Introduction
Change is as good as rest and good for everyone and by extension every society. Change is a phenomenon that is everlasting. Meaning that it is inevitable and all spheres of human life in all societies have been perpetually undergoing change(s).
Thus, our present experience is a consequence of the various changes- some drastic others normal and even unnoticeable- that have taken place in the past. Revolution is synonymous with change. Johnson explains that “revolutions are social changes” (1).
This definition encompasses the broad meaning of revolution in the sense that there are various forms of revolutions including political, socioeconomic, and academic or philosophical all of which are intertwined. This task is a discussion of the thoughts and opinions about the philosophical aspect of the Copernican revolution on the basis of Phillip Frank’s article titled “The philosophical meaning of the Copernican Revolution.”
Philosophical Revolution
Drastic changes occur not only in the political and socio-economic spheres of human society but also in academic disciplines especially with respect to their philosophical, methodological, and theoretical foundations. It is important to note that all academic disciplines have got their own philosophy. That philosophy forms the source of knowledge in that particular discipline both among the social sciences as well as the natural sciences.
Philosophical revolutions are usually accompanied by changes in the way professionals, experts and scholars in that field view their subject matter. In other words, they are accompanied by philosophical implications like the ones Phillip Frank seeks to address in his article regarding the philosophical meaning of the Copernicus revolution.
Philosophical Meaning of the Copernican Revolution
The copernican revolution was a change in ideas, that is, a revolution in man’s understanding of the universe and his relation to it Kuhn (1). Kuhn further adds that this occurrence in the rebirth of thought has been termed as a phenomenal turning point in the scholarly development of Western society.
Phillip Frank begins his article by pointing to the fundamental problem with the philosophy of science which he argues is founded upon what faces a physical scientist, that is, observation of the real physical feature in the universe and on the other side the generally accepted principles of science. In between these two sides, he argues that there is an enormous gap that needs to be highlighted over and over again to succeed in helping the students of science in understanding the universe Frank (381).
The significance of the Copernican revolution lies in its ability to enable human thought to apprehend the fact that what is found in our senses and in particular the “…’Naïve’ sense experience” is far removed from reality in the real world situation Frank (381). In other words, Frank’s work contributed immensely towards the realization of the gap between what our senses fathoms in relation to a given feature of the universe. An example is given of the long-held believe that our earth is at rest which
Copernicus proved wrong by attesting that our planet is in motion. Frank argues that Copernicus depicted the misapprehensions of our senses. In doing so he came up with a new pattern of explanation of our observations. Even though his theory was dismissed by some as philosophically irrational and illogical Frank asserts that even his greatest opponents did not doubt the fact that his system was a significant advance in astronomy.
On theory, Frank argues that in virtually all eras of the history of science a theory had to be in agreement with the general principles of physics. While previous theories on the celestial bodies such as the ptolemean theory which is said to have been in harmony with the Aristotelian philosophy and physics were embraced as true, Corpenicus theory was said to be a disturbance to this harmony and that it would clearly contradict the laws of physics known during the medieval period. However, he claims that before the Copernicus revolution there was in every theory an inconsistency between mathematical and philosophical truth.
Copernicus affirmed that he did not put forward his theory in opposition to the previous doctrine. Instead, he felt free to put forward a new hypothesis assuming the movement of the earth because there was no established doctrine as a result of lack of agreement between the earlier hypotheses with laws of physics which required the homogeneous circular motions around the earth as core. His theory explained for the observed motions nearly as perfectly as the Ptolemean theory of epicycles.
Through his theory the movements of the planets were defined as orbits around the sun with the sun at the center. Since there was less epicycles and more similar-centric orbits than in Ptolemean system Copernicus maintained his theory was closer to requirements of the Aristotelian physics and the geocentric system. Corpenicus went to the extent of claiming that he had given the world a true picture of the universe in the strict sense of the term.
The culmination of Copernicus’ philosophical implications came to be realized through Isaac Newton’s work titled “Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy” which appeared 150 years after the Copernicus revolution. Frank argues that through these principles the Copernicus doctrine could be logically derived, it is also apparent that Copernican system was true in the whole sense of the word, both philosophically and mathematically.
Conclusion
The philosophical meaning of the Copernicus revolution derived its motivation from the conviction that prior to his theory there was no established theory from where he felt he was free to craft a theory that assumed motion of the earth and other planets and the suns at the center. This was a drastic paradigm shift in astronomy even though it was not embraced until many years after his death.
As argued by Frank his theory presented wake up call to the realization that what is learnt through observation is more often than not away from reality. He despite opposition managed to enable scholars to differentiate between what is real from what is a mere illusion of our senses. Frank asserts that Copernicus “cleared the way for the great truth that we have complete freedom in our choice of a system of reference…. and that his revolution was the first step in a series of revolutions which climaxed… in depicting a democratic order of the universe in which all bodies play an equal part” (386).
Works Cited
Frank, Phillip. The Philosophical Meaning of the Copernican Revolution. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. Vol.87.No.5, 1944, p. 381-386.
Johnson, Chalmers. Revolutionary Change. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 1982.
Kuhn, Thomas. The Copernican revolution: planetary astronomy in the development of western thought. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1979.