Quote:
Originally Posted by George
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.
|
Are you sure? Bruno said the universe was infinite, but I don't think astronomers had ever even seen a galaxy (except for the Milky Way), in his day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by George
Also, why didn't Kant follow through with his idea on stars forming from nebula by using math?
|
And why didn't Newton "follow through" with his idea of universal gravitation, and come up with the theory that there were other galaxies himself? That seems like a silly question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by George
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?"
|
That kind of objection can be used to denigrate any contribution to science, from anyone, and of any magnitude. It's an unfair question that no one would ask of a "real" scientist whose contribution had been the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by George
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.
|
Kant didn't just
conjecture. He argued for his conjecture based on theoretical results and empirical evidence. I agree with others: that's what we call "science". How deep or formalised his analysis was is not decisive. Scientists too are not all math-oriented. Some are better at broad theoretical thinking, others at mathematical derivation, and others at measurement and observation.