinary matrix." Further,
discusses. Clearly these are examples of ele-
these elements "require further specifica-
ments that can be articulated, and as such
tion" and perhaps may themselves contain
they are closely affiliated with the "rules"
subsections.
that guide scientific behavior. It is instructive
It is essential to note the correspondence
to look more closely at the three elements of
between paradigm as a set of exemplars and
the disciplinary matrix given by Kuhn and
paradigm as a disciplinary matrix relative to
then at his examples of the "rules" that can
their intrinsic inability to be fully articulated.
be abstracted from them.
Just as it is impossible to articulate all the
elements of the disciplinary matrix or even I. Symbolic generalizations: The first ele-
to spell out in complete detail any given element of the matrix that is identified is labeled
ment, so it is impossible within a chapter of "symbolic generalizations" and Newton's
a textbook to articulate all that is essential to second law, f = ma, is given as a prime ex-
understanding the topic under discussion. ample.22 Two functions of this element are
One must rely on the set of exemplars that given to indicate the kind of "further spec-
appears as problem sets at the end of the ification" that is useful. First, "these gener-
chapter to communicate by example that alizations look like laws of nature": that is,
which cannot be literally articulated. they tell something about the behavior of
defined symbols. But they "simultaneously
C. PARADIGM AS A MATRIX ELEMENT serve a second function . . . as definitions
of some of the symbols they deploy."
Kuhn is thus hopeful that he will have II. Metaphysical parts: The second element
eliminated much of the confusion and un- of the matrix can be called "metaphysical
necessary difficulties that arise for many parts," or at least, Kuhn claims, that is the
readers concerning the meaning of "para- rubric that has been used by commentators
digm" by distinguishing between the two on his work.23 He describes these shared
senses of the term: "sets of exemplars" and commitments as "beliefs in particular mod-
"disciplinary matrix." Unfortunately, in SSR els" and gives as one of a number of ex-
Kuhn also refers to a third item as a "para- amples the belief that "all perceptible
digm": a single element of a disciplinary phenomena are due to the interaction of
matrix other than the unique central element qualitatively neutral atoms in the void, or,
that is the set of exemplars. These references alternatively, to matter and force, or to
occur in the original edition, before the dis- fields."
tinction between exemplars and a matrix is III. Shared values: The third element of the
made, thus one can understand the source matrix is described as "shared values."24 This
of the additional confusion. Nevertheless, element, like all elements in a particular ma-
the reader has in fact three choices for the trix, is shared by members of the discipline.
term "paradigm" each time it appears in the But, according to Kuhn, particular values are
body of the original text, and the choice can more often shared by different disciplines

176.61.158.237 on Wed, 03 Feb 2021 15:16:34 UTC
than are either symbolic generalizations or disciplinary matrix could be called "instru-
models. A prime example might be "values mental commitments."
held concerning predictions: they should be One could go on, as Kuhn has indicated,
accurate; quantitative predictions are pref- filling out matrix elements in a very general
erable to qualitative ones," etc. way, perhaps some even as diffuse as "po-
litical commitments." Regardless of how
Rules and Matrix Elements carefully one attempted to set forth such ele-
ments, however, some could not be articu-
Further insight into what Kuhn means by lated. Just as the scientist as educator must
the disciplinary matrix can be obtained from rely on the sets of exemplars to communicate
his discussion of "rules," a term whose re- aspects of science that cannot be written
lationship to normal science and paradigms down in the textbook, so the scientist as re-
is the topic of two chapters in SSR. "Rules" searcher must rely on rules that cannot be
are defined as "isolable elements, explicit or fully articulated to guide research and be-
implicit, [that] members of the community havior.
may have abstracted from their more global
paradigms."25 In terms of the previous dis- III. ASTRONOMY AS A "CONSTELLATION
cussion of disciplinary matrix, rules are those OF GROUP COMMITMENT"
portions of the disciplinary matrix that can
be literally articulated. One could continue to try to expand the
The first category of rules is identified as disciplinary matrix by seeking out other
"generalizations" and stems directly from general examples of elements. It is more
the element of the disciplinary matrix called productive, however, to select a given sci-
"symbolic generalization."26 Newton's sec- entific discipline and to inspect it for the
ond law appears as the example in both de- given Kuhnian elements. A logical choice for
scriptions. The second category of rules is the case study is astronomy. In a 1976 essay
entitled "quasi-metaphysical commitments" entitled "Mathematical versus Experimen-
and is directly related to the element of the tal Traditions," Kuhn asks the question,
disciplinary matrix called "metaphysical "Among the large number of topics now in-
parts."27 The third category of rules listedcluded
by in the physical sciences, which ones
Kuhn entails "still a higher level . . . a set were already in antiquity foci for the con-
of commitments without which no man is a tinuing activity of specialists? The list is ex-
scientist."28 This set of rules is related to the tremely short. Astronomy is its oldest and
third element of the disciplinary matrix called most developed component."30 The other
"shared values" and it is important since it "classical" sciences on his short list include
is this matrix element that appears to survive only statics and optics. The other areas that
during revolutions from one paradigm to we now designate as physical sciences arose
another. during the seventeenth century and Kuhn
Kuhn further provides a fourth category refers to them as the "Baconian" or "Exper-
of rules and it indicates a fourth element of imental" sciences. Thus, because of its long
the disciplinary matrix. At a lower and more history, and because it lends itself most easily
concrete level than "symbolic generaliza- to Kuhn's analysis (see Stegmiiller, note 17
tions," there exists in Kuhn's categorizing of and 18), astronomy is selected as the case
rules a commitment to preferred types of in- study. It played such a role for Kuhn, since
strumentation and to the ways in which ac- he published The Copernican Revolution only
cepted instruments may be legitimately em- five years before he published SSR.
ployed.29 The corresponding element of the The history of planetary astronomy may

176.61.158.237 on Wed, 03 Feb 2021 15:16:34 UTC
be divided into three major areas:

i.e., that which Babylonian
Kuhn calls a revolution or
arithmetical astronomy, Greek geometrical paradigm-switch. A major anomaly for as-
astronomy, and Newtonian analytical astronomers before the eighteenth century was
tronomy. It is useful to concentrate upon a the puzzle that was the description of the
specific problem, such as the analysis of the motion of the planet Mars. The mandated
motion of the planet Mars. The general major revision of the rules required astron-
problem of planetary motion was the single omers to set aside the belief that the motion
most important topic in astronomy from the of planets could be described only by com-
nineteenth century B.C. to the nineteenth binations of perfect circles. This puzzle was
century A.D. The solution to the specific finally solved by Newton in 1687 when he
problem of the description of the motion of was able to derive Kepler's planetary ellipse
Mars, in fact, was the watershed between of 1609.
Greek geometrical and Newtonian analytical By the early eighteenth century, Western
astronomy. astronomy was centered about a single work,
This third and final section explores the The Principia of Sir Isaac Newton, just as
correspondence between the specific prac- western astronomy before the seventeenth
tices of astronomy in a given period and century was centered on another single
Kuhn's definition of the general structure ofwork, The Almagest of Ptolemy. Kuhn claims
science. The three redefinitions of paradigm that before the time of scientific textbooks
(set of exemplars, disciplinary matrix, and and journals, such classic works functioned
individual matrix elements) will be eluci- in their stead "to attract an enduring group
dated by specific and detailed examples, and of adherents away from competing modes
Kuhn's use of "anomaly" and "counter- of scientific activity [and] . . . to leave all
instance" will be explicated. sorts of problems for the redefined group of
In terms of Kuhn's analogy of normal sci- practitioners to resolve."36 Kuhn then goes
ence as a puzzle-solving activity, an anomaly on to say that "achievements that share these
is a puzzle that science has not yet been able two characteristics I shall henceforth refer to
to solve, but one that it expects to solve. Until as 'paradigms'."37 It is clear now from the
such a solution is found, the scientist must postscript in the second edition of SSR that
face "the recognition that nature has some- the concrete problem-solutions within each
how violated the paradigm-induced expec- work are the paradigm in the restricted sense
tations that govern normal science.""31 A (now called a "set of exemplars"), and fur-
counterinstance in the vocabulary of philos- ther that the symbolic generalizations, mod-
ophy of science is an anomaly.32 For the phi- els, and values, along with all other shared
losopher it is an example of an item that is commitments that the work reveals, are also
counter "to a prevalent epistemological the- the paradigm in the global sense (now called
ory."33 But "normal" scientists do not the "disciplinary matrix"). There are many
treat anomalies as counterinstances.34 What case studies that could be selected but as-
"normal" scientists will do, however, is to tronomy is of particular interest because a
"devise numerous articulations and ad hoc single dominant source does exist for astron-
modifications of their theory [elements of omy in each of two widely separated periods
their disciplinary matrix] in order to eliminate of scientific activity.
any apparent conflict."35 The anomaly is seen
by scientists as a counterinstance only when A. NEWTONIAN ANALYTICAL ASTRONOMY
all such paradigmatic adjustments fail and
when a solution is found that requires a ma- Newtonian analytical astronomy provides
jor revision in the rules of puzzle-solving, a clear example of what Kuhn means by a

176.61.158.237 on Wed, 03 Feb 2021 15:16:34 UTC
disciplinary matrix. The central element of path and rate of the hypothetical planet,
this disciplinary matrix of the "enduring Newton derived the nature of the force that
group of adherents" attracted to astronomy must exist between the sun and the planet.
by the Principia is the Kuhnian set of ex- Employed in this analysis is an embryonic
emplars that are to be found in the problems,form of the relationship f = ma, which is to
answers, and demonstrations contained become known as Newton's Second Law.38
within this work. The Principia is, in fact, It is this relationship in concert with New-
almost entirely a collection of specific prob- ton's Law of Universal Gravitation that is to
lems and specific methods for obtaining their supply the method of analysis for centuries
specific solutions. There is an introduction to come. Kepler used Tycho Brahe's astro-
of 19 pages containing definitions and laws nomical data to arrive at two of his empirical
of motion, followed by the 245 pages of laws of planetary motion in his New Astron-
Books I and II, containing 58 problems and omy. Newton used his Second Law of Motion
their detailed solutions and 91 theorems and (f = ma) and his presumption of a Universal
their proofs. Book III opens with two pages Law of Gravitation to derive the explicit
of rules of reasoning and closes with two mathematical nature of the gravitational
pages of a general scholium, but the inter- force.
vening 97 pages contain 22 problems and The second step in the solution is to ex-
their solutions, 20 theorems and their proofs,
pand the scope of the problem to include the
and six statements on phenomena. The road effect of other bodies: i.e., the simultaneous
to articulation of Newtonian astronomy is effect of the sun and other planets on the
clear. Begin at the center of the disciplinary motion of the planet in question. It is an at-
matrix with the concrete problem solutions tempt to make the initial ideal problem (a
in the Principia that constitute the basic set single planet about a single force center)
of exemplars and then attempt to articulate conform more closely to the actual problem.
as many of the other elements of the disci- The solution by Newton in the Principia does
plinary matrix as possible. In what follows, not directly apply gravitational theory and
one particular concrete problem solution, the the new calculus in the exact form employed
motion of the planet Mars, is selected and by the Newtonians to follow. Nevertheless,
Newton's solution is analyzed in three steps. Newton's solution provides the model.
In the third and final step, the result must
The Central Element: The "Set be compared to the actual values of obser-
of Exemplars" vation and, given theoretical and experi-
mental limitations, it must be judged in light
The first step addresses the general prob- of the match between the predicted and ob-
lem of the idealized motion of any single served values. In insisting on such a careful
isolated planet about a fixed sun. Newton match between astronomical predictions and
assumed that the motion of such an ideal observations, Newton carries on a long es-
planet will be an ellipse with the sun located tablished tradition.
at one focus. Further the planet will move
at a rate such that a line drawn from the sun
The Extended Disciplinary Matrix
at the focus of the ellipse to the planet mov-
ing on the curve of the ellipse will sweep out I. Symbolic generalizations: But Kuhn ar-
equal areas in equal times. Such planetary gues that such concrete problem-solutions
motion has been demonstrated by Kepler to reveal more than just how-to-do-it. Careful
be valid for Mars within certain carefully inspection of the set of exemplars reveals
prescribed limits. From this knowledge of the evidence of other elements of the disciplinary

176.61.158.237 on Wed, 03 Feb 2021 15:16:34 UTC
matrix. The particular application of the in particular, for it is obvious from the tre-
gravitational force represents a special case mendous success of the Principia that force
of the "f" in Newton's second law, f = ma, does exist. To this belief in the existence of
and the mass of the planet is the "m" in the gravitational force, one can also add a belief
law. The acceleration is represented by "a" in its universality. It has the same nature on
and mathematical methods exist for getting the moon and on Mars as it has on earth,
from it to knowledge of the path of "m" in even though no one had ever been to the
space and time. This law is an example, Kuhn moon or to Mars. Newtonian astronomers
tells us, of the element of the disciplinary also believe that planets move about the sun
matrix that he calls a "symbolic generaliza- and not about the earth. The belief is so uni-
tion." These generalizations look like laws versal, however, that Newton did not even
of nature but they serve a wider function. raise this once controversial question in the
Kuhn claims that "they function in part as Principia. All Newtonian astronomers know
laws but also in part as definitions of some that the sun is fixed, even though the relative
of the symbols they employ."39 It is this sec- motion of Mars to earth would be the same
ond function that undergoes a change in a if the earth were stationary and the sun
"revolution" and thus permits the formal moved with Mars revolving about it.
expression of the law to remain unchanged. III. Shared values: Finally, the nature of
II. Metaphysical parts: One should also the solution to the problem of Mars given in
find traces of commitment to the element of the set of exemplars in the Principia should
the disciplinary matrix called the "meta- reveal traces of the element of the disciplin-
physical parts"; i.e., to belief in items that ary matrix that Kuhn calls "shared values."
have to do with the essential nature of reality As an example, he suggests that "probably
and as such are beyond direct physical dem- the most deeply held values concern predic-
onstration. Kuhn gives as an example the tions: they should be accurate; [and] quan-
belief in matter and force.40 Immediately titative predictions are preferable to quali-
upon the publication of the Principia, and tative ones."42 Book III of the Principia
for some time following, there was consid- demonstrates clearly that Newtonian as-
erable controversy over the existence of such tronomy is devoted to fitting experimental
an "occult" thing as a gravitational force that evidence to the quantitative theoretical pre-
mysteriously reached out over enormous dictions of Books I and II.
celestial distances to act on bodies. But as
early as the second edition of the Principia B. GREEK GEOMETRICAL ASTRONOMY
in 1713, the editor of the preface placed such
objections outside the realm of science. He The Kuhnian disciplinary matrix called
stated, "Therefore gravity can by no means Ptolemaic astronomy is to be defined by the
be called an occult cause of the celestial mo- activities of the enduring group of adherents
tions, because it is plain from the phenomena attracted to astronomy by the Greek astron-
that such a power does really exist.""4 What omer Ptolemy, in his Almagest, and its
is plain, however, is that if one believes that Kuhnian set of exemplars are to be found in
force exists and if one learns to use force the the problems, answers, and demonstrations
way Newton used it in the Principia, then contained within this work.43 The Almagest,
one can solve problems that one's colleagues like the Principia, is particularly well-suited
will agree are important. So good Newtonian to supplying exemplars. After the first few
astronomers must not waste time arguing descriptive pages of Book I, it continues on
about such questions as the existence of for another 400 or 500 pages of demonstra-
forces in general, or of gravitational forces tions, problems, and solutions. As Newton's

176.61.158.237 on Wed, 03 Feb 2021 15:16:34 UTC
/ ~ ~~~ \ ~~ epicycle
! ~~~~~cent 0a7net
eccentric eq uant
observer
FIG. 1. The basic Ptolemaic scheme for the motion of a planet such as Mars. None of the devices are dra
scale.
Principia served astronomy through the There are three clearly discernible meta-
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, so Pto- physical principles in Greek astronomy.
lemy's Almagest served astronomers from the
second century A.D. until the seventeenth
century. Kepler, in fact, comments that Co- Metaphysical Principles
pernicus would have been well advised to
spend less time looking at Ptolemy and more The first metaphysical principle is the be-
time looking at the heavens. lief in GEOCENTRICITY: the earth is stationary
To parallel the discussion of Newtonian and it is in the center of the universe. This
astronomy, one should here present the view has a great appeal to "common sense,"
sample solution from the Ptolemaic set of although a moving earth did occur in the
exemplars and then identify in it the other Pythagorian celestial scheme. Ptolemy dis-
elements of the disciplinary matrix suggested cusses this question in Book I and argues that
by Kuhn. The reason that this approach everything points to a static central earth.
worked so well for the Principia (assuming The second metaphysical principle is the
that it did) was that we live in a Newtonian belief in CELESTIAL CIRCULARITY: celestial bod-
world and are already familiar with elements ies move in combinations of perfect circles.
such as a belief in mass and force that surface It may not have the same current common
naturally from the example (after all, it is sense appeal as geocentricity but its source
obvious that mass and force exist). What must is one of great authority: Plato. In Plato's
be done with Ptolemaic astronomy is just the Timaeus, the world is described in terms of
reverse: first identify the metaphysical prin- form and copy. Form having been previously
ciples that were obvious for both Ptolemy defined in the Republic, it is clear in what
and all western astronomers from the fourth sense the physical world is a copy. A partic-
century B.C. until the sixteenth century A.D.; ularly interesting question thus arises con-
and second, inspect the set of exemplars to cerning the nature of time. Forms of course
discern the influence of these principles. are eternal, unchanging, and timeless. What

176.61.158.237 on Wed, 03 Feb 2021 15:16:34 UTC
then is the copy of eternity in this world of called "aether" that is perfect and un-
change? Plato tells us that "Time is the mov- changeable. On the one hand, comets must
ing image of eternity." The movement that lie below the lunar sphere, for they come
mirrors eternity must reflect the endlessness into being and pass away. On the other
and uniformity of eternity. Such endless hand, planets and stars must lie above it be-
motion exists only in the circularity of celes- cause they are indestructible. This lunar di-
tial motion. There is no beginning or end to chotomy was a common consensus of Pto-
the circle just as there is no beginning or end lemaic astronomers.
of celestial motion. The fixed stars clearly
move in endless and uniform circles and they
are the celestial clocks that are the copy of Set of Exemplars
the eternity of the forms. Is this Platonic de-
fense of celestial circularity stronger than that It remains, therefore, to see how the set
of the Newtonian defense of the existence of exemplars in the Almagest reveals the
of force? The answer to such a question is implicit acceptance of these three meta-
irrelevant. The essential point is that it was physical principles. The nature of the solu-
everywhere the common consensus among tion to the problem of the motion of Mars is
astronomers. It is obvious that celestial mo- indicated in figure 1, which is from a modem
tion must be circular. That the planets appear text but is faithful to the Almagest. The planet
to move in a more complicated fashion does itself moves uniformly around a small circle
not disturb this conviction of circularity. called an epicycle. The center of the epicycle
Rather, Plato sets the challenge to seek out in turn moves about a larger circle called a
the set of circular motions, which will, when deferent. Note, however, that the earth is
properly combined, "save the phenomena." not at the center of the larger circle, but is
In Kuhn's terms, Ptolemaic astronomy was eccentric to it. This eccentric position of the
"sufficiently open-ended to leave all sorts of earth is not a violation of geocentricity be-
problems for its practitioners to resolve." cause it can be shown that the eccentricity
The third and final metaphysical principle can be replaced by adding yet another epi-
is the belief in the LUNAR DICHOTOMY: the clear cycle with the earth at the actual center. Thus
physical separation between the unchanging the eccentric earth is only a convenience, not
heavens above the lunar sphere and the a necessity. The critical item to notice, how-
changing world below. It also has a very au- ever, is the equant point. This device is Pto-
thoritative source: Aristotle. He agrees with lemy's unique contribution to the analytical
Plato on the existence of forms, except that devices of Greek astronomy. What it does is
Aristotle would not have them exist beyond to separate the motion of the center of the
the world but rather would have them made epicycle into two distinct parts: one of cir-
manifest in matter. Aristotle separates the cularity and one of uniformity. In Kuhn's
universe into two distinct parts: that which terms, this is an "ad hoc adjustment of a
lies above the lunar sphere (i.e., the sphere prevalent epistemological theory" to elimi-
generated by the radius of the moon's motion nate the apparent conflict between the ob-
about the earth), and that which lies below served motion of Mars and the predicted re-
the lunar sphere. Here below, one finds the sults that are possible with existing devices:
basic elements of air, earth, fire, and water, i.e., epicycles without equants. To make the
which can change one into the other. Here data fit, Ptolemy needs the equant. The
is generation and corruption: i.e., things come equant violates the pure rule of combined
into being and they pass away. Above the uniform circular motion of Plato. Thus the
lunar sphere, however, exists a fifth element rule must be modified to the extent that the

176.61.158.237 on Wed, 03 Feb 2021 15:16:34 UTC
circularity and uniformity itare at least

is typically sepa-
2 minutes of arc or less, but
rated (but not discarded). both share the same concern for the fit of
These Ptolemaic devices are capable of theory and observation. That both of the
treating the very elliptical motion of Mercury
disciplinary matrices have a common shared
as well as the more circular motion of Mars. element is not in violation of Kuhn's view
For Mercury, the center of the deferent itself of science. In fact, he suggests that values of
moves in a circle about a point that is neither this sort often survive the revolutions.44
the equant point, nor the earth. The net result
is that the effective deferent is an oval. In C. THE KUHNIAN ASTRONOMICAL REVOLUTION
fact, Mercury is difficult to observe because

of its constant proximity to the sun. Thus the Thus far the discussion has been con-
Ptolemaic oval is in no way an empirical cerned with the Newtonian disciplinary ma-
forerunner of the Keplerian ellipse. Nev- trix that was established in the eighteenth
century and the Ptolemaic disciplinary ma-
ertheless, it does display the versatility of the
Ptolemaic model. To any earlier astronomer trix that remained unchallenged until the
who may have been tempted to blame the middle of the sixteenth century. It remains,
metaphysical presumption of circularity for therefore, to look at this century and a half
his failure to handle such problems, Ptolemy of transition that justly deserves the title of
might have correctly admonished him by 11revolution." In The Structure of Scientific
saying, "It's a poor carpenter who blames Revolutions, Kuhn describes the character-
his tools." istics that such revolutions must share. The
sense of Kuhn's scientific revolution is close
to what is commonly understood by a polit-
Other Elements of the
ical revolution, and Kuhn uses this analogy:
Disciplinary Matrix
"Like the choice between competing political
What then of the other elements of the institutions, that between competing para-
disciplinary matrix that Kuhn has identified? digms proves to be a choice between incom-
patible
It is of interest to find in Ptolemaic astronomy modes of community life."45 Thus the
a symbolic generalization comparable to Kuhnian scientific revolution calls for a
Newton's second law, f = ma. For Ptolemaic switch in paradigms, used in the universal
astronomy, the symbolic generalizations are sense of disciplinary matrices, just as political
the circular and uniform elements of epicy- revolutions call for a switch in political in-
cles, eccentrics, and equants that provide the stitutions. Moreover, Kuhn sets out the two
basic tools of analysis for astronomers from essential characteristics of a classic work that
the second to the seventeenth century. They is to serve as a paradigm in the limited sense
express simultaneously the law of celestial of sets of exemplars.
motion and the definition of what it is, i.e., Their achievement was sufficiently unprecedented
circular, in the same way that f = ma ex- to attract an enduring group of adherents away
presses a law and a definition. from competing modes of scientific activity. Si-
As for the last element, shared values, one multaneously, it was sufficiently open-minded to
need only restate the value on predictions leave all sorts of problems for the redefined group
given for Newtonian astronomy. The Al- of practitioners to resolve.. . . Achievements that
magest is as concerned with theoretical share these two characteristics, I shall henceforth
refer to as a 'paradigm'.46
quantitative predictions and their fit to ob-
servational data as is the Principia. For Pto- Without these two 'bandwagon' character-
lemy, the experimental error is typically 10 istics there can be no new paradigm, and
minutes of arc or more, while for Newton, hence no Kuhnian revolution.

176.61.158.237 on Wed, 03 Feb 2021 15:16:34 UTC
Thus Copernicus's Concerning the Revo- hint to whether the system of Copernicus
lutions of the Celestial Spheres cannot serve, was the physically true one or not."47
in Kuhn's terms, as the central set of exem- Elsewhere in Germany, there were other
plars in a new disciplinary matrix, i.e., no astronomers who supported Copernicus.
paradigm switch or 'revolution' has taken Most notable was Michael Maestlin of Tub-
place. Quite clearly there has been a dramatic ingen University, who was to be the mentor
personal conversion for Copernicus, but a of the great Kepler. But it was not widely
revolution requires community participation. adopted by sixteenth-century astronomers
The Kuhnian test for identifying a central and despite its fundamental re-orientation
element in a new disciplinary matrix requires of the basic framework of mathematical as-
that it share the two essential characteristics tronomical calculations, it does not qualify,
of the 'bandwagon effect,' and here it falls in a Kuhnian sense as a paradigm shift, i.e.,
short. One can name a number of astron- as an astronomical revolution. Neugebauer
omers in Germany, England, and Italy who attributes whatever revolutionary flavor the
supported Copernicus's work. But it never work has to modem hindsight and maintains
had the following that was enjoyed by the that as it stood, it simply perpetuated the
Almagest before it nor the Principia after it. Ptolemaic system.
One is also faced with the problem that
arose even in the anonymous preface of Modem historians, making ample use of the
Concerning the Revolutions of the Celestial advantage of hindsight, stress the revolutionary
significance of the heliocentric system and the
Spheres; i.e., is the motion of the earth merely
simplifications it had introduced. In fact, the actual
a mathematical convenience or does it rep-
computation of planetary position was exactly the
resent a physical fact? The basis of the ar-
ancient pattern and the results are the same. The
gument was laid in antiquity in the Platonic Copemican solar theory is definitely a step in the
charge of "saving the appearances" and wrong direction for the actual computation as well
continued to be a vital question through the as for the underlying cinematic concepts. The
trial of Galileo in the early seventeenth cen- cinematically elegant idea of secondary epicycles
tury. Thus even those who praised the work for the lunar theory and as a substitute for the
and used it, may have done so with major equant . . . does not contribute to make the
reservations concerning the basic premise of planetary phenomena easier to visualize. Had it
not been for Tycho Brahe and Kepler, the Coper-
a fixed sun and a moving earth. The historian
nican system would have contributed to the per-
J. L. E. Dreyer discusses the reception given
petuation of the Ptolemaic system in a slightly
it by the German astronomer Erasmus Rein-
more complicated form but more pleasing to phi-
hold, who had hailed Copernicus's work as losophical minds.48
opening a new era and who had prepared
new tables of celestial motion, the Prutenic But revolutions, scientific, political, or
Tables, based on the analysis and constants Kuhnian, are never represented by a single
of Concerning the Revolutions of the Celestialwork or event. Rather, they take place over
Spheres. Because of the lack of new and de- an extended period of time. The historian
pendable observations, the tables were not Crane Brinton offers a model for political
a great improvement over the Alfonsine Ta- revolution in his book Anatomy of Revolution.
bles that they replaced. Nevertheless, they He identifies four stages that are of impor-
represented a step forward. But, Dreyer tance. The first he calls the "Old Regime,"
claims, all of this could have been done which is a period of increasing unrest. The
without a fundamental conversion: "There second he calls the "Honeymoon Stage" and
was no occasion for Reinhold to make a it is the rule of the moderates or the calm
confession of scientific faith, and he gave before
no the storm. The third stage is the

176.61.158.237 on Wed, 03 Feb 2021 15:16:34 UTC
"Accession of the Extremists" and here metaphysical parts identified in the previous
Brinton discusses the reign of terror and the discussion of Ptolemaic astronomy. Clearly
reshaping of society. The fourth and final the development of astronomy in this critical
stage he calls "Thermidor" or the calm and period of intellectual flux is much more
euphoria after the storm. This model works complicated than such a simplified analysis
well for Brinton for the French Revolution implies. But hopefully it serves to make clear
but less well for the others, i.e., the Ameri- in broad strokes what is implied in Kuhn's
can, the Russian, and the British industrial description of scientific progress.
revolution. Nevertheless, it will serve, how- All historians of science would consider
ever imperfectly, to delineate the steps of the the following three works as critical: (1) Co-
astronomical revolution viewed from the pernicus's Concerning the Revolutions of the
vantage point of Kuhn's structure. Kuhn Celestial Spheres, published in 1543, (2) Kep-
himself is fully aware of the extended nature ler's The New Astronomy, an analysis of the
of revolutions. In the concluding chapters of motion of Mars, published in 1609, (3) and
his earlier work, The Copernican Revolution, Galileo's The Starry Messenger, a report of
he discusses a larger revolution in science his telescopic observations, published in
and cosmology that he calls the Newtonian 1610. Each of these works is a classic in itself,
revolution. This larger revolution is one as fully deserving of that title as the Almagest
"which began with Copernicus and through and the Principia. Each plays a vital role in
which the Copemican Revolution was at last the revolution, but it is not until the Principia
completed."49 Thus for Kuhn the Newtonian has been accepted as the central set of ex-
revolution extends beyond the limits of an emplars that the revolution is complete. I
astronomical revolution and results in the shall argue in Brinton's terms that Coper-
eighteenth century's vision of a "Newtonian nicus plays the role of the moderates in re-
world machine." The more limited astron- sponding to the unrest surrounding the "Old
omical revolution has, for Kuhn, an earlier Regime" of the Almagest, that Kepler, Gali-
terminus. "In so far as the Copernican Rev- leo, and Newton represent the "Accession
olution was a revolution in astronomical of Extremists" who reshape the society, and
thought, its story ends here [the close of the
that the eighteenth century is the "Thermi-
seventeenth century]."50 dor," the calm and euphoria after the storm.
Thus the astronomical revolution that In Kuhn's terms it is possible in a simplified
provides the transition from the Aristotelian fashion to identify an anomaly in the sense
world view, as reflected in the Almagest, to of an unsolved puzzle that served as a focus
the Newtonian world view, as reflected in of interest for each of these works: the
the Principia, takes place over an extended 11anomaly" that represents Copernicus is
period of nearly one hundred and fifty years. theoretical in origin, the "anomaly" that
I have selected three published classic works represents Kepler is experimental in origin,
that can serve as guides through this period. and the "anomaly" that represents Galileo
They cannot serve individually as the central is instrumental in origin.
element of a disciplinary matrix in the same
sense as the Almagest and the Principia, for
Copernicus and "Geocentricity"
there are no "enduring group of adherents"
for whom they serve as a source of a set of Two important central chapters of SSR are
exemplars. They can, however, be identified entitled "Anomaly and the Emergence of
in Brinton's terms with various stages of the Scientific Discoveries" and "Crisis and the
revolution. Moreover, it is possible to identify Emergence of Scientific Theories." In each
with each work a change of one of the three Kuhn gives three examples: the discoveries

176.61.158.237 on Wed, 03 Feb 2021 15:16:34 UTC
of oxygen, x-rays, and the Leyden jar are before Copernicus' announcement."54 He
solutions to the puzzles that were the anom- documents this statement with a reference
alies; the theories of Copemican astronomy, to a work by A. R. Hall that contains a similar
eighteenth-century chemistry, and Max- charge. "Unfortunately it was well known
well's electromagnetism are the response to by 1500-it was a scandal to learning-that
the crisis faced by astronomy, chemistry, and calculations were not verified by observa-
physics in the fifteenth, eighteenth, and tion."55 Hall concludes that Copernican ta-
nineteenth centuries respectively. Clearly the bles were much better than the Alphonsine
more limited anomaly is related to the larger tables and that "the improvement can be at-
crisis and Kuhn anticipates an overlap: "The tributed to the greater accuracy of the Co-
sorts of discoveries considered in the last pernican calculations."56
section (anomalies) were not, at least singly, But the astronomer and historian Owen
responsible for such paradigm shifts as the Gingerich challenges this claim. He has used
Copernican, Newtonian, chemical, and Ein- modern planetary theory and computers to
steinian revolutions."51 It is important here calculate where planets were in the sixteenth
to understand that by the "Copernican rev- century. Moreover, he has compared the
olution" Kuhn means the astronomical rev- calculations of a sixteenth century Ptolemaic
olution that begins with Copernicus and astronomer (Stoeffler, died 1530) with the
ends with Newton. By the "Newtonian rev- calculations of a sixteenth century Coper-
olution" Kuhn means the larger revolution nican astronomer (Stadius, born 1527). Gin-
in science and cosmology that also begins gerich states that "the first result of this
with Copernicus but that goes well beyond comparison is the fact that the errors reach
astronomy in its scope [see note 49]. Coper- approximately the same magnitude before
nicus's Concerning the Revolutions of the and after Copernicus."57 Thus if the state of
Celestial Spheres provides a first critical step predictive astronomy was "a scandal before
in the revolution, but neither it nor Newton's Copernicus' announcement", then clearly it
Principia is to be thought of singly as being remained so immediately after that an-
responsible for a revolution. nouncement. Kuhn recognizes that situation,
Nevertheless, the role of Copernicus in the for in SSR he states "unlike Kepler, the Co-
revolution is by far the most challenging. It pernican theory scarcely improved upon the
is relatively easy to understand the motiva- predictions of planetary positions made by
tion for a final work such as the Principia or Ptolemy."58
of an intermediate work such as The New The second face of Copernicus' monster,
Astronomy; but what is the "crisis" in as- as viewed by Kuhn, is "diffuseness." If this
tronomy that motivates Copernicus to take statement is taken to mean that the Coper-
this revolutionary initial step? Kuhn points nican system is simpler than the Ptolemaic,
out in SSR that "Copernicus himself wrote then it is clearly wrong. Neugebauer, Gin-
in the Preface to the De Revolutionibus that gerich, and others have clearly pointed out
the astronomical tradition he inherited had that this "myth of simplicity" has no foun-
finally created only a monster."52 In his ear- dation in fact. In terms of the detailed cal-
lier work on Copernicus, Kuhn states that culations for any particular planet, Gingerich
"diffuseness and continued inaccuracy- claims that it "would have been very difficult
these are the two principle characteristics forof Copernicus' contemporaries to distin-
the monster described by Copernicus."53 guish between the two schemes on the basis
In SSR Kuhn takes up again the issue of of complexity."59 But Kuhn's reference to
"continued inaccuracy." He claims that "the "diffuseness" rises above mere simplicity. He
state of Ptolemaic astronomy was a scandal is concerned with the many Islamic and Eu-

176.61.158.237 on Wed, 03 Feb 2021 15:16:34 UTC
ropean astronomers who had generated nicus."64 The preface to the Commentariolus
'modified Ptolemaic' systems. "There were is quite short, three paragraphs, and the final
so many variant systems, the adjective paragraph clearly sets out Copernicus' con-
"Ptolemaic" had lost much of its meaning. cern.
The astronomical tradition had become dif-
The theories concerning these matters that have
fuse."60 And in SSR, Kuhn claims that the
been put forth far and wide by Ptolemy and most
monster revealed in the preface to De Re- others, although they correspond numerically
volutionibus "provides one of the classic de- [with the apparent motions], also seemed quite
scriptions of a crisis state."-61 doubtful, for these theories were inadequate un-
Gingerich suggests, however, an alternate less they also envisioned certain equant circles, on
view of what motivates Copernicus. He account of which it appeared that the planet never
points out that in the preface Copernicus moves with uniform velocity either in its deferent
faults other systems for failing to discern insphere or with respect to its proper center. There-
fore a theory of this kind seemed neither per-
the design of the universe a "fixed symmetry
fect enough nor sufficiently in accordance with
of its parts" and thus creating a "monster
reason.65
rather than a man."62
Seen in this fashion, the equant violates the
This "fixed symmetry of its parts" refers to the Platonic charge to employ uniform circularity
fact that, unlike in the Ptolemaic scheme, the rel- to explain celestial motion because the
ative sizes of the planetary orbits in the Coper-
equant separates uniformity from circularity.
nican system are fixed with respect to each other
The attempt to eliminate the equant is thus
and can no longer be independently scaled in size.
an attempt to return to first principles. The
. . .Clearly, this interlinking makes the unified
man, and in contrast the individual pieces of
price that must be paid to restore the meta-
Ptolemy's arrangement become a monster.63 physical principle of celestial circularity to
its pristine form is the destruction of the
Thus from Gingerich's point of view the metaphysical principle of geocentricity. Al-
challenge faced by Copernicus arises in the though Kuhn does not dwell on the equant
initial formulation of the Ptolemaic system as motivation, he clearly recognizes the gen-
with its separate parts rather than with the eral results: "In Copernicus' work the rev-
various revisions of the system itself as sug- olutionary conception of the earth's motion
gested by Kuhn. Therefore, if this challenge is initially an anomalous by-product of a
represented a crisis, Gingerich claims, it is proficient and devoted astronomer's at-
one that should have been in force from the tempt to reform the techniques employed in
time of Ptolemy himself and its role as crisis computing planetary position."66
for Copernicus is thus severely limited. Thus Copernicus is to be seen as a devoted
It is not the charge of this paper, however, Aristotelian who would restore to celestial
to evaluate how well Kuhn's model fits as- motion the Platonic uniformity that Ptole-
tronomical history, but rather to use the lattermy's equant had tarnished. The cost was the
to describe the former. The historian Koyre shift of the center of Plato's celestial circu-
provides an alternative source of crisis that larity from the Earth to the Sun. Thus the
serves this function. He suggests yet another metaphysical principle identified as geocen-
and more specific motivation for Coperni- tricity, which assumed a stationary Earth, has
cus' innovation can be found in his earlier been replaced by the assumption that it is
work the Commentariolus. "It [the Commen- the Sun that is stationary and the Earth that
tariolus] reveals far better than the latter moves. Celestial bodies still do not require
work [De Revolutionibus] some of the con- Newtonian "occult forces" to move them in
siderations that guided the mind of Coper- their natural circles, and the celestial perfec-

176.61.158.237 on Wed, 03 Feb 2021 15:16:34 UTC
tion of the heavens remains unchallenged. allegiance to celestial circularity (Kuhn's

Copernicus challenges the metaphysical metaphysical parts) and his devotion to ac-
principle of geocentricity but he holds to thecuracy (Kuhn's shared values). Tycho's data
principles of celestial circularity and the lunar
for Mars was at least an order of magnitude
dichotomy. Therefore, as Kuhn claims, Con- more accurate than either Ptolemy's or Co-
cerning the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres
pernicus's data. No matter how the celestial
is "a revolution-making rather than a revo- circles were manipulated by Kepler, the dif-
lutionary text."67 ferences between the calculated positions
and measured positions could not be rec-
Kepler and "Celestial Circularity" onciled. The motion of Mars remained an
anomaly. The puzzle could not be solved.
As one places Copernicus on a level with Finally, in desperation, Kepler set aside the
Ptolemy, so one must also place Kepler on a circles and began to experiment with other
level with Newton, both with regard to the geometrical shapes to describe planetary
intensity and creativity of their work and motion. He bent the rules. He abandoned
with its ultimate value to astronomy. Kepler the Platonic charge. The final solution was
sought throughout his life to understand the not a combination of uniform circular mo-
order that God had imposed on the universe. tions, but an ellipse along which the planet
He looked for archetypal cause, expressed in moved with an orderly but varying speed.
geometry, music, and astronomy, that would The metaphysical principle of celestial cir-
reveal the Creator's master plan. He inher- cularity was under attack. In The New As-
ited from Tycho Brahe not only astronomical tronomy, he recorded in great detail all of his
data but the conviction that there were no mistakes and false trials as well as his final
crystalline spheres to carry around the plan- success. These details were a source of dif-
ets. Thus he also looked for physical cause ficulty for the aspiring seventeenth-century
in astronomy, but as an extension and man- astronomer who wanted to get the point, but
ifestation of archetypal cause, not as a sub- a gold mine for the historian or philosopher
stitute for it. He sought to know why there who is concerned with how the progress was
were only five planets and why they were achieved. Arthur Koestler, in his book The
spaced as they were. He sought to know the Sleepwalkers, discusses Kepler's repeated
precise path of the planets and their exact failure to recognize the orbit of Mars as an
positions on that path. Finally, he sought to ellipse, when (from hindsight) it should have
bring it all together in a great expression of been obvious to anyone with Kepler's training
God's "world harmony." that it must be an ellipse. But metaphysical
By the end of the sixteenth century, the convictions die slowly. When the realization
great observational astronomer Tycho Brahe did dawn on Kepler, he expressed his reac-
had completed his new and precise mea- tion by saying, "I felt as if I had been awak-
surements of planetary motion. Fortunately,ened from a sleep."68
upon his death these new measurements But even with Kepler the revolution had
were in the hands of Johannes Kepler, not yet taken place. There was no "enduring
mathematician and astronomer without peer. group of adherents that was attracted away
The improved measurements of the motion from competing modes of scientific activity."
of Mars were the source of a new "anomaly" Galileo knew of Kepler's work but clearly he
whose solution proved so evasive and pro- had not read it. Seventy years later, even
duced such a "crisis" that Kepler was driven Newton had some initial doubts about the
to bend the rules even further. It is interestingexactness of Kepler's results.
to watch the initial conflict between Kepler's So Kepler's New Astronomy, however

176.61.158.237 on Wed, 03 Feb 2021 15:16:34 UTC
powerful, must be relegated to the

on the role Establishment
Scholastic of an than a work
"ad hoc modification" of theory. And
of science andaas closer
such does not fit into the
examination of Kepler's other work does not analysis of astronomy. What little astronomy
counter that suggestion. Planetary circles it does contain is ignorant of the work of
may have been destroyed but God the Cre- Kepler. Rather, of interest is Galileo's small
ator was still God the Geometer and He and work of 1610, entitled The Starry Messenger,
His world spoke to Kepler in the language in which he reports the details of his obser-
of geometry. Although questions of physical vations of the heavens with his telescope.
causes (such as the forces of Newton) are The "crisis" is induced by the appearance of
important in Kepler's work, the geometric the new instrument and the information it
causes still dominated. He maintained a reveals. It is not, however, improved accu-
continued interest in astrology, and ten years
racy or more details of planetary motion that
after The New Astronomy, he published The he reports. Rather, he publishes his obser-
Harmony of the World, a work in which the vations of the things he has seen on the sur-
heavens abound in a harmony expressed in face of the moon. Now the last of the three
planetary positions and motions that can be metaphysical elements of Ptolemaic astron-
recited and revealed in the circular harmo- omy has fallen. The moon is not an Aristo-
nies of music. It was here that Kepler found telian example of celestial perfection. Rather,
a deeper sense of celestial circularity and, it has a surface that contains mountains and
moreover, was convinced that the elliptic craters such as may be found on the earth.
orbit did not destroy celestial circularity but The distinction between the nature of ter-
was in fact necessary to preserve it.69 That restrial and celestial worlds is gone. The lunar
conviction, however, died with Kepler, and dichotomy is abolished.
the elliptical orbits of the New Astronomy
eventually were responsible for the over- "Comes the Revolution"
throw of the Ptolemaic metaphysical com-
mitment to celestial circularity. Thus the road is clear for the coming of a
"universal" gravitational force that causes
Galileo and "Lunar Dichotomy" objects to fall to the earth, that causes the
moon to move about the earth, and that
The removal of the "Lunar Dichotomy" causes the earth to move about the sun. It
was the final step in the revision of the will require the great genius of Newton to
metaphysical principles of astronomy nec- breathe life into the system with his Principia,
essary for the coming of Newtonian astron- but Concerning the Revolutions of the Celestial
omy, and it was provided by Galileo and his Spheres, The New Astronomy, and the The
telescope. It clearly is an oversimplification Starry Messenger have cleared the path. There
to credit this step only to Galileo. It is fore- can be no revolution from an existing par-
shadowed when Copernicus sets the earth adigm without a simultaneous switch to a
in motion and it is dramatically advanced new paradigm. There is no paradigm without
when Kepler introduces celestial physical an "enduring group of adherents" and an
causes, such as magnetic effects, that have "open set of problems" for them to work on.
terrestrial counterparts. Nevertheless, this The "set of exemplars" that is the Principia
revision achieves its fruition in the work of could not have been conceived and would
Galileo. The work of interest is not his great not have been received if the adjustments
polemical defense of the Copemican system, had not been made in the constellations of
the Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World shared beliefs, metaphysical principles, and
Systems of 1632. That work is more an attack symbolic generalizations that surrounded it.

176.61.158.237 on Wed, 03 Feb 2021 15:16:34 UTC
These adjustments, "ad hoc or not", were the extension of this correspondence to other
work of the genius of Copernicus, Kepler, areas of science may not be as strong. The
and Galileo. But it was Newton and the work of Stegmiiller in classical mechanics,
Principia that gave rise to the enormous flood however, indicates that it is useful in the area
of scientific activity and identification that of mathematical physics (see notes 17 and
was science in the eighteenth and nineteenth 18). On the other hand, Kuhn's conclusions
centuries. It was in 1687 that the central set concerning the nature of scientific knowledge
of exemplars necessary for a successful and progress do not find universal approval.
Kuhnian revolution finally appeared. Many critics claim that he presents a view
of science that is relativistic and irrational.73
But even if he has succeeded only in provid-
CONCLUSION
ing philosophers of science with a useful
model of a limited portion of scientific activ-
Thus the "Copernican Revolution," of
ity, the major elements of mathematical as-
which Kuhn wrote in 1957, when analyzed
tronomy, then Kuhn has produced a work
in terms of the structure of scientific revo-
worthy of the attention it has received.
lutions, of which Kuhn wrote in 1962 (SSR),
occurs not with Copernicus, in 1543, but
with Newton in 1687!7? This conclusion is ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
not so paradoxical as it first appears. Kuhn's
early work on Copernicus is an exercise in This paper grew out of a lecture given at
the history of science, as is his later work onLawrence University in 1979. It owes much
the "Quantum Revolution."7t In neither to the encouragement and criticisms of my
work, one written before and one written students and colleagues. In particular, I
after his SSR, does Kuhn attempt to analyze would like to single out Professor John P.
the particular historical period in terms of Dreher of the Lawrence University Depart-
the structure of science that he details inment of Philosophy, who gave unstintingly
SSR.72 There are distributed references in SSR
of his time and effort in reading, criticizing,
to Copernican and Newtonian concepts, but and rereading portions of the manuscript. He
there is no attempt at presenting them as a still does not agree on every point made in
single, unified, case study. This attempt was it, but it is much improved for his clear and
undertaken in this paper fundamentally to careful dissent. I also want to thank Professor
explain Kuhn's analysis of the structure of Owen Gingerich for his careful and valuable
science, rather than to defend or to attack it. review of two earlier drafts of the paper. The
Nevertheless, there emerges a strong corre- section on Copernicus is much improved be-
spondence between the major elements in cause of those reviews. Finally, I want to
the history of astronomy and those in Kuhn's thank Professor Thomas Kuhn who, though
view of the structure of science. Perhaps such declining on principle to comment on re-
a correspondence would break down under views of his work, nevertheless encouraged
a closer detailed inspection. Moreover, the me to publish the paper.
NoTEs
1. Kuhn, 1962. A slightly revised second edition with 4. Gutting, 1980: 321-339. See the bibliography for
a postscript was published in 1970. All references an extensive listing of works by and about Kuhn.
will be to that second edition. 5. Kuhn, 1977: xix.
2. Coughlin, 1982: 21-23. 6. Kuhn 1977: 294.
3. See the Appendix for a listing of these reviews. 7. Lakatos and Musgrave, 1970: 383-394.

176.61.158.237 on Wed, 03 Feb 2021 15:16:34 UTC
8. Lakatos, 1970: 383. 31. Kuhn, 1970: 52. An example of such an anomaly
9. Lakatos, 1970: 61-65. is the inability of 19th-century physics to solve the
10. Kuhn, 1970: 174. problem of "black-body radiation". Moreover, the
11. Kuhn, 1970: 181. solution that resulted from careful application of
12. Kuhn, 1970: 182. classical physics to this problem (the so-called "vi-
13. Kuhn, 1977: xviii-xix. It is important to note that olet catastrophe") made no sense. Nevertheless, the
Kuhn here refers to sets of standard examples, such expectation of contemporary physicists was that
as appear at the end of chapters in textbooks of eventually classical physics would solve this enigma.
physics, and not simply to a single solution of his- 32. Kuhn, 1970: 77.
toric importance that in some way acts as a source 33. Kuhn, 1970: 78.
for all similar solutions to follow, i.e., the Newtonian 34. Kuhn, 1970: 77.
solution of the Keplerian problem of elliptical plan- 35. Kuhn, 1970: 78. In terms of the example of black-
etary orbits. Such an outstanding problem/solution body radiation given in footnote 31, the solution
example clearly is part of the set of exemplars found given by Planck required the "quantum postulate"
in any physics textbook. Newton himself was aware to correctly steer between the Charybdis and Scylla
of its importance when he referred in the Principia that were the classical solutions of Wien and Ray-
to "the dignity of the problem." The modem version leigh. It is only in retrospect that the persistent fail-
of the Newtonian solution to the Keplerian problem ure of classical physics to solve this puzzle is seen
will appear as the central example within the chap- to argue for a flaw in classical physics. The anomaly
ter dealing with motion under central forces and is not perceived as a counterinstance even when
variations of it will appear in the problem sets at Rayleigh produces an "exact" classical solution that
the end of the chapter. But Kuhn's reference is to is clearly impossible. It is only after the discipline
the entire set, both the central example and its more is driven to accept the drastic change of the quantum
mundane textbook images. And it is within this postulate that the puzzle of black-body radiation
larger set that the essential importance of exemplars (now solved) appears as a counterinstance relative
lies. to classical physics.
14. Kuhn 1977: 305. 36. Kuhn, 1970: 10.
15. Kuhn 1977: xix and 229. 37. Kuhn, 1970: 10.
16. Kuhn 1977: xx. 38. The first analysis in the form of f = ma, which was
17. Stegmiiller, 1976: 178. to become the hallmark of Newtonian astronomy,
18. "Stegmiiller, approaching my work through Sneed's was published in the middle of the eighteenth cen-
has understood it better than any other philosopher tury by the German physicist and mathematician,
who has made more than passing reference to it." Euler. In the Principia, Newton gave this Second
(Kuhn, 1976: 179.) Law of Motion as "The change of motion is pro-
19. Williams, 1980: 68. portional to the motive force impressed; and is in
20. Lugg, 1979:289. the direction of the right line in which that force is
21. On a few occasions, Kuhn will refer to a matrix impressed." Its employment in the specific problem
element other than the central one representing the solutions is not as direct as in Euler's solutions and
set of exemplars as a paradigm. It will always be in those to follow. Newton employs a mixture of
an outstanding attribute by which an entire com- geometry and limiting processes (clearly suggestive
munity can be identified but strictly speaking it is of the techniques of calculus) to develop a relation-
not a paradigm in either of the two senses that he ship that could be called the "Geometric Key." It
has identified in the postscript. For example, "To is this mixture that unlocks the solutions for Newton
be accepted as a paradigm, a theory must seem bet- and that in turn provides the prototype for Euler's
ter than its competitors." [Kuhn, 1970: p. 184.] A revision.
theory such as the "Kinetic Theory of Gases" is 39. Kuhn, 1970: 183.
included in the matrix element that Kuhn calls 40. Kuhn, 1970: 184.
"metaphysical committment." [Kuhn, 1970: p. 184.] 41. From Roger Cote's preface to the second edition of
To refer to it as a paradigm is not consistent with the Principia. (Newton, 1971: xxvii.) The Latin orig-
the two redefinitions of that term. But that theory inal of this English translation was published in
is the most visible single attribute of the group 1713, some 25 years after the first Latin edition of
identified as "kinetic theorists" and Kuhn uses it 1687.
very loosely to stand for the entire disciplinary ma- 42. Kuhn, 1970: 185.
trix and hence the global sense of paradigm. 43. Ptolemy, 1954: 1-495.
22. Kuhn, 1970: 182-184. 44. Kuhn's descriptions of the extent of change involved
23. Kuhn, 1970: 184. in a scientific revolution ("when paradigms change,
24. Kuhn, 1970: 184-186. the world itself changes with them") often leaves
25. Kuhn, 1970: 43. one at a loss to identify an element that would sur-
26. Kuhn, 1970: 40. vive. For Kuhn, however, the element of the dis-
27. Kuhn, 1970: 41. ciplinary matrix that he has called "shared values"
28. Kuhn, 1970: 42. does persist. In particular, the astronomer's concern
29. Kuhn, 1970: 40. for theoretical quantitative predictions and their
30. Kuhn, 1977: 35-36. ability to fit to observational data appears to be uni-

176.61.158.237 on Wed, 03 Feb 2021 15:16:34 UTC
454 1. BRUCE BRACKENRIDGE
versal. There have been great strides taken within 61. Kuhn, 1962: 69.
the last fifty years to understand details of Baby- 62. Gingerich, 1975: 89.
lonian mathematical astronomy. Otto Neugebauer 63. Gingerich, 1975: 89-90.
and his colleagues have provided translations of 64. Koyre, 1973: 26.
cuneiform astronomical and astrological tablets. 65. Swerdlow, 1973: 434.
Moreover, they have been able to understand the 66. Kuhn, 1957: 137.
mathematical methods employed in making the 67. Kuhn, 1967: 135.
theoretical predictions. (Neugebauer, 1975; 3 vols.) 68. Koestler, 1952: 332.
In a short but informative paper, A. Aaboe, a col- 69. Brackenridge, 1982: 293. Put simply, the argument
league of Neugebauer, sketches the character and is that Kepler found that the orbital circle had to
content of Babylonian scientific astronomy. (Aaboe, give way to the orbital ellipse in order to preserve
1974: 21-42.) The set of exemplars displayed by the more fundamental celestial circularity of musical
the cuneiform astronomical tablets is distinctly ar- harmony, which was derived from the geometry of
ithmetical in contrast to the geometrical methods circles and expressed in the ratio of planetary an-
of the Almagest. Moreover, these tablets do not dis- gular velocities at aphelion and perihelion.
play an interest in the continuous path of the plan- 70. In SSR, Kuhn states, "Copernicanism made few
ets, as do the Almagest and the Principia. Rather converts for almost a century after Copernicus'
they are primarily concerned with the location of death. Newton's work was not generally accepted,
the planets at five specific points: first and last vis- particularly on the Continent, for more than half a
ibility, the two stationary points (retrograde), and century after the Principia appeared." (Kuhn, 1970:
opposition. Despite these fundamental and pro- 150) But one must make a clear distinction between
nounced differences from Greek astronomy, the the reception of Newton's work on the Continent
theoretical calculations are detailed and precise, and and its reception in England. Clearly there are
they are carefully compared to the points observed. chauvinistic forces at work in France relative to the
This concern for accurate predictions reveals a work of Descartes. In England, despite some concern
common bond of shared values that stretches from over the "occult" nature of gravitational forces, there
Babylonian astronomy, through Greek atronomy, is a group of adherents that begins to form around
to Newtonian astronomy and beyond. the Principia almost at once.
45. Kuhn, 1970: 94. 71. Kuhn, 1978.
46. Kuhn, 1970: 10. 72. Most reviewers of Kuhn's 1978 work on quantum
47. Dreyer, 1953: 345-346. theory (note 56) indicated that they had expected
48. Neugebauer, 1968: 103. such an analysis. In an essay review entitled "Par-
49. Kuhn, 1957: 228. adigm Lost?", the writer states the common re-
50. Kuhn, 1957: 228. sponse: "The emergence of quantum theory at the
51. Kuhn, 1962: 66. beginning of this century heralded one of the most
52. Kuhn, 1962: 69. far-reaching scientific revolutions. Yet in Kuhn's
53. Kuhn, 1957:141. current book, where he traces the early development
54. Kuhn, 1962: 67. of the quantum theory, few, if any, of his more
55. Hall, 1954: 16. general ideas on the nature of revolutions are evi-
dent." (Pinch, 1979: 437.)
56. Hall, 1957: 17.
73. Kuhn is not the only contemporary philosopher of
57. Gingerich, 1975: 86.
science to be subjected to this criticism. In a recent
58. Kuhn, 1962: 156.
work, David Stove argues that, in addition to Kuhn,
59. Gingerich, 1975: 89. the philosophers Popper, Lakatos, and Feyerabend
60. Kuhn, 1957: 140. all are irrationalists. (Stove, 1982, 3.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
AABOE, ASGER. 1974. "Scientific Astronomy in Antiq-(New York). A renamed but unabridged repub-
uity." Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A. 273: 21-42. lication of the 1906 edition.
BRACKENRIDGE, J. BRUCE. 1982. "Kepler, Elliptical Orbits, GINGERICH, OWEN. 1975. "'Crisis' versus Aesthetic in
and Celestial Circularity: A Study in the Persis- the Copemican Revolution." Vistas in Astronomy
tence of Metaphysical Commitment." Annals of 17: 85-95.
Science 39: part I, pp. 117-143 and Part II, pp. GUTTING, GARY. 1980. Paradigms and Revolutions: Ap-
265-295. plications and Appraisals of Thomas Kuhn's Phi-
losophy of Science (South Bend).
COUGHLIN, ELLEN K. 1982. "Thomas Kuhn's Ideas About
KOESTLER, ARTHUR. 1959. The Sleepwalkers: A History of
Science: 20 Years After the Revolution." The
Man's Changing Vision of the Universe (New York).
Chronicle of Higher Education Sept. 22: 21-23.
KOYRE, ALEXANDRE. 1973. The Astronomical Revolution
DREYER, J. L. E. 1906. History of the Planetary Systems (Ithaca).
From Thales to Kepler (Cambridge). KUHN, THOMAS S. 1957. The Copernican Revolution
1953. A History of Astronomy From Thales to Kepler (Cambridge).

176.61.158.237 on Wed, 03 Feb 2021 15:16:34 UTC
1962. The Structure of ScientificNEWTON, ISAAC. 1971.(Chi-

Revolutions Mathematical Principles (Berke-
cago). ley).
1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd PINCH, J., MARTIN J. KLEIN, and ABNER SHIMONY. 1979.
ed., Chicago). "Paradigm Lost? A Review Symposium." Isis 70:
1976. "Theory-Change as Structure-Change: 429-440.
Comments on the Sneed Formalism." Erkenntnis
PTOLEMY, CLAUDIUS. 1954. In Ptolemy, Copernicus, Kepler
10: 179-199.
(vol. 16 of Great Books of the Western World;
1977. The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Sci-
Chicago) 1-495.
entific Tradition and Change (Chicago).
1978. Black-Body Radiation and the Quantum Dis- STEGMULLER, WOLFGANG. 1976. The Structure and Dy-
continuity, 1894-1912 (New York). namics of Theories (New York).
LUGG, ANDREW. 1979. "Kuhn and the Philosophy of STOVE, DAVID. 1982. Popper and After: Four Modern Ir-
Science." British Journal of Science 5: 289-295. rationalists (New York).
LAKATOS, I., and A. MUSGRAVE. 1970. Criticism and the
SWERDLOW, NOEL M. 1973. "The Commentariolus of Co-
Growth of Knowledge (Cambridge).
pernicus." Proceedings of the American Philosoph-
NEUGEBAUER, OTTO. 1968. "On the Planetary Theory of
ical Society 117: 423-512.
Copernicus." Vistas in Astronomy 10: 89-103.
1975. A History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy WILLIAMS, L. P. 1980. "The Essential Thomas Kuhn."
(New York). History of Science 18: 68-74.
APPENDIX
Chronological Listing of Reviews
KUHN, THOMAS S. 1962. APPLE, M. and T. POPKEWITZ. 1971. Social Education 35:
935-937.
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
MUSGRAVE, A. 1971. British Journal for the Philosophy o
(Chicago). Science 22: 287-297.
SHAPERE, D. 1971. Science 172: 707-709.
GILLISPIE, CHARLES. 1962. Science 132: 1251-1253. TOULMIN, S. 1971. Encounter 36: 53-64.
BARBER, B. 1963. American Sociological Review 28: 298- BLANCHE, R. 1973. Revue philosophique de la France et
299. de l'6tranger 163: 362-363.
BORING, E. G. 1963. Contemporary Psychology 8: 180- MALHERBE, J. 1974. Revue philosophique de Louvain 72:
182. 634-639.
HALL, M. D. 1963. American Historical Review 68: 700- LARGEAULT, J. 1976. Revue de synthese 97: 290-293.
701.
HAWKINS, D. 1963. American Journal of Physics 31: 554- KUHN, THOMAS S. 1977.
555.
The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in
HESSE, M. 1963. Isis 54: 286-287.
SCHLEGEL, R. 1963. Physics Today 16: 69. Scientific Tradition and Change (Chicago).
WILLIAMS, L. P. 1963. Archives internationales d'histoire
FRANKEL, H. 1978. Philosophy of Science 45: 649-652.
des sciences 16: 182-184.
HALL, A. R. 1978. Times Literary Supplement 23 June:
ARDLEY, G. 1964. Philosophical Studies 15: 183-192.
698.
BOHM, D. 1964. Philosophical Quarterly 14: 377-379.
HOLLINGER, D. A. 1978. American Historical Review 83:
JORGENSEN, B. S. 1964. Centaurus 10: 48-50.
1231-1232.
SHAPERE, D. 1964. Philosophical Review 73: 383-394.
MEDAWAR, P. B. 1978. Nature 273: 575.
STOPES-ROE, H. V. 1965. British Journal for the Philosophy
WESTMAN, R. S. 1978 Science 201: 437-438.
of Science 15: 158-161.
BERRY, C. J. 1979. British Journal for the History of Science
AGASSI, J. 1966. Journal of the History of Philosophy 4:
12: 295-298.
351-354.
HACKING, I. 1979. History and Theory 18: 223-236.
WATSON, R. I. 1966. Journal of the History of the Behavioral
KOURANY, J. A. 1979. Isis 70: 279-280.
Sciences 2: 274-276.
LUGG, A. 1979. British Journal for the History of Science
HUBNER, K. 1968. Philosophische Rundschau 15: 185-
12: 289-295.
195.
MULKAY, M. J. 1979. British Journal for the History of
Science 12: 298-301.
KUHN, THOMAS S. 1970.
SCHUSTER, J. A. 1979. British Journal for the History of
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Science 12: 301-314.
(Chicago). TOPPER, D. 1979. Technology and Culture 20: 218-220.
SIEGEL, H. 1980. British Journal for the Philosophy of Sci-
The second edition enlarged and ence 31: 359-384.
containing a postscript. WILLIAMS, L. P. 1980. History of Science 18: 68-74.

176.61.158.237 on Wed, 03 Feb 2021 15:16:34 UTC

Kuhn, Paradigms, and Astronomy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kuhn, Paradigms, and Astronomy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kuhn, Paradigms, and Astronomy: Astronomy as a Case Study of Kuhnian Paradigms

Author(s): J. Bruce Brackenridge

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/986938

This content downloaded from

I. INTRODUCTION other's [sic] answers, he created his own."

PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY, VOL. 129, NO. 4, 1985

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

time." She admitted, though, that "Kuhn, of

This content downloaded from

This class IIscientific

aspect of the education of the physicist was,

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

be divided into three major areas:

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

circularity and uniformity itare at least

fact, Mercury is difficult to observe because

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

tion of the heavens remains unchallenged. allegiance to celestial circularity (Kuhn's

This content downloaded from

powerful, must be relegated to the

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

1962. The Structure of ScientificNEWTON, ISAAC. 1971.(Chi-

Chronological Listing of Reviews

This content downloaded from

You might also like