The Bizarre Hostility to Prolemy

[ernestm]

When I state Ptolemy's geocentric model is still a valid scientific theory, after reading only those 11 words, gangs of anti-theists immediately gather to mock me, ignoring my request to read at least the next three paragraphs before commenting. After the first three paragraphs, I delve into the detail you might assume you already know, but in case you don't, I formalized the responses from prior discussions; and then I discuss the reaction from several hundred commenters on Facebook.

Ptolemy's original problem was that planets sometimes go backwards in the sky, referred to as 'retrograde motion.' When a scientific theory can't explain an observation, one can add something to the theory to account for it, until a simpler model emerges, at which time the old model hasn't been invalidated, but superseded. So Ptolemy added 'epicycles,' giving each planet a small orbit around a point on its big orbit. It's a very ingenious solution. When the planet is on the far point of its epicycle, it moves backward in the sky. That means Ptolemy's model is still valid, because it still explains human worldview and accurately predicts planetary retrograde. But the epicycles are difficult to state mathematically.

The Copernican 'heliocentric' theory is simpler at astronomic scales, and allows integration with Newtonian gravity. While antigravity has somewhat anomalously not been found, the Copernican theory is considered 'more powerful,' because it integrates different scientific disciplines. ~ Hence, the heliocentric theory SUPERSEDES geocentric theory. Ptolemy's model has still NOT BEEN INVALIDATED. It is simply 'less useful' to the goal of the simplest possible complete explanation.

The heliocentric theory has ALSO been superseded in several ways too, but that actually doesn't appear relevant to the bullies. The objective now is rather different: use the Copernican model to prove religion is stupid for thinking human beings are at the center of the universe. Of course, human beings are still at its entropic center. If there is a God, then our entropic complexity would be far more significant than a trite physical geolocation. But that is obviously far too complicated to say to people still stuck on assuming any point in Euclidean space must be a center, referred to as 'The Copernican Fallacy.'

(1) DEMARCATION OF SCIENTIFIC THEORY, RATHER THAN FALSIFICATION

Now of course people raise objections that Ptolemy's geocentrism is no longer a scientific theory. I respond by dividing the issue in two.

The initial reaction is obviously to get into a long debate about Popper's notions of falsification, which really aren't fully resolved, as most of the original arguments against Popper are against his earlier thought, and he changed his mind quite a bit over the years, thus one has to figure out which version of Popper one wants to hold, which arguments from when are pertinent, etc. So a much simpler approach is to bypass the falsification morass and just consider demarcation, which turns out to be much simpler.

The best DEFENSE for holding that Ptolemy's geocentrism is no longer a scientific theory is Thagard. Thagard proposes two rules for demarcation, the first of which is that some theories are too old and inaccurate. Whereas that seems simple at first blush, here is one result in the public domain from that, a relatively short one, only 61 pages:

[url]http://astrofrelat.fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar/filosofia_cientifica/media/papers/Manher-Demarcating_Science_from_Non-science.pdf
[/url]

And that is really short, I mean it, because the definition of what is too old and too inaccurate results in very, very, very long discussions of different demarcation limits in different fields. Thus, with regards to astronomy, it gets as far as astrology definitely being a pseudo-science, and then one could extend that to include Ptolemy. If anyone wants to argue it, we can )

That brings us to Putnam's issue: if Ptolemy's theory is not science, what is it? Does one really want to put it in the same boat as alchemy and astrology and so on? And I think Putnam makes a good point. One could define separate demarcations for each field, but it's just not a very elegant solution. Thagard opens a lengthy debate, and possibly irresolvable in many cases, on what should be 'too old' and 'too inaccurate.' So more recent definitions of demarcation, considering whether the theory needs to be invalidated to be considered unscientific, rather than just old, are just much more elegant. So that's where I stand on it.

And Ptolemy's is definitely not invalidated. Within the scope and resolution that Ptolemy provided, his theory still provides reliable predictions.

(2) DOES THE SUN REALLY GO AROUND THE EARTH?

Having addressed the demarcation issue, to me this now just becomes a silly debate on the Copernican fallacy. Any point can be a center in Euclidean space, and one picks the one which is convenient for the observation.

I've had to repeat that dozens of times, often in different ways to one person, before it twigs. Why so many people are hung up on that?

Maybe it's a vestige of primary school education or something. I don't know when people are told about Ptolemy in the USA. My Jewish grandmother gleefully told me how wrong the church was to imprison Galileo when I was 8. Obviously, it was rather simplified due to my age at the time. So I thought about it some more when I grew up. Maybe other people never do, and the idea that any location is reasonable as an origin for observation is just too alien to primary-school-level consideration.

WHY THE OUTRIGHT HOSTILITY AGAINST PTOLEMY?

After reading only the first 11 words, the mockers gleefully assume I must be a stupid Creationist who moronically believes the sun orbits the earth, and perhaps more significantly than anything else, an easy victim for their hatred. I learned the bullies don't even know about epicycles, let alone the difference between inductions and causes. I also had complaints from theists who didn't read further, but they didn't have objections to discussing it calmly.

Anti-theists, however, had real emotional problems. In the context of other conflicts, particularly, refusing to consider scientific theories as inductions rather than causes, I have to conclude that the validity of Ptolemy's geocentric theory not only undermines their belief that science 'explains away' a God, but actually causes them severe emotional distress. If science has valid theories that they themselves consider wrong, for wrong reasons, then the wrong justification for their belief is under threat. And that is why even Ptolemy's amazing geocentric model is objectionable. Their immediate natural response is to reject any evidence that EVEN HINTS at a possible contradiction with rationally unjustifiable beliefs, before it even reaches entry into the mind.

The underlying real issue, that scientific theories are inductions, rather than causes, was impossible to communicate.

About half of those telling me I was wrong wrote to me using the word 'deduction' rather than 'induction' in their replies. Then they get even angrier if I said inductions and deductions are not the same, and the discussion collapsed into attempts to put my head in a toilet bowl and flush it.

The other half ignored any explanation of the philosophy of science and launched into unbearably arrogant tirades about why they think any God should not make them suffer, or about pedophilia in Catholic churches. I tried indicating that even the ideologies they were hating actually try to help people with suffering, and certainly don't approve of the abuses they are criticizing, I was lucky if they'd retire in a huff after some final insult, such as "you are too stupid to understand anything." Usually, they carry on ridiculing me. The behavior is totally appalling.

That's not to say bible bashers can't be just as intolerable, but at least they retreat when I say "do you think you are responding to me in a loving and caring manner?"

The antitheists who launch these vendettas at me have no idea of any humanist compassion, Stoic virtue, or other such ethics. They are literally the scum of the earth.

[LuckyR]

Sounds like a bad day. Sorry you had to deal with that.

Just focus on what you can control (your postings) and not on what you can't (other's replies).

[ernestm]

Sounds like a bad day. Sorry you had to deal with that.

Just focus on what you can control (your postings) and not on what you can't (other's replies).

Thanks LuckyRR, a Stoic forum helped me sort this out, and I have removed all the reactions, except for an explanation at the end of section 2. I've got to this now.

Resurrecting Ptolemy: version 3.2
~ Most assume Ptolemy's geocentric model is 'wrong.' Why? Any point can be thought of as a center in space. Maybe the thousands of hostile reactions to earlier drafts of this article are from early childhood imprinting on Galileo's wrongful persecution. This article explains how Ptolemy's theory is superseded, but not invalidated, and should be thought of as an 'old' theory, rather than a 'wrong' theory. Also, it introduces the concept of entropic centrism. The issue of why hostile emotional reactions are so frequent is addressed, as much as appropriate, in the last paragraph of section 3.
--------------------------------------------------------
1. From Ptolemaic, to Coperenican, to Entropic Centrism
--------------------------------------------------------
Ptolemy's original problem was that planets sometimes go backward in the sky, referred to as 'retrograde motion.' When a scientific theory can't explain an observation, one can add something to the theory to account for it, until a simpler model emerges, at which time the old model hasn't been invalidated, but superseded. So Ptolemy added 'epicycles,' giving each planet a small orbit around a point on its big orbit. It's a very ingenious solution. When the planet is on the far point of its epicycle, it moves backward in the sky. That means Ptolemy's model is still valid, because it still explains human worldview and precisely predicts planetary retrograde. But the epicycles are difficult to state mathematically.
~
The Copernican 'heliocentric' theory is simpler at astronomic scales, and allows integration with Newtonian gravity. While antigravity has somewhat anomalously not been found, the Copernican theory is considered 'more powerful,' because it integrates different scientific disciplines. ~ Hence, the heliocentric theory SUPERSEDES geocentric theory. Ptolemy's model has still NOT BEEN INVALIDATED. It is simply 'less useful' to the goal of the simplest possible complete explanation.
~
The heliocentric theory has ALSO been superseded in several ways too, but that actually doesn't appear relevant to the bullies. The objective has been rather different in the last century: use the Copernican model to prove religion is stupid for thinking human beings are at the center of the universe.
~
Of course, as far as we know, human beings are still at its entropic center. But that is obviously far too complicated to say to people still stuck on the childish notion that Galileo 'proved' the earth goes around the sun, as often stated in primary school. Depending on one's frame of reference, a centerpoint can be anywhere in space that is convenient. Holding any centerpoint to be 'wrong' has in the past been referred to as 'The Copernican Fallacy.'
-----------------------------------------------------------------
2) Should Ptolemy's Theory be Considered Scientific?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
After reading the above, some raised objections that Ptolemy's geocentrism was a scientific theory, but is no longer. I respond by addressing two questions: first, how does one define what is a scientific theory or not, with regards to theories like Ptolemy's? And in the next section, is the premise actually wrong, or merely inconsistent with current theory?
~
A few people stated that geocentrism should be a pseudoscience, as per Karl Popper's theory of falsification. However, while still popular in Europe, the USA has almost completely rejected Popperian falsification. Further, Popper changed his mind frequently, making resolution a long process; and moreover, anti-theistic demands that theories such as evolution be regarded as facts conflate the argument into an intractable morass. Thankfully, in Ptolemy's specific case, we can instead consider the 'demarcation' of Ptomely's theory as science, or not. That turns out to be much simpler.
~
Thagard's demarcation would appear to provide the best DEFENSE for holding that Ptolemy's geocentrism is no longer a scientific theory. Thagard proposes two rules, the first of which is that some theories are too old and inaccurate. That's what almost every complaint about Ptolemy states. Thagard's proposal has also been fruitful, producing many articles, an example of which in the public domain is:

>>DEMARCATING SCIENCE FROM NON-SCIENCE (Martin Mahner)
http://astrofrelat.fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar/filosofia_cientifica/media/papers/Manher-Demarcating_Science_from_Non-science.pdf

And that is really short, only 61 pages, because the definition of what is too old and too inaccurate results in very, very, long discussions of different demarcation limits in different fields. Thus, with regards to astronomy. The above 61 pages get as far as astrology definitely being a pseudo-science. So one could extend that to include Ptolemy. If anyone wants to argue it, we can. Then I would observe that Kepler's theory and relativity have superseded Copernicus, therefore, should Copernicus ALSO be demoted to pseudoscience, or if not, why not?
~
Let's imagine we've decided Ptolemy's theory is not science. That brings us to Putnam's issue: if Ptolemy's theory is not science, then what is it? Does one really want to put it in the same boat as alchemy and astrology and so on?
~
And I think Putnam makes a good point. One could define separate demarcations for each field at nauseam, which is just not a very elegant solution. Thagard opens a lengthy debate, and possibly irresolvable in many cases, on what should be 'too old' and 'too inaccurate,' or should not be.
~
Hence on the basis of the two above problems, it makes sense simply to hold that the theory needs to be invalidated for it to be separated from science. Valid scientific theories, when superseded, can just become old scientific theories. That's just much more simple and more elegant. So that's where I stand on it. The predictive power of Ptolemy's theory is exactly as it was when it was defined. Within the scope and resolution that Ptolemy provided, his theory still provides reliable predictions. The only issue that remains is whether the premise is invalid: that the earth may be considered a Euclidean center of the solar system.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
3) Ptolemy's Premise: the Earth as Centerpoint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The usual objection is that the geocentric premise is false. But any point can be regarded a center in Euclidean space. Thus, although Ptolemy's theory could be regarded as inconsistent with current theory, and THEREFORE regarded false. However, the philosophy of science has found the issue of falsification intractable, and we have already established in the last section that such an approach creates real problems for demarcation. Of more paramount significance should be the undeniable fact that the premise is NOT ACTUALLY FALSE, but merely inconsistent with the current Kepler model.
~
The people who make this objection typically use non-scientific words. They call it a 'false presumption,' 'wrong,' 'out of date,' 'bad assumption,' and a long list of derogatory words. Whatever they say: (1) Any point can be regarded a center in space; (2) Ptolemy's premise is that the Earth is the center; and therefore (3) Ptolemy's premise is valid.
~
Any point can regarded be a center in space, and the simplest model should be chosen for any need. If one is a physicist sending rockets to Mars, then heliocentrism and the Kepler model is best, because the geometries integrate with gravitational force calculations. Most of us do not send rockets to Mars. Most of us want to know the time of the sunrise and sunset within 10~15 minutes. For that, gravity calculations aren't needed, and a geocentric model is simplest.
~
Many people exhibited extremely hostile reactions to the rather undeniable facts above. Why such emotional reactions? Maybe I'm wrong to believe there are many emotional scars on the issue from childhood. For myself, I was gleefully told when I was 8 how wrong the church was to imprison Galileo by my Jewish grandmother. So I think childhood imprinting on Ptolemy being 'wrong,' associated with frequently hostile criticism of religious institution, makes the actual facts just too alien after primary-school-level education. After recovering from the shock at the hostile rejections even refusing to consider rational conversation on the topic, I remembered I had a similar reaction when I raised how we are the entropic center of the known universe. So before concluding, here are a few words on that.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
4) Earth as an Entropic Center
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I'm surprised so few people consider how pleasurable to consider our planet as the only known entropic center of the universe. The number of neurons in one human brain alone is equivalent to the number of stars in our galaxy. With 8 billion of us, just the number of neurons in human brains approaches the number of stars in the known universe. The jury is still out on the 'Fermi Paradox' (that we should have detected intelligent life by now). We haven't found anything approaching the complexity of life, let alone our ability to reason.
~
If there is a God, then our entropic complexity would be far more significant than a trite physical geolocation. It would be a giant flag, sticking out of the multiple dimensions of string theory, making us easy to find. With the rest of the universe operating purely mechanically, our ability to make at least some conscious choices independent of any First Cause would be enough to attract the interest even of an indifferent God.
~
With regards to science, however, there is still debate even on how to measure entropy, so it certainly is a product of string theory, but the definition of any dimension whereby it could be measured is not yet here.
~

[Alan Masterman]

Contributors, please remember that this forum is not the place for 5,000 word essays. If you think you have a thesis which requires essay-length, there are other forums you should apply to.

Ptolemy's geocentric theory was eminently scientific; it accounted for all the available data, and it formed a basis for predicting the future. That's the gold standard for a scientific theory. It was capable of incredible precision, by the standards of the time, and it does not contradict Newton's theory of gravity. It was an amazing intellectual tour-de-force. It isn't going too far to suggest that Ptolemy was the first modern scientist.

[LuckyR]

Contributors, please remember that this forum is not the place for 5,000 word essays. If you think you have a thesis which requires essay-length, there are other forums you should apply to.

Not untrue, though they commonly die a TLDR death.