On Cohen's Appraisal Of Copernican Revolution In Astronomy

Through the study of revolution Cohen found revolution or the scientific revolution historical concept of development after a long before we now know as the appearance. In the era of Copernicus, revolution more is used in the field of astronomy and astrology, circulation, rotate, etc, still no modern revolutionary event, so when astronomers used the word not say a subversive activities, more refers to the continuation of traditional astronomy, Copernicus in its "De Revolutionibus" use of the title of "revolution" is a word that is likely to be a kind of celestial bodies movement of recycle, through the introduction helps us understand that the social situation, can better use historical methods. Cohen agreed to scientific development through scientific revolution is put forward, and the progress of his four inspection standard and four criteria to help us better distinguish whether the event form scientific revolution. The use of these standards he can clearly determine the revolutionary Copernican revolution.Through historical analysis, can be found Copernican astronomy system and the Ptolemaic system has many similarities. Copernicus adopted Ptolemaic period of observation data, his system is still in concentric system on the basis of improving and perfecting the mistakes and errors, data is obvious, He did not concise than the Ptolemaic system, more accurately. Copernicus disagreed Ptolemy the introduction of equants that changed orbit uniformly circular motion, violated the celestial principle, he put the center of the universe from the earth to the sun moved to cancel equants, uniform restored uniform circular motion, it is his own and also astronomers believed the theory of most contribution. But modern thought Copernicus epoch-making change in the center of the universe when did not seem to cause much attention, so did Copernicus. Copernicus, the influence of traditional by Pythagoreans his focus attention on the harmony of the object, and emphasizes the planet cosmology mathematical problems; Astronomers at the time take the Copernican theory as a mathematical model ,so changing the center of the universe at that time did not pay sufficient attention. Therefore Cohen says that Copernican astronomy did not produce a new theory of creativity, it is even for traditional backwards, It is only as a kind of influence by using mathematical model and did not change when astronomers knew the world views, from the aspects of Copernicus, not a revolution of astronomy. However, Cohen spoke highly of the Copernican system of "reality", he thought that Copernicus was the first to show that the theory of the reality of their own scientists. The scientists before Copernicus was concerned about the design scheme of "explain phenomenon", they put their theory only as an interpretation of the world, a mathematical model of calculating mode, is not really exist, the bodies of the preface of the propaganda circulate this thought, and it is proved to be the Osiander contrived. Copernicus believed that his theory was to explain the true picture of the world. This kind of "reality" guided by faith people constantly in pursuit of truth, exploring theoretical inner harmonious order, which say, had been predicted by Copernican theory, the authenticity of the belief supported Copernicus and his successors faced with the calculation of many boring stick, found a harmony theory. Cohen thought, the reality of Copernican astronomy could be called the real Copernican Revolution , its contribution was the most important in the Copernicus's theory .The third section describes the other researchers on the analysis of the Copernican revolution. Kuhn, Koyré, Owen Gingerich are famous Historians of science, through the introduction of the theory of Copernicus, they can see, in view of the basic theory of Copernicus, namely Copernican astronomy compared with Ptolemaic was not more accurate and more simple ,and his major contribution is restored uniform circular motion, it is the traditional economics. However, there are different views on the revolutionary, I think, argument comes from judgment standard of scientific revolution: using the theory of paradigm Kuhn uses Paradigm theory take the Ptolemaic geocentric as the old paradigm, but the Copernican heliocentric as a new paradigm, the theories of kepler, Galileo are to supplement and perfect Copernican astronomy. Through analyzing the history of science Cohen found that the Copernican theory is still successful maintenance of a harmonious universe, and to break the traditional ideas, it is still in the old paradigm, and not a field of astronomy Copernicus revolution.Through the above analysis, this paper raises a scientific revolution of new ideas, namely the Scientific Community members'aesthetic preference affects their choice of scientific theory. In the same scientific community members are often have the same aesthetic preferences, the astronomer Copernicus era by aesthetic factors that influence of uniform circular motion is the principle of operation, when the universe into uniform etc; Ptolemaic broke the object of uniform circular motion, astronomers to reform the initiative to restore uniform circular motion and satisfy their aesthetic preferences, although Copernican astronomy changes the center of the universe, it follows the rule of movement, which To meet the aesthetic preferences ,so Copernican theory does not constitute a revolution, it is still within the Paradigm. Kepler was the real one who cause the revolution of astronomy , he who proposed the elliptical orbit destroyed traditional aesthetic standards, it broke the scientific community. when the promise of a new theory proved experience and practical, scientific community gradually accept this new theory, the corresponding will set up a new aesthetic standards, produce the new paradigm, so break original aesthetic commitment to build new aesthetic standard is the result of the revolutionary cause, Copernicus astronomy does not possess revolutionary factor.This article mainly from the perspectives of the history of the "revolutionary" theory of Copernicus, attempt to seek answers from the theory itself, rather than social influence from the external relations with religion, evaluation, etc. At the same time, this paper also put forward from the perspective of aesthetics, a judge of scientific revolution, aesthetic factors of new standard in the science of science in the activities of the universe has certain theoretical choice of regulating function, but when an aesthetic norms is another kind of aesthetic standard break, it means the scientific revolution.