Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-k7p5g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-09T17:19:57.724Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Interplay between Theory and Observation in the Solar Model of Hipparchus and Ptolemy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Kathleen Okruhlik
Kathleen Okruhlik*
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Accounts of ancient mathematical astronomy tend to err in either of two directions as regards the relationship between theory and observation. On the one hand, there are overly positivistic accounts according to which it is assumed that all theoretical progress made by the ancients was rendered possible by the increasing bulk and accuracy of observational data. On the other hand, there are those authors who, whenever they are confronted with a discrepancy between the observational report of an ancient and a modern result, are only too quick to conclude that the alleged observations were fudged (or even manufactured out of thin air) in order to support certain pre-existing theoretical commitments. It would appear from the case studies cited below that the truth about the relationship between observational data and theoretical presuppositions is somewhat more complicated than either of these two extreme accounts would allow.

Type
Part III. Observation and Theory
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1978 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1978 , 1978 , pp. 72 - 82
Copyright
Copyright © 1978 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

I am grateful to Bernie Goldstein and to Jim Brown for their assistance.

References

Aaboe, Asger and Price, Derek J. de Solla. “Qualitative Measurement in antiquity: The Derivation of Accurate Parameters from Crude but Crucial Observations.” In Mélanges Alexandre Koyré. Volume 1. Paris: Hermann et Cie., 1965. Pages 1–20.Google Scholar
Britton, John Phillips. On the Quality of Solar and Lunar Observations and Parameters in Ptolemy's Almagest. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Yale University, 1966. Xerox University Microfilms Publication Number 67-06997.Google Scholar
Britton, John Phillips. “Ptolemy's Determination of the Obliquity of the Ecliptic.” Centaurus 14 (1969): 29–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newton, Robert R. “The Authenticity of Ptolemy's Parallax Data Part I.” Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 14 (1973): 367–388.Google Scholar
Newton, Robert R. The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977.Google Scholar
Petersen, Viggo M. and Schmidt, Olaf. “The Determination of the Longitude of the Apogee of the Orbit of the Sun according to Hipparchus and Ptolemy.” Centaurus 12 (1968): 73–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ptolemy, (Claudius Ptolemy) The Almagest (The Mathematical Composition). As printed in Hutchins, Robert Maynard (ed.) Great Books of the Western World Volume 16. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1952. Pages 1–478.Google Scholar