Introduction
Okasha’s (2002) Philosophy of Science presents the contribution of how physicists and mathematicians derived hypothetical testing to initiate the work of contemporary scientists. It refers to the modes of analyzing mechanical philosophy from ancient to modern-day and engages all the chronological ways of organizing science and philosophy in the context of religion. This paper revolves around the contributions held by Nicolaus Copernicus and Galileo in their famous works De Revolutionibus and Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina in the light of Samir Okasha’s Philosophy of Science.
Heliocentric Cosmology
Nicolaus Copernicus was the first astronomer to work and propose heliocentric cosmology through mathematical calculations while initiating the basis for the modern scientific ‘Copernican revolution’. It was when he explicated through his epochal work, ‘De Revolutionibus orbium coelestium‘ (Concerning the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres) he met with immense resistance because no one was ready to accept his bequeathed geocentric model of the universe which asserted that the earth is stationed at the center of the universe with the planets and the sun circling it. This hypothesis holds that the earth is regarded as just another planet so any traditional myth is not to be accepted. Initially, Copernicus theory confronted resistance even from the Catholic Church who regarded it as deviating from the Scriptures and therefore banned 1616 books counseling the earth’s motion, but over a hundred years span Copernicanism established itself as a scientific innovation escorting to better astronomy (Okasha, 2002, p. 3).
During this phase, only Galileo was the one who highlighted Copernicus’s theory by proposing that Copernican does not by any means negate Biblical exegesis. Being a life-long supporter of Copernicanism, when Galileo pointed his telescope at the heavens, he ended up discovering amazing astronomical intuitions including mountainous regions on the moon, a continuous array of stars, and Jupiter’s moons (Okasha, 2002, p. 4). ‘De Revolutionibus’ is a mathematical heliocentric description in which Copernicus speaks generally about the structure of the heavenly spheres and not planets. This is evident from the fact that in the De revolutionibus Copernicus uses ‘orbis’ for spheres and ‘planeta’, ‘sidus’, and ‘corpus’ for expressions for ‘planet’. Copernicus concerned the motion of the earth as physical reality and mentioned in De revolutionibus that “If any motion is related to the earth, that motion ought to illustrate in all the bodies outside the earth because a motion is of equal velocity, but it should be inverse as though these bodies were moving past the earth. Among such motions what is of significance is the daily rotation for it appears to affect the entire universe except for the earth and the elements near it. But if it is assumed that the celestial sphere has no part in this motion and that the earth rotates from the west, upon analysis it will be found that this is indeed the case as far as the apparent rising and setting of the sun, moon, and stars are concerned” (Thorunensis, 1873, p. 16).
Trigonometric Calculations
The second book of De Revolutionibus is about solving complex trigonometric scenarios in which it is difficult to measure the motion of heavenly bodies. Okasha mentions it but by applying Hempel’s schema in accordance with the optical law that in order to find the length of the shadow of a pole we consider the fact that light travels in straight lines and apply the laws of trigonometry that fulfills scientific explanations. Since the covering law proposes so many problems that it is natural to look for an alternative way of understanding scientific explanation, many philosophers make it easier to grasp the concept of causality.
The motion of the Earth, Moon, and Planets
Copernicus through his mathematical illustrations provided that alternative view to the reader with immense knowledge about the solar system, however, this knowledge seemed apart from the general ‘proof’. This is what Okasha has elucidated through presenting Kuhn’s characterization of science over Copernican. Since long periods of ancient normal science translated occasional scientific revolutions to draw a distinction between philosophers and historians of science, Okasha has picked up Kuhn’s model to illustrate the transition analysis from Ptolemaic to Copernican astronomy. This is because of the reason that many of the features that Kuhn describes are present in the works of Ptolemaic astronomers among which Copernicus is an example.
Although Kuhn’s incomparable thesis remained unable to convince philosophers about how part of the problem and dispute between Ptolemaic and Copernican as claimed by Kuhn in context with old and contemporary paradigms was incompatible. But this claim if remained uncompromisable presented no need to choose between them because the Ptolemaic claim that the planets revolve around the earth is obviously not to be lined with the Copernican claim that they revolve around the sun. So, in this manner, Okasha by placing Kuhn’s critics above all analyzed the significance of Copernican versus Ptolemaic claim.
This when criticized by Catholic institutions, resulted in confrontations between Copernicanism and the Bible which got intense at two levels; first, the ways to interpret the relevant passages in the Bible on this issue and secondly, when directly addressed in the decree who possessed the authority to decide on the reinterpretation. Galileo, in that epoch, was neither a bishop having any training in theology, nor was they in the position to enter the scriptural debate. Moreover, being aware of the fact that he could never achieve status to acquire that battlefield he wrote a short booklet and named it Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina (1615). This was where he analyzed the general principles of biblical interpretations in the light of Copernicanism to be applied to the coming debate regarding scripture and science. The issues Galileo addressed at the level of the principles of exegesis were successfully executed making his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina a success in the field of biblical interpretation.
Galileo, having no training in theology always thought along with Copernicus. However, the initial ‘hypothetical’ usage of Copernican theory brought no problems to the astronomers, but with the complexities of making calculations and predictions concerning the motions of the heavens, Galileo added that if one considers this theory on a rational basis of how the heavens are actually structured and moved, then that is not wise to use since it undermines the faith and the authority of the Scriptures. Galileo illustrated the real purpose behind religion is to teach morality and to lead us into the better life which awaits us beyond the grave (Galileo, 1636, p. 96).
Okasha (2002) mentions that the laws in the line of mathematics which regulate the motion of the planets and the particles surrounding it hold the key to realize the construction of the Copernican universe. However, it would not be wrong to say that Okasha emphasizes more upon the Newtonian picture and mechanics and talks less about the Copernicus cosmology. In this context, he pays a tribute to Kepler’s laws for providing a modern approach to problem-solving the planetary theory. To some extent, Okasha mentions Galileo’s contribution towards being a continuous supporter of Copernicanism and being one of the early pioneers of the telescope. However, what he claims is that Copernicus conflicted thoroughly with Aristotelian cosmology by playing a vital role in converting the scientific community to Copernicanism.
It seems Okasha pays tribute to Galileo indirectly for his enduring contribution not in astronomy but in mechanics because Okasha often has mentioned in his book that Galileo refuted the Aristotelian theory on the basis of mechanics of counter-intuitive suggestion that all free-falling bodies descent towards the earth at the same rate and ratio whatever be their weight. Okasha suggests that in the time of Galileo since mathematics was only considered to measure abstract entities, Galileo’s work emphasized the significance of testing hypotheses through experiments and not the physical realities. To the modern scientist, gaining knowledge is not important because this task has been simplified by Galileo’s experimental testing that has marked the beginning of an empirical approach to study nature.
Natural Sciences versus Social Sciences
What is important is to utilize the methods of the natural sciences in acquiring mathematical calculations since they are superior to those of the social sciences. Here, I present an example of how Biblical scriptures, in the beginning, refuted the annotations presented by Galileo, however after analyzing it was discovered what the social sciences need to do is to imitate the methods of the natural sciences. Okasha suggests this actually has happened through the enhancement of mathematics in the field of social sciences. Moreover, Okasha wants the reader to point towards not merely the contributions of the natural scientists, but the attitude they have built up in leaping forward to a better judgment. When Galileo originated towards applying mathematical language to the description of motion, it was not considered at that time as an achievement in the social sciences, the way it is looked at today. But this provoked a new conflict between science and religion. Well documented through the example of Galileo’s clash with the Catholic Church escorted Galileo to publicly retract his Copernican views.
No doubt Galileo had to pay a price despite publishing Letters to the Grand Duchess Christina which condemned him to spend the last years of his life under house arrest along with initiating a science-religion clash (Okasha, 2002, p. 125). This resulted in new conflict arousal between Darwinists and Creationists. However, this also gave chance to committed Darwinians who revealed newer ways to reconcile their Christian faith while refreshing their belief in evolution. Even this included a number of eminent biologists who were already on the way to discover intellectual means to argue that the Book of Genesis should not be interpreted literally. They found that Biblical scriptures should be regarded as symbols for illustrations as Darwin’s theory provided compatibility with the existence of God.
Okasha mentions that it is due to the efforts of Galileo’s Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina that the situation began to transform, and in 1960 creationists deployed the concept of ‘creative science’ to besiege the situation. “The inventors started arguing that biblical account of creation provides a better scientific explanation of life on earth than Darwin’s theory of evolution” (Okasha, 2002, p. 127). So it was discovered that religious beliefs do not deviate with creative science, rather biblical account demands from humans to be exposed to facts and go for proof, for religion illustrates science and science highlights religion.
Works Cited
- Galileo Galilei. Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina (1636).
- Okasha Samir. Philosophy of Science: A Very Short Introduction: Oxford University Press: Oxford, England, (2002).
- Thorunensis, Nicolai Copernici. De revolutionibus orbium caelestium libri VI. Thorn. (1873).