Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldcreation
What is laughable is that most (if not all) astronomer that followed Kant thought that nebulae, with their wispy tendrils and compact entrails (now called galaxies), were embedded inside the Milky Way Galaxy.
|
I think we all give some credit to Kant for his conjectures, but to determine how much proper credit is due is not that easy.
Where did he get the idea of other galaxies? It wasn't original because about 200 years earlier Bruno beat him to it. I would bet Kant knew of it considering Bruno's infamous fate.
Also, why didn't Kant follow through with his idea on stars forming from nebula by using math? Kant was still young at the time. LaPlace did the math and put bite into the bark, so LaPlace is given greater credit.
I like
Ken's question, "if Kant had never been born, how many extra years would it have taken astronomy to reach the understanding it has today?"
I doubt very many more years would have been added to astronomy. The famous Shapley-Curtis debate would still have occured, I suspect.
Conjectures are fine but they are not deemed as important, so less credit is given. This is good because often conjectures are wrong. Consider how wrong William Herschell was about the possibility of life within the sun? It was interesting conjecture, I suppose, and did not damage his reputation very much.