Search

Copernicus claimed the Earth revolves around itself and the Sun. He also claimed that the universe was finite and that no intelligent life existed on other planets. Galileo and Kepler shared these claims; therefore, they deserve to be called Copernicans. But what about Giordano Bruno? He adopted Hermetic philosophy and opposed Copernicus’s mathematical (geometric) method; he also claimed, unlike Copernicus, that the universe was infinite and that there were intelligent life forms on other planets. So, can we define Bruno and those who thought like him as Copernicans? Ernan McMullin answers this question in the negative. In this paper, I will argue that the differences between Bruno and Copernicus mentioned by McMullin cannot be used as criteria for claiming that Bruno and others who thought like him were not Copernicans; instead, I argue that believing the Earth rotates around itself and the Sun should be considered sufficient to call someone a Copernican.

Comparing the representations of a family in the 1965–1968 scientific television series Lost in Space and its 2018–2021 remake, the article explicates the worldview principles of the family building as a cyborganic community from the perspective of contemporary philosophical anthropology. The conceptual framework is based on Donna Haraway’s work on identity and community formation. Her ideas are considered in the context of new ontologies. The article attempts to ontologize the anthropological issues. Here, the interpretation of Donna Haraway’s approach is not limited to feminist theory or gender studies and correlates with such philosophical projects as Ernst Kapp’s philosophy of technology, Bruno Latour’s actor-network theory, Dilan Trigg’s phenomenology of horror and Timothy Morton’s object-oriented ontology. Both the 1965–1968 TV series and the 2018–2021 remake demonstrate that the family is the basis of society, equally necessary for survival on the Earth and on other planets. Both TV series represent a “planetary” family, that is, an exemplary family reflecting all of humanity. However, the worldview principles of assembling the family as a community differ in the two series. While in the original series, the representation of the Robinson family does not transcend the boundaries of the modern discourse of a family, the assemblage of the family in the remake unfolds within an approach that goes beyond the legacy of modernity and emphasizes cyborgization and the cyborganic community building. Цель статьи — сравнить репрезентацию семьи в первой версии сериала «Затерянные в космосе» 1965–1968 годов с ее репрезентацией в последней версии (2018 г.); показать мировоззренческие принципы формирования семьи как киборганического сообщества с позиций современной философской антропологии. В качестве концептуальной рамки использованы работы Донны Харауэй, посвященные проблеме идентичности и вопросам формирования сообществ. Идеи Д. Харауэй рассматриваются в контексте новых онтологий, в статье реализуется попытка онтологизации антропологической проблематики. В связи с этим интерпретация подхода Д. Харауэй не ограничивается феминистской теорией и/или гендерными исследованиями, а соотносится с такими проектами, как философия техники Э. Каппа, акторно-сетевая теория Б. Латура, феноменология ужаса Д. Тригга, объектно-ориентированная онтология Т. Мортона. Как сериал 1965–1968 года, так и ремейк 2018–2021 годов показывают, что семья является основой общества, одинаково необходимой для выживания на Земле и на других планетах. В обоих сериалах репрезентируется «планетарная» семья, то есть семья образцовая, способная представлять все человечество. Однако, как показано в настоящей работе, мировоззренческие принципы сборки семьи как сообщества в оригинальном сериале и ремейке различны: тогда как в первом репрезентация семьи Робинсонов не преодолевает границ нововременного дискурса о семье, второй демонстрирует сборку семьи, разворачивающуюся в рамках подхода, стремящегося преодолеть наследие модерна и акцентирующего внимание на киборгизации и формировании киборганических сообществ.

Certain scholars find evidence that the authors of the New Testament held to the cosmology of the ancient Near East, in which the sky is regarded as a solid dome over a flat earth. However, it was uncontroversial among Greco-Roman astronomers that the earth was spherical and was surrounded by a celestial sphere of stars. This article explores knowledge of the “two spheres” model of the cosmos in the first century CE, as this would have been become known to inhabitants of the Mediterranean world through education, word of mouth, popular astrology, and representations of the terrestrial and celestial spheres on sundials, coins, and public art. Based on these factors and the sophistication of their compositions, a number of contributors to the New Testament likely understood the earth to be spherical; their knowledge has exegetical and hermeneutical implications for discussions about scripture vis-à-vis modern science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This piece is a reflection on spatiality as critical approach in the classroom. The article focuses on a seminar taught during spring 2019, in which cognitive mapping and thirdspace were used as tools to analyze twentieth-century American literature. Through the elaboration of thirdspace provided by Edward Soja in his seminal work Thirdspace: Journeys through Los Angeles and Other Real and Imagined Places and Fredric Jameson's definition of cognitive mapping found in Postmodernism, or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism, this study offers examples of how literary cartography can be used as a tool in the classroom to reflect on the social and historical conditions that informed specific literary narratives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Some post-Copernican authors, such as Bernard de Fontenelle and Cyrano de Bergerac, mention an association between geocentrism and anthropocentrism that was broken by the Copernican model. This argument has been criticized by authors such as A. O. Lovejoy, Remi Brague, and Dennis R. Danielson, who argue that the geocentric model of the Universe humiliated man rather than glorified him, since the Earth, as the center of the Universe, was seen as the filthy part of the Universe. So, living on the Earth was not considered a noble status for Man. In this paper, however, I will show that living in the coarser part of the Universe had also been seen in conjunction with having a noble status, and that there was indeed an association made between geocentrism and anthropocentrism before the Copernican Revolution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the classical antiquity, numerous theories have been elaborated to explain the morphology of the universe. Several authors point out that there is a continuity in cosmologies from Aristotle to Copernicus. The substitution of Ptolemy's geocentric reference for Copernicus's heliocentric reference has taken a linear path in the Century of Lights, leading to the abandonment of geocentrism by modern science. The purpose of this article is to highlight the importance of the geocentric reference, when addressing issues involving the relationship Earth/Sky, and how to reconcile the Ptolemaic and Copernican views in the teaching of Geography. These are two models of language that refer to the same reality. The Copernican revolution legitimized heliocentrism, but we must understand that the Ptolemaic system is related to the sensory perception of the world observed by the student. It becomes necessary to validate the geocentric reference to associate it with the heliocentric, in the teaching of Geography.

During the 17th century, the debate over the true world system (sistema mundi) was essentially between the heliocentric and geo-heliocentric models. Comparisons were made between tables that recorded more and more celestial observations in various printed astronomical works. Giovanni Battista Riccioli's Almagestum novum (1651) provides an excellent example of how tables were used. Riccioli wanted to find the best hypothesis (hypothesis absoluta) with the help of a rigorous database from which he could proceed to make mathematical deductions. Tables in early modern astronomical books were important because they showed the results of observations. Presented in a clear way they became persuasive visual arguments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Prace Filologiczne. Literaturoznawstwo is the property of University of Warsaw and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Through the comparison between two major, long-lasting theoretical frameworks – geocentrism and genocentrism – we discuss the different epistemological role played by metaphors in physics and biology. Throughout its history, physics developed theories and mathematical formalisms, which either do not seem to rely on metaphors at all (as geocentrism) or have absorbed initial thrusting metaphors into original theoretical frameworks. When considering genocentrism, in turn, the situation looks different. For some authors, genocentric theories are not metaphorical, but for opposite reasons with respect to geocentrism: pivotal concepts of information theories are straightforwardly imported as theoretical ones into biology. For others, the reference to information in genocentrism is indeed metaphorical, although the similarities and dissimilarities are not spelt out. Some problematic consequences of the application of genocentrism to biology are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article is devoted to the philosophical foundations of different explanations of the facts known from the latest scientific achievements of cosmogony and cosmology. It is shown, that some of the explanations on the matter under observation tacitly rehabilitate the idea of anthropocentrism finding int roots in Ptolemaic theory. In this context, great attention is paid to critical analysis of the anthropic principle, which is a version of current teleology. It is assumed that the above-mentioned principle is based on the inadequate interpretation of the hypothesis of the Big Bang. Thereat anthropic principle is determined on one side by Aristotle theory of telos and on the other side by religious and mystical ideas of creation of the World and Mankind. In contrast, the many-worlds interpretation or the Everett interpretation equates the conceptual and the objective reality going to the other extreme on this ground and postulating almost infinite plurality of alternate Universes. This article highlights the issues specific to philosophical and methodological foundations of delusions and criteria of knowing the truth in cosmogony and cosmology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article analyses the philosophical status and ground of biomimicry's most distinctive principle: nature as measure. Starting with the argument that this principle is ethically normative, I go on to compare the ecological ethic it embodies with Aldo Leopold's land ethic. In so doing, I argue that the ultimate measure against which the ethical rightness of our actions should be judged is the way of being of Gaia, which is to let be her present inhabitants. I then explore the idea that taking as measure Gaia's way of being provides powerful responses to a number of longstanding problems in environmental ethics, including the question of its 'centre', duties to preserve and restore nature, and duties to present and future beings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the legacy of the Galileo Affair as a weapon used by Protestants against those who, despite the scientific age of the earth, read Genesis literally. Believing science to have a legitimate role in correcting biblical interpretations, nineteenth-century religionists sought to explain the doctrine of creation in accordance with the geological evidence for "Deep Time." This was the lesson they gleaned from the Catholic Church's condemnation of Galileo. Yet by casting the controversy over Genesis in the categories supplied by the conflict over geo-centrism and the Bible, these Protestants misrepresented both contests, as have the historians studying them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• A unique historical approach. • A useful transition technique from Heliocentric to geocentric system and vice versa. • Simulation which could be extended in various celestial objects leading to useful conclusions. • How the free interactive computing tool GeoGebra can be used in astronomical calculations. The word 'Geocentric' comes from the Greek word Γεωκεντρικό which is a compound word composed from two words: "γεω" means Earth and "κεντρικό" means centric. Geocentric aspect, appears for the first time in ancient Greece. Pythagoras had formulated the geocentric system with the Earth at the center of the Universe surrounded by the orbiting planets with Sun included. Later Greek ancient astronomers, trying to explain the weird planetary motion in the sky, introduced the epicyclic theory. 3 3 The epicyclic theory was well formulated by Hipparchus and Apollonius. Using this theory the two famous Greek astronomers managed to explain the weird planetary motion on the sky. This theory states that the geocentric planetary motion could be considered as a combination of circular motions. Today this idea is quite sensible if we consider that the geocentric motion could be perceived as synthesis of two independent motions; one is the rotation of the planet around the Sun and the other is the apparent rotation of the Sun around the Earth. Someone could say that the heliocentric motion is hidden inside the geocentric planetary path as one of two superimposed motions. This logical conclusion is supported by F. Hoyle Hoyle (1975) who states "We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance." In other words Geocentrism isn't completely wrong excluding only the arbitrary claim that the Earth is fixed and immobile at the center of the Universe. Geocentrism lasted many years until Nicolaus Copernicus at the middle of 15th century, proposed the heliocentric system by transferring the reference origin from Earth to Sun. Although Copernican model was capable explaining the geocentric orbits of planets with negligible eccentricity, it failed to give a convincing explanation in cases of planets with considerable eccentricity like Mars. The lack of symmetry in Mar's trajectory led Kepler to discover that planet's orbits weren't circular, as it was already believed, but elliptical. According to (Evans, 1998, p.431) Kepler said "I therefore once again think it to have happened by divine arrangement, that I arrived at the same time in which he was intent upon Mars, whose motions provide the only possible access to the hidden secrets of astronomy, without which we would remain forever ignorant of those secrets." In this article we are trying to simulate the process followed by Kepler, studying the apparent geocentric Mar's orbit which triggered him to discover elliptical planetary orbits. The relation between heliocentrism and geocentrism is highlighted during this study. Besides, this aspect is mentioned by David R. Topper...But this fact is then sometimes generalized to positing that geocentrism and Heliocentrism are equivalent, that they are the same geometrically or mathematically or even exactly the same; in a phrase, there is an isomorphism between them... Topper (2007) The methodology which was used, in the whole process, relies on mathematical modeling. This approach is based mainly on dynamic position change over time, which the interactive mathematic software GeoGebra can generously provide. The end of this historical approach shows that the heliocentric view was revealed throughout a geocentric model, proving the equivalence of these two different aspects. Finally the theoretical numerical results of this study seem to be in full agreement with the astronomical records of that era with minimal discrepancies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Geocentrism remained a fundamental characteristic of ancient astronomy, though there were moments in the history of this discipline when they argued for the orbital movement of the Earth around the Sun and even its rotation around its own axis. Practically, at the crossroads between physics and geometry, astronomy rejected a correct thesis in geometric terms, based on seemingly arguable physical theories. In this paper, my goal is to present from a synthetic and diachronic perspective several elements of the cosmologic model developed by the Greeks until the time of Aristarchus of Samos, thus highlighting several aspects of physics that made it impossible to accept heliocentrism, explainable in mathematical terms, which he promoted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Llull: Revista de la Sociedad Espanola de Historia de las Ciencias y de las Tecnicas is the property of Sociedad Espanola de Historia de las Ciencias y de las Tecnicas and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In recent years a number of scholars have argued that numerous biblical texts affirm what we now know are erroneous scientific notions. The sort of arguments they use and the biblical texts they cite have been well summarised in the writings of Denis Lamoureux. Lamoureux argues that these texts affirm erroneous notions concerning a three-tier universe, the movement of the sun across the sky, a solid firmament, flat earth, the mustard seed being the smallest seed, the death of the seed during germination, preformatism and creation de novo. I show that Lamoureux has not adequately considered Beale's distinction between what the texts affirm and what the author believes. I develop various arguments based on this distinction and demonstrate that Lamoureux's arguments fail to refute Beale's position concerning biblical inerrancy and rule out an alternative view of divine accommodation which uses ancient common ways of expression without affirming scientific errors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Thomas S. Kuhn is famous both for his work on the Copernican Revolution and his 'paradigm' view of scientific revolutions. But Kuhn later abandoned the notion of paradigm (and related notions) in favour of a more 'evolutionary' view of the history of science. Kuhn's position therefore moved closer to 'continuity' models of scientific progress, for instance 'chain-of-reasoning' models, originally championed by D. Shapere. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the debate around Kuhn's new 'developmental' view and to evaluate these competing models with reference to some major innovations in the history of cosmology, from Copernicanism to modern cosmology. This evaluation is made possible through some unexpected overlap between Kuhn's earlier discontinuity model and various versions of the later continuity models. It is the thesis of this paper that the 'chain-of-reasoning' model accounts better for the cosmological evidence than both Kuhn's early paradigm model and his later developmental view of the history of science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Comprendre: Revista Catalana de Filosofía is the property of Herder Editorial S.L. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article presents a reflection on the evolution of science in the 16th and 17th centuries. According to the article, this evolution can be summed up with three notions which are normalization, institutionalization and secularization. The concept of scientific revolution is defined and analyzed. Biographic information on several scientists from this period, as well as details on their contribution to scientific research, is provided, including astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543), astrologist Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), and physicist Galileo Galilei (1564-1642).

En 1613, the well known Galileo's Letters on Sunsposts were published. In this work, Galileo Galilei not just argued in favor of his viewpoint concerning the new astronomical event, but claimed several items that situated him side by side with copernicanism, and put him away from Aristotelian positions, supported by Apelles. We will scrutinize and examine several claims from a methodological point of view. These claims situated placed Galileo Galilei in the modern way of astronomical construction of sidereal and planetary objects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]