Johannes Kepler – A Mysterious Cosmographist

ahmedmadani:

Thanks for your appreciation.

Mohammad Gill

The tenor of Khuram’s interacts is reminiscent of the intellectual conflicts between the postmodernists and the hard-core scientists. This conflict culminated in the so-called “Science Wars” that raged during the 1990s (the wars provoked Sokal to publish his paper in Social Text, which came to be known as Sokal’s Hoax). I thought this conflict was put aside because I didn’t come across any significant works on this issue recently.

This conflict became prominent after Thomas Kuhn published his “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” in 1962. One of the premises in his book was that the evolution of physical science was sociologically determined. It generated a great deal of debate and the scientists felt as if the foundation stone of physical science had been knocked out by a false postulation. There has been so much written on this issue (for and con,) that it is pointless for me to discuss it here (I did publish an article with a title “Is Physical Science Socially Constructed?” on Chowk, February 21, 2004).

Whether religion, culture, theology, etc. play any significant role in the development of science has been debated to death particularly in the literature that was published after 1960. How does it affect the work of a scientist? Let me quote from “Dreams of a Final Theory (p.190)” by Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg in the following:

“These radical critics of science seem to be having little or no effect on the scientists themselves I do not know of any working scientist who takes them seriously…..In the end this issue will disappear. Modern scientific methods and knowledge have rapidly diffused to non-Western countries like Japan and India and indeed are spreading throughout the world, we can look forward to the day when science can no longer be identified with the West but is seen as the shared possession of humankind.”

Personally, I believe that science is not affected one way or the other by religious beliefs of a scientist or by cultural mores of any particular society. Professor Abdus Salam shared his Nobel Prize with Steven Weinberg and Sheldon Glashow for unification of the weak and electromagnetic forces. Abdus Salam was a Muslim of Ahmadi persuasion and deeply religious. He frequently quoted from Quran in his lectures and speeches. Weinberg and Sheldon are atheists of Jewish lineage. A scientist belonging to a particular religion and culture does not have any definite advantage in doing science over other different religious or atheistic scientists,

During the time that the science wars were raging, a movement to “Islamize” science began in the Muslim world. It seems to have died now not because science has been Islamized but perhaps because the whole thing was a futile activity.

There is a chapter in the afore-quoted Dreams of a Final Theory, which has a title of “Against Philosophy.” Weinberg does recognize the positive role that philosophy has played in science but again philosophy is not science. He wrote (pp.166-167):

“Physicists get so much help from subjective and often vague aesthetic judgments that it might be expected that we would be helped also by philosophy out of which after all our science evolved. Can philosophy give us any guidance toward a final theory? ….The insights of philosophers have occasionally benefited physicists, but generally in a negative fashion – by protecting them from the preconceptions of other philosophers.

I do not want to draw the lesson here that physics is best done without preconceptions. At any one moment there are so many things that might be done, so many accepted principles that might be challenged, that without some guidance from our preconceptions one could do nothing at all. It is just that philosophical principles have not generally provided us with the right preconceptions. In our hunt for the final theory, physicists are more like hounds than hawks; we have become good at sniffing around on the ground for traces of the beauty we expect in the laws of nature, but we do not seem to be able to see the path to the truth from the heights of philosophy.”

In the end, it is a matter of individual choice, I think. If one wants to believe that philosophy (and religion, theology and culture) plays a dominant role in science, or science is a subservient discipline, I do not have any problem with it. But I don’t believe in this conjecture.

Mohammad Gill

[...]

---

Kepler broke radically from authority and tradition by utilizing the ellipse (as opposed to a composition of circular motions) and non-uniform velocities. He hewed firmly to the position that scientific investigations are independent of all philosophical and theological doctrines, that mathematical considerations alone should determine the wisdom of any hypothesis, and that the hypotheses and deductions from these must stand the test of empirical confirmation. (Morris Kline in “Mathematical Thought from Ancient to Modern Times, p.245)

---

[...]


It is a huge intellectual mistake to think as if scientific investigations are independent of Philosophical or even Theological ideas or doctrines. Kepler himself had given supporting mathematical explanations to some of already existing philosophical views of Copernicus as well. Micheal Farady is good example who had found the principle of Dynmo despite the fact that he was even uneducated of mathematics. He was a poor book binder and he had studied somewhat about Electricity out of those books which he used to bind. Even Einstien was not any expert mathematician at the time when he got popularity. He had learnt detailed mathematics at the time when he was already popular. Contemporary science is very much indebted to ancient as well as modern Philosophy. Both ancient and modern Philosophies are very much indebted to theologies. Science absorbs all the benefits out of theologies and philosophies in such a way that science itself remains unaware of this absorption. Science is very useful because it has invented many useful things. But science is ignorant because it is unaware about its own sources of origin.

Regards!

Re: # 3

[...] -- mathematical considerations alone should determine the wisdom of any hypothesis, and that the hypotheses and deductions from these must stand the test of empirical confirmation. (Morris Kline in “Mathematical Thought from Ancient to Modern Times, p.245) -- [...]

Science is very much confused. If only mathematical considerations should determine the wisdom of any hypothesis then how scientific investigation can be independent of all the philosophies and theologies...??? See that the proposed function of mathematics is only to determine the wisdom of any hypothesis. Also note that ``hypothesis`` itself has not come from mathematics because function of mathematics is only to determine the wisdom of an already available hypothesis. If ``hypothesis`` has not come from ``mathematics``, then it might have come from sources other than mathematics. So what can be the sources other than mathematics...??? Obviously, other sources can be philosophies or even theologies. But if hypothesis itself can come from philosophies and theologies, then how scientific investigation can be independent of all the philosophies and theologies...??? Is the generation of hypothesis is not the part of scientific investigation process...???

Secondly, the quoted statement is saying that ``hypothesis`` and ``deductions`` therefrom must stand the empirical test. Now I ask to please try to find where the ``mathematics`` has gone from all the scientific investigation process. See that ``hypothesis`` itself had not come from mathematics. Secondly ``deductions out of hypothesis`` may not involve any mathematics because meaning of ``deduction`` is the result of ``deductive logic`` and not the result of ``mathematics``.

True logical meanings of this quoted statement itself are that hypothesis must come from sources other than mathematics i.e. may be philosophies or even theologies. Then this hypothesis should go through the process of ``deduction`` (i.e. logic and not mathematics). Then that original hypothesis and results of ``deduction`` should go through the process of empirical test. Now my question is that where mathematics has gone from all this process...???.

True process is actually something like this: At first theologies invoke philoisophies. Then philosophies give birth to many hypothesis. Some of the hypothesises (i.e. not all) may involve quantitative relationships between interrelated variables. Mathematics has to deal only with such hypothesis which involve quantitative relationships between variables. For example, Newton`s first law of motion is such a hypothesis which does not involve aqny quantitative relationship between variables. So there is no application of mathematics in first law of motion. But second law of motion involves quantitative and ``measured`` study of interrelated variables. So only here mathematics comes to scene in the form of equation: ``F = ma``.

Stage of empirical verification may come before works of mathematics or can come after it. For example ``rate of acceleration`` is not possible to calculate without any empirical test. So for the case of second law of motion, empirical verification stage might have come before the mathematical works. The next stage should be the ``logical interpretation`` of results of empirical test. This stage is badly missing in contemporary scientific research procedures.

Mathematics is just a portion of logic. It is the logic of numbers and measurements. Science bb is ignoring logic and emphasizing on mathematics. Only a part is like the whole for this science.

Regards!

I enjoyed reading your article.
In those times there were basic instruments for measurements for angles and for time needed for rotations. There were no cars and power Plants so sky`s use to be clean. I read Kepler and copernicus they use to take heavenly measurements every day and enter in diaries. They use to keep diaries which will give them data for alomst 50 years. The heavenlty bodies must be mesmarising these men otherwise difficult to be so punctual. As you have said Kepler found as a great observer of his data recoreded overs decades to arrive at elliptical motion. It just came to mind due to pollouted skys now we can not record such things by human eyes. Progress has given lot but we loose also some things.
Again enjoyed your article.

Re: # 1
It is very interestong to draw ellipctical shape. First you put two large headed pins on thick paper, ( surface of any box package works well. ) These pins will act as focci. Take a thread and wound around one pin and then press that pin down. Put other pin 300 mm away. Take thread about any where between 500 to 600 mm long. ( just that much so it can draw nice size. Attach thread end to pin end. Then take a sharpend pencil. Move tread with pencil so the strings are tight. Move all around keeping thread tight and you get wonderful shape of mption of planets. If you are teaching about ellicps this way drawing clearly shows the condition for motion , ie point on elli.( sum of distance from focci is always same./).

If one is working with young it helps them lot if we give things they can do and varify. One things students liked was calculating perimerer of circle. Take a circular biscuit box, and measure diameter, then one that and measure perimeter which is about 3 times diameter. Then tell about pi (22/7). They appreciate the power of measurement and geometry.

Some time its hard to realiase how planets are kept in order by gravity between them.
Following little things if expained properly by experiment children may like.. Take a weak string and bind piece or ball. Start rotating initially slowly and tension developed will keep ball in proper position. Then increase speed of ball rotation and string breaks abd ball flies away. The centrifugal force is trying take away ball but string/tension towards center of rotation keep in defined path. One can explain in sky there is no string but that string which is invisible is gravitional pull and suns gravity pulls planets to move in specific way. Many students have told me they understand better when thought like that.

Mr. Gill please excuse me for little inrelated things.
Thanks, have good day.