FR>FR> What really twigged the fact was the orbital data observed by
FR>FR> himself and some of his contemporaries... the Keplerian data,
FR>FR> in other words.  The geometry wouldn't work with "perfect"
FR>fr> circular orbits but worked perfectly for an elipse -- what
FR>fr> blasphemy!
FR>kk> That's right -- I had forgotten.  Everything in the heavens was
FR>kk> supposed at the time to be perfect, and therefore orbits were
FR>kk> required to be 'perfect' circles.
FR>Do you remember Johanas Kepler (sp?!) and his five perfect solids?  He
FR>tried to fit the orbital parameters of the known planets into five perfect
FR>solids and, for decades, failed miserably.  Theologically (sic!) it should
FR>have worked.    The Christian gods lied to someone, it seems.
FR>Griffith Observatory here in Los Angeles has one of his wooden models of
FR>five perfect solids strung from wire on display.
Similar thinking goes back at least as far as Pythagoras.  Seems to
me that it involves a category error: logical inventions of the
hominid brain are imposed on empirical reality.  Modern physicists
often do that, but not without taking the additional step of asking
empirical reality what _it_ thinks about the matter.
Pythagoras ( -> Plato -> Aristotle) accepted the idea that the earth
was a sphere, but not for the most empirical of reasons.  He simply
believed that the sphere was the most perfect of geometric shapes,
ergo that would be a nice shape for the earth to have.  They also
had _some_ empirical data -- the moon and sun are circles, and if
you have really sharp eyes, features on the moon suggest a sphere.
So it was no great leap to assume the earth was a sphere.
FR>kk> Speaking of which, I'm just now reading SJ Gould's most recent book,
FR>kk> "Full House."  He notes Freud's observation that revolutions in
FR>kk> science have typically caused (Gould speaking here) "the successive
FR>kk> dethronement of human arrogance from one pillar after another of our
FR>kk> previous cosmic assurance."  Freud mentions three:
FR>Yeah, it sounds like Freud got that right, at least.  }:-}  It kind of
FR>makes up for "penis envy" and "hysterics."
Yep.    He warn't no dummy.  I think he was just a 'right'
personality, and as soon as things got rolling he seemed to turn
into an OT patriarch.  In his time there was nothing implausible,
at first blush, about penis envy or hysteria.  His mistake was
that he couldn't question those ideas when research didn't bear
them out.
BTW, I have a vague recollection of reading an article 2 or 3 years
ago by Gloria Steinem, in which she mentions that there is some
evidence that Freud may have been molested by his father.  It sounds
mean-spirited to bring it up, but wouldn't that somehow fit well
into the mystery of who Freud was?  (In high school I took a course
from a psychologist, and I well recall him saying that psychologists
initially come up with their ideas to solve their own problems.)
 * SLMR 2.1a *      Forgive your enemies.  They HATE that!
--- PCBoard (R) v15.4/M 5 Beta
(1:301/45)
---------------