The Copernican “Revolution”
1. The historical events that led to our understanding of planetary motion and the current model of our universe are detailed in the “Infinitely Reasonable” excerpt from Burke’s The Day the Universe Changed. The following questions explore key problem solving concepts that are exemplified in this historical case study, particularly with respect to the factors that impacted the progression of change for this specific scientific paradigm (astronomy).
a. Although Aristarchus proposed a heliocentric (sun-centered) model of the universe, his model was largely disregarded in favor of Aristotle’s geocentric (Earth-centered) model. What factors may have contributed to the scientific community’s lack of support for Aristarchus’ model?
b. Likewise: when Copernicus suggested that the Earth should be replaced by the Sun at the center of the “universe”, his model was welcomed by the Church as a practical means of implementing calendar reform. Yet when Galileo made a similar suggestion (years later), he was threatened (by the same Church) with torture by the Inquisition. What factors may have contributed to the different responses these two men received from the same “governing” body of the day?
c. When anomalies in planetary motion did not fit with Aristotle’s model of the universe, explain how Ptolemy handled them. What impact did his work have on the structure of the astronomical paradigm? How were his contributions enabling (and how did they limit) further understanding and practice? Would you consider this a period of ‘normal science’ or ‘science in crisis’?
d. Describe some of the precipitating events that led Copernicus to develop his heliocentric model of the universe. Were these events anticipated or bombshells? Repeat this exercise for Galileo.
e. Explain how the highly adaptive techniques used by Brahe and Kepler led to an innovative solution that more accurately explained planetary motion. How does this example illustrate the catalytic nature of change in terms of style?
f. Within this historical case study, when would you characterize the progression as ‘normal science’? At which point(s) did the scientific community reach ‘science in crisis’? How did the transition between these ‘states’ occur?
g. Based on this historical case study, provide examples of scientists who you believe were more adaptive problem solvers, as well as those that you would consider more innovative. Justify your views in each case.