Kuhn's "Copernican Revolution" and Incommensurability

It's been ages since my last post. I hit a point in the semester where I was sufficiently far behind so as to preclude any thoughts of essay-writing for this blog. But now the holidays have arrived and I have a backlog of topics to write about. Fortunately my reading did not halt when my blogging did...

In the time since my last post I finished reading Thomas Kuhn's "The Copernican Revolution." It's an incredibly good read for anyone interested in intellectual history, and particularly the history of astronomy. I was very motivated to read it because I will be teaching astronomy starting next Fall, and I intend to teach a course developed by a colleague that focuses on the Copernican Revolution. I was also interested in the book because I had heard that Kuhn's work on the Copernican Revolution had ultimately led him to the conclusions about the nature of science that he presents in his "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." In particular I was interested to see the origins of his idea of incommensurability (the idea that there is no logical way to decide between two competing paradigms because each paradigm has different standards of evidence and makes different fundamental assumptions that cannot be questioned within the paradigm).

What struck me most about Kuhn's presentation of Aristotelian cosmology was how sensible it ancient science was. Sure, I know that most of it has now been discredited. But Kuhn did a great job of showing how well the Ptolemaic/Aristotelian system explained much of what was "known" at the time (some of what was "known" turned out to be wrong as well, but they couldn't anticipate that then). There was also a great deal of internal consistency in ancient science, and in fact it was this internal consistency that produced much of the scientific resistance to Copernicus' proposals. Making Earth a planet did not just change astronomy, but it also had an impact that would be felt through all of physics as well as in other areas. If ancient science had been a collection of ad hoc ideas then there would have been little resistance to Copernicus since his ideas would have impacted only the highly specialized area of mathematical astronomy (in which Copernicus was a recognized leader). I was also impressed by how far medieval science advanced beyond the ideas of Aristotle. In particular, Oresme and Buridan were on the verge of the concept of momentum and something like Newton's Second Law. Kuhn also points out that Descartes was the first to clearly formulate a Law of Inertia. This makes the work of Galileo and Newton somewhat less revolutionary than I had thought (though still incredibly revolutionary).

Overall I just can't see where Kuhn got the idea of incommensurability from. It just doesn't seem to be there in this book. He goes to great lengths to point out that Copernicus himself was a die-hard Aristotelian in almost all of his thinking except the planetary nature of Earth. Tycho Brahe was of a similar frame of mind. Kepler was not Aristotelian, and his general approach was quite different from that of most of his contemporaries. But Kepler was just one of the first to ride the wave of neoPlatonism. Kunh readily admits that Kepler's explanation of planetary motion would have won over professional astronomers without any additional evidence. His predictions were simply more accurate than those of anyone else, and this was what counted for professional astronomers. Note that this was a common piece of evidence that both geocentrists and heliocentrists could agree on. There is no incommensurability there. Granted, Kepler's work was unlikely to win over the general populace to the heliocentric model. But that is a process that lies beyond the realms of science itself.

I've always heard of one example of incommensurability being the refusal of anti-Copernicans to admit telescopic evidence as valid. This is a disagreement over what constitutes valid evidence, but it is a scientifically legitimate disagreement. Galileo was the first to use a telescope for astronomy, and the science of optics was new on the scene. It is no surprise that some scientists viewed telescopes with suspicion. It was an as yet unproven technology. If those same scientists had lived long enough to see telescopes and other optical devices in common use they doubtless would have conceded that Galileo's evidence was valid. This is not a matter of incommensurable paradigms, but rather an appropriate cautiousness with regard to a completely new technology. Frankly, there were a wide variety of scientific reasons for rejecting Copernicus' system. For one thing, it wasn't any better than Ptolemy's, as Kuhn points out. For another, it required the dismantling of virtually all the physics that was known at the time. It turns out this was a good thing because that physics was wrong, but it was surely reasonable for Copernicus' contemporaries to hesitate to throw away what they knew of physics for something that would bring them little or no gain. Copernicus himself knew his theory had major problems and expected it to be criticized (which is why he resisted publishing it until his death). There was a lot that needed to be worked out before the benefits of the Copernican idea could be reaped.

Perhaps a genuine incommensurability lies in how various astronomers judged Copernicus' theory. To those with an empirical, Aristotelian viewpoint it could only be deemed a failure or at best a "nice try." To those with a more Platonic perspective (like Kepler) the theory had much to credit it. It was conceptually more economical than Ptolemy's system, even though this conceptual economy had to be covered over with ad hoc additions to make the predictions match the level of accuracy of the Ptolemaic system. But this difference in perspective does not represent an incommensurability between two scientific paradigms. Rather, it seems to be a possible incommensurability between individual scientists who may place different value on different types of evidence. Differences between individual scientists have been around as long as science has. Kuhn is claiming something much larger in "Structure" then that sometimes scientists disagree with each other.

I wonder if a similar examination of a smaller-scale scientific revolution would have led Kuhn away from the idea of incommensurability. The Copernican revolution involved many philosophical the theological issues in addition to the scientific issues. Copernicus' idea ultimately overthrew a worldview that had dominated Western thought for millenia. The revolution itself spanned a long period of time (from Copernicus to Newton) and it came at a time when great technical advances were made (though this may be typical of any important scientific revolution). As Kuhn points out, the backlash against Copernicus' ideas was driven in part by the fundamentalism of the new Protestant faith and the need for the Catholic Church to find a target to attack in order to show that it was not lax about biblical authority. The examination of a similar revolution that did not have all of these complicating factors might not lead to the idea of incommensurability. An example that comes to mind (because I've been studying it recently) is the revolution that saw our Sun moved from the center of the Universe to out near the edge of one spiral galaxy among billions. There were issues of evidence here as well, particularly in regard to the Cepheid variable period-luminosity relation and van Maanen's measures of the rotation of spiral nebulae, and as a result astronomers disagreed on some major points (such as whether spiral nebulae were inside or outside our galaxy). Ultimately, though, a consensus was reached and the main players on both sides of the debate came to the same conclusions in the end. No incommensurability there, it seems.