Did Ptolemy make novel predictions? Launching Ptolemaic astronomy into the scientific realism debate

Autores
Carman, Christian Carlos; Díez, José
Año de publicación
2015
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
The goal of this paper, both historical and philosophical, is to launch a new case into the scientific realism debate: geocentric astronomy. Scientific realism about unobservables claims that the non-observational content of our successful/justified empirical theories is true, or approximately true. The argument that is currently considered the best in favor of scientific realism is the No Miracles Argument: the predictive success of a theory that makes (novel) observational predictions while making use of non-observational content would be inexplicable unless such non-observational content approximately corresponds to the world "out there". Laudan's pessimistic meta-induction challenged this argument, and realists reacted by moving to a "selective" version of realism: the approximately true part of the theory is not its full non-observational content but only the part of it that is responsible for the novel, successful observational predictions. Selective scientific realism has been tested against some of the theories in Laudan's list, but the first member of this list, geocentric astronomy, has been traditionally ignored. Our goal here is to defend that Ptolemy's Geocentrism deserves attention and poses a prima facie strong case against selective realism, since it made several successful, novel predictions based on theoretical hypotheses that do not seem to be retained, not even approximately, by posterior theories. Here, though, we confine our work just to the detailed reconstruction of what we take to be the main novel, successful Ptolemaic predictions, leaving the full analysis and assessment of their significance for the realist thesis to future works.
Fil: Carman, Christian Carlos. Universidad Nacional de Quilmes; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina
Fil: Díez, José. Universidad de Barcelona; España
Materia
GEOCENTRISM
NON-MIRACLE ARGUMENT
PTOLEMY
SCIENTIFIC REALISM
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/98525

id CONICETDig_104c3d41677081ea7083aa79ee2f3ca4
oai_identifier_str oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/98525
network_acronym_str CONICETDig
repository_id_str 3498
network_name_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
spelling Did Ptolemy make novel predictions? Launching Ptolemaic astronomy into the scientific realism debateCarman, Christian CarlosDíez, JoséGEOCENTRISMNON-MIRACLE ARGUMENTPTOLEMYSCIENTIFIC REALISMhttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/6.3https://purl.org/becyt/ford/6The goal of this paper, both historical and philosophical, is to launch a new case into the scientific realism debate: geocentric astronomy. Scientific realism about unobservables claims that the non-observational content of our successful/justified empirical theories is true, or approximately true. The argument that is currently considered the best in favor of scientific realism is the No Miracles Argument: the predictive success of a theory that makes (novel) observational predictions while making use of non-observational content would be inexplicable unless such non-observational content approximately corresponds to the world "out there". Laudan's pessimistic meta-induction challenged this argument, and realists reacted by moving to a "selective" version of realism: the approximately true part of the theory is not its full non-observational content but only the part of it that is responsible for the novel, successful observational predictions. Selective scientific realism has been tested against some of the theories in Laudan's list, but the first member of this list, geocentric astronomy, has been traditionally ignored. Our goal here is to defend that Ptolemy's Geocentrism deserves attention and poses a prima facie strong case against selective realism, since it made several successful, novel predictions based on theoretical hypotheses that do not seem to be retained, not even approximately, by posterior theories. Here, though, we confine our work just to the detailed reconstruction of what we take to be the main novel, successful Ptolemaic predictions, leaving the full analysis and assessment of their significance for the realist thesis to future works.Fil: Carman, Christian Carlos. Universidad Nacional de Quilmes; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Díez, José. Universidad de Barcelona; EspañaElsevier2015-08info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/98525Carman, Christian Carlos; Díez, José; Did Ptolemy make novel predictions? Launching Ptolemaic astronomy into the scientific realism debate; Elsevier; Studies in History and Philosophy of Science; 52; 8-2015; 20-340039-3681CONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0039368115000436info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1016/j.shpsa.2015.04.002info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-09-03T09:51:20Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/98525instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-09-03 09:51:20.734CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Did Ptolemy make novel predictions? Launching Ptolemaic astronomy into the scientific realism debate
title Did Ptolemy make novel predictions? Launching Ptolemaic astronomy into the scientific realism debate
spellingShingle Did Ptolemy make novel predictions? Launching Ptolemaic astronomy into the scientific realism debate
Carman, Christian Carlos
GEOCENTRISM
NON-MIRACLE ARGUMENT
PTOLEMY
SCIENTIFIC REALISM
title_short Did Ptolemy make novel predictions? Launching Ptolemaic astronomy into the scientific realism debate
title_full Did Ptolemy make novel predictions? Launching Ptolemaic astronomy into the scientific realism debate
title_fullStr Did Ptolemy make novel predictions? Launching Ptolemaic astronomy into the scientific realism debate
title_full_unstemmed Did Ptolemy make novel predictions? Launching Ptolemaic astronomy into the scientific realism debate
title_sort Did Ptolemy make novel predictions? Launching Ptolemaic astronomy into the scientific realism debate
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Carman, Christian Carlos
Díez, José
author Carman, Christian Carlos
author_facet Carman, Christian Carlos
Díez, José
author_role author
author2 Díez, José
author2_role author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv GEOCENTRISM
NON-MIRACLE ARGUMENT
PTOLEMY
SCIENTIFIC REALISM
topic GEOCENTRISM
NON-MIRACLE ARGUMENT
PTOLEMY
SCIENTIFIC REALISM
purl_subject.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/becyt/ford/6.3
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/6
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv The goal of this paper, both historical and philosophical, is to launch a new case into the scientific realism debate: geocentric astronomy. Scientific realism about unobservables claims that the non-observational content of our successful/justified empirical theories is true, or approximately true. The argument that is currently considered the best in favor of scientific realism is the No Miracles Argument: the predictive success of a theory that makes (novel) observational predictions while making use of non-observational content would be inexplicable unless such non-observational content approximately corresponds to the world "out there". Laudan's pessimistic meta-induction challenged this argument, and realists reacted by moving to a "selective" version of realism: the approximately true part of the theory is not its full non-observational content but only the part of it that is responsible for the novel, successful observational predictions. Selective scientific realism has been tested against some of the theories in Laudan's list, but the first member of this list, geocentric astronomy, has been traditionally ignored. Our goal here is to defend that Ptolemy's Geocentrism deserves attention and poses a prima facie strong case against selective realism, since it made several successful, novel predictions based on theoretical hypotheses that do not seem to be retained, not even approximately, by posterior theories. Here, though, we confine our work just to the detailed reconstruction of what we take to be the main novel, successful Ptolemaic predictions, leaving the full analysis and assessment of their significance for the realist thesis to future works.
Fil: Carman, Christian Carlos. Universidad Nacional de Quilmes; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina
Fil: Díez, José. Universidad de Barcelona; España
description The goal of this paper, both historical and philosophical, is to launch a new case into the scientific realism debate: geocentric astronomy. Scientific realism about unobservables claims that the non-observational content of our successful/justified empirical theories is true, or approximately true. The argument that is currently considered the best in favor of scientific realism is the No Miracles Argument: the predictive success of a theory that makes (novel) observational predictions while making use of non-observational content would be inexplicable unless such non-observational content approximately corresponds to the world "out there". Laudan's pessimistic meta-induction challenged this argument, and realists reacted by moving to a "selective" version of realism: the approximately true part of the theory is not its full non-observational content but only the part of it that is responsible for the novel, successful observational predictions. Selective scientific realism has been tested against some of the theories in Laudan's list, but the first member of this list, geocentric astronomy, has been traditionally ignored. Our goal here is to defend that Ptolemy's Geocentrism deserves attention and poses a prima facie strong case against selective realism, since it made several successful, novel predictions based on theoretical hypotheses that do not seem to be retained, not even approximately, by posterior theories. Here, though, we confine our work just to the detailed reconstruction of what we take to be the main novel, successful Ptolemaic predictions, leaving the full analysis and assessment of their significance for the realist thesis to future works.
publishDate 2015
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2015-08
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/11336/98525
Carman, Christian Carlos; Díez, José; Did Ptolemy make novel predictions? Launching Ptolemaic astronomy into the scientific realism debate; Elsevier; Studies in History and Philosophy of Science; 52; 8-2015; 20-34
0039-3681
CONICET Digital
CONICET
url http://hdl.handle.net/11336/98525
identifier_str_mv Carman, Christian Carlos; Díez, José; Did Ptolemy make novel predictions? Launching Ptolemaic astronomy into the scientific realism debate; Elsevier; Studies in History and Philosophy of Science; 52; 8-2015; 20-34
0039-3681
CONICET Digital
CONICET
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0039368115000436
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1016/j.shpsa.2015.04.002
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ar/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ar/
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
reponame_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
collection CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname_str Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.name.fl_str_mv CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.mail.fl_str_mv dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar
_version_ 1842269089197719552
score 13.13397