To what extent should (could?) Kant's work be considered good astronomy?

Nereid · #1 (**permalink**) 12-January-2007, 07:29 PM

I have started this thread to cover an interesting topic that arose in a recent ATM thread - the extent to which the work of the philosopher Immanuel Kant could (or should) be considered astronomy ... by the standards of the day, or today's standards (or any other for that matter).

Unfortunately, this interesting question is quite OT (off topic) for that thread.

Here are the posts from that thread, relevant to this question, in the order in which they appeared:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldcreation

With the 18th century work of Herschel, Laplace, and the ensuing efforts of 19th century astronomers, both theoretical and observational cosmology crossed the threahold of a new era. The discovery of a supernova in the Andromeda nebula (1880's) came as a surprise to some, to others it was confirmation of what they had suspected all along: Our galaxy was not unique. Immanuel Kant had written about this possibility in his influential Universal Natural History and Theory of the Heavens (1755).

Following suggestions from a certain Mr. Wright of Duram__who regarded the fixed stars as a system with the greatest resemblance to that of the planets, rather than a randomly scattered swarm__Kant wrote of the stars in our Milky Way as forming a circular plane. Furthermore he wrote "I consider the species of nebulous stars, of which De Maupertuis makes mention in his treatise "On the Figure of the Fixed Stars" which present the form of more or less open elipses: and I easily persuade myself that these stars can be nothing else than a mass of many fixed stars...And I further saw that that, on account of their feeble light, they are removed to an inconceivable distance from us."

[snip]

"We see that at immense distances there are more of such star-systems, and that the creation in all the infinite extent of its vastness is everywhere systematic and related in all its members...The plan of their revelation must therfore, like themselves, be infinite and without bounds." Kant, 1755)

Kant was 31 years old when he wrote what is often credited to E. Hubble: the discovery that galaxies (nebula) are star systems that lie beyond the Milky Way, and thus enlarging our view of the heavens.

Hubble, Einstein, de Sitter (and others) were almost certainly familliar with Kant's theory (which by the way introduced several aspects of what would later find its way into relativistic cosmology, from SR to the big bang: He had written about "the power of expansion poportional to the heat...the most violent conflagration...the most volatile matter" with obvious Newtonian influence). M. Friedman noted that reference to the Kantian framework was almost necessary arbitration in all debate of the foundations of physical science up until the early 1930's.

I don't recall seeing one equation in Kant's seminal work(s).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tensor

Quote:

I don't recall seeing one equation in Kant's seminal work(s).

Which may explain why we don't use the whole of Kant's ideas anymore. Those parts that we do use, have survived primarialy due to numerical analysis showing (and expanding on Kant's original idea) how that idea matches observations better than another idea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid

This is a great example!

Kant wrote down an idea, a story; Kant was a philosopher, and he was not doing astronomy.

When historians trace the origin of successful (modern) theories, they invariably find (or make up) plausible stories to tell about how the ideas which became the theories began far back in time. They also usually find that there are many fathers - the ideas which became the theories (in the historians' stories) grew in certain (social, political, scientific, ...) environments, etc.

What we rarely see are all the orphans - the ideas which didn't make it, which weren't able to make some kind of paternity claim. Perhaps Kant wrote a hundred other ideas in that seminal work, none of which you could quote, because there are no successful theories you could claim are the descendants of those (failed) ideas?

A more nuanced view: there are parts of the Kant quote which, interpreted today, are wrong ("and that the creation in all the infinite extent of its vastness is everywhere systematic and related in all its members...The plan of their revelation must therfore, like themselves, be infinite and without bounds.") - it is contradicted by Olbers' paradox, for example (though Kant was already dead by the time Olbers wrote this). Perhaps Kant knew this (but chose to write it anyway)?

In my telling of the story of astronomy, the Kantian ideas (above) are not astronomy - they are not quantitative. However, if some equivalent were to be written today, we should expect that they be quantified before being given serious scrutiny. Why? Many reasons, but one obvious one is that it is so much easier to turn a story into something quantitative (at least to the OOM level) and (in principle) testable than it was 250 years ago - you can teach yourself the necessary math, from online courses (for example), and (possibly) for free! And the high quality data ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldcration

Quote:

This is a great example!

Thank you.

Quote:

A more nuanced view: there are parts of the Kant quote which, interpreted today, are wrong ("and that the creation in all the infinite extent of its vastness is everywhere systematic and related in all its members...The plan of their revelation must therfore, like themselves, be infinite and without bounds.") - it is contradicted by Olbers' paradox, for example (though Kant was already dead by the time Olbers wrote this). Perhaps Kant knew this (but chose to write it anyway)?

Here I do not agree with your mainstream view. I agree with the Kantian assessment; "infinite and without bounds" (though what he meant by the plan of their revelation is unclear).

(Off topic it is certainly, but since you brought it up, Olbers paradox is irrelevent if another interpretation for redshift z turns out to be viable. In short, a stationary infinite universe should not be ruled out because of the paradox. Hint: Perhaps the subject of an interesting new thread).

Quote:

In my telling of the story of astronomy, the Kantian ideas (above) are not astronomy - they are not quantitative. However, if some equivalent were to be written today, we should expect that they be quantified before being given serious scrutiny. Why? Many reasons, but one obvious one is that it is so much easier to turn a story into something quantitative (at least to the OOM level) and (in principle) testable than it was 250 years ago - you can teach yourself the necessary math, from online courses (for example), and (possibly) for free! And the high quality data ...

Good points. Another possibility is for those with ideas to associate themselves or work with mathematicians, physicists. The difficulty there is obvious though. It's like a rock band, everyone has their own ideas about how the music should sound.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid

OK, so to turn up the contrast, how is this kind of poring over the words of Kant any different from reading tea leaves or the entrails of a sacrificial goat?

Or, to put it another way, maybe Kant was merely an intermediary - the astronomy he did (as recorded in his works) is due to what he ate and drank?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldcreation

Quote:

OK, so to turn up the contrast, how is this kind of poring over the words of Kant any different from reading tea leaves or the entrails of a sacrificial goat?

From a quantatative perspective, the mainstream view of creation__and the subsequent mythical steps that are thought to have led to the present-day astronomical structures of the universes__is merely an act of transubstantiation (in vino veritas) in which the matter-antimatter asymmetry created the CMBR (and a few light elements).

Kant was an luminary. You may be right though. If he were around today he might just be posting here at ATM, qualitatively hand waving. He was correct in his predictions that nebulae were star systems (galaxies) and therefor that the visible universe was much larger than previously thought; for this he is recognised. Not bad.

Quote:

Or, to put it another way, maybe Kant was merely an intermediary - the astronomy he did (as recorded in his works) is due to what he ate and drank?

What ever it was, he must have done more than just eat and drink, he inhaled.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid

You mean he was lucky?

If he'd guessed otherwise, we wouldn't be having this discussion, right?

Or, more generally, do the people who win the lottery have some special system (for picking winning lottery numbers)?

Or perhaps we could work out the number of teeth a horse has, by sitting around inside, in armchairs, and chatting?

Quote:

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1

You think Kant just made up random thoughts, and the reason that we remember him was just that he got lucky, and happened to be right? Is that a fair paraphrase?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid

Not at all ... what I'm saying is that Kant had no way of knowing how well - or how poorly - his ideas matched any 'reality' that he had not tested (through quantitative observation and experiment), especially those aspects of 'reality' which he could not possibly have tested, at the time he lived.

In this sense, his 'astronomy' is/was equivalent to that of the Greeks who tried to determine the number of teeth a horse has, by sitting around discussing it (rather than go outside, open a horse's mouth, and count them).

Further, as I mentioned earlier, when we view the past in the way CC has done - selective quotes from the whole body of (Kant's) work - we are like the folk who say there is something special about Homo sapiens (other than that individuals of this species are making these notes!) in that we are the goal, or best result, (or something) of evolution ... at the time of any of our ancestors, could a prediction have been made as to which species (contemporary with that ancestor of ours) would end up evolving into a species contemporary with Homo sap. (and which would be 'the end of the line')? Similarly, of all of Kant's works, which ideas ended up being somehow prescient (to our eyes)? And which are no longer cited, by even historians of science? And of all the (non-quantitative) ideas, how many require what sort of (revisionist?) interpretation, to make them appear pertinent (today)?

(to be continued)

Nereid · #2 (**permalink**) 12-January-2007, 07:30 PM

Continuing with copies of posts ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid

Not at all ... what I'm saying is that Kant had no way of knowing how well - or how poorly - his ideas matched any 'reality' that he had not tested (through quantitative observation and experiment), especially those aspects of 'reality' which he could not possibly have tested, at the time he lived.

What he did try to do was extend Newton's laws beyond the solar system, to see what the implications were. That's similar to what we do today, with our inferences about dark matter, so I'm still wondering what problem you have with that.

Worse, I've always got the impression that you'd like to suppress all such speculation on this board. I disagree with that wholeheartedly.

Quote:

In this sense, his 'astronomy' is/was equivalent to that of the Greeks who tried to determine the number of teeth a horse has, by sitting around discussing it (rather than go outside, open a horse's mouth, and count them).

Equivalent? Like Kant could walk into the field somewhere and examine a nebula close up?

Quote:

Similarly, of all of Kant's works, which ideas ended up being somehow prescient (to our eyes)? And which are no longer cited, by even historians of science? And of all the (non-quantitative) ideas, how many require what sort of (revisionist?) interpretation, to make them appear pertinent (today)?

I get the sense that you are making up theories about Kant without looking into the horse's mouth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgruss23

Quote:

This is a great example!

Kant wrote down an idea, a story; Kant was a philosopher, and he was not doing astronomy.

I just re-read Kant's entire essay ( found here but you have to do a lot of skimming to find the relevant section) in which he proposes the concept of external galaxies. You're actually going to stand by the notion that what he wrote was not science?

Quote:

In my telling of the story of astronomy, the Kantian ideas (above) are not astronomy - they are not quantitative. However, if some equivalent were to be written today, we should expect that they be quantified before being given serious scrutiny. Why? Many reasons, but one obvious one is that it is so much easier to turn a story into something quantitative (at least to the OOM level) and (in principle) testable than it was 250 years ago - you can teach yourself the necessary math, from online courses (for example), and (possibly) for free! And the high quality data ...

You're making a fundamental error here - you cannot apply today's standards to past thinkers - they must be judged based upon their own time period (see many a Stephen Jay Gould essay for further discussion).

Are you going to stand by this notion that what Kant wrote was not astronomy in his time?

Quote:

Not at all ... what I'm saying is that Kant had no way of knowing how well - or how poorly - his ideas matched any 'reality' that he had not tested (through quantitative observation and experiment), especially those aspects of 'reality' which he could not possibly have tested, at the time he lived.

Have you read his essay? After outlining his hypothesis he states the following:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kant (1755)

We do not need to look long for this phenomenonamong the observations of the astronomers
... (snip)...
It is thenebulous stars which we refer to, or rather a species of them, which M. de Maupertuis thus describes: They are, he says, small luminous patches, only a little more brilliant than the dark background of the heavens; they are presented in all quarters; they present the figure of ellipses more or less open; and their light is much feebler than that of any other object we can perceive in the heavens.
...(snip) ...
It is far more natural and conceivable to regard themas being not such enormous single stars but systems ofmany stars, whose distance presents them in such anarrow space that the light which is individually imperceptible from each of them, reaches us, on account oftheir immense multitude, in a uniform pale glimmer.Their analogy with the stellar system in which wefind ourselves, their shape, which is just what it oughtto be according to our theory, the feebleness of theirlight which demands a presupposed infinite distance: allthis is in perfect harmony with the view that theseelliptical figures are just universes and, so to speak,Milky Ways, like those whose constitution we have justunfolded.

It seems that Kant had a pretty good idea of what the observations of the time had to say regarding his hypothesis! But how was Kant to know anything about how his idea might hold up to future observations? How can any scientist? The point of developing a hypothesis is to develop an idea that future observations might test. Kant seemed to understand this quite well:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kant (1755)

In fact, we see that the elliptical figures of these species of nebulous stars, as represented by M. de Maupertuis, have a very near relation to the plane of the Milky Way. Here a wide field is open for discovery, for which observation must give the key.
The Nebulous Stars, properly so called, and those about which there is still dispute as to whether they should be so designated, must be examined and tested under the guidance of this theory. When theparts of nature are considered according to their designand a discovered plan, there emerge certain propertiesin it which are otherwise overlooked and which remainconcealed when observation is scattered without guidanceover all sorts of objects.

That's not science?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

As one new to BAUT, I have read this thread to get a sense of some of your perspectives, and have some responses to share.

Astronomy is quantitative, but must be placed in a qualitative framework. This is what Immanuel Kant meant when he said 'the starry heavens above and the moral law within' form the twin pillars of the human ability to combine reason and observation. The comment (#107) that "Reality would seem to be top down order and bottom up phenomenology" touches on this problem of how astronomy links to the rest of life. Mathematical astronomy addresses the 'top down order' but how does mathematics apply to phenomena?

Kant sought to answer this by relating the new Copernican mathematics to a sense of human perspective - using astronomy for philosophy to produce a theory of duty. For this he was reviled by the church as the all-destroyer and epitome of atheism, and became the central thinker of the European Enlightenment.

Astronomers also recoil from this Kantian project, but more because his effort to reconcile science with morality (what I call perspectivalism) tries to integrate mathematics with a qualitative endeavour of defining duty, and thereby retains the taint of non-quantitative approaches.

However, it can be argued that sticking to mathematics alone leaves astronomers without a perspective, except perhaps the cosmological perspective of the whole universe.

You might be surprised how wide is Kant's influence, grounded in the scientific knowledge of his day, on fields such as law, psychology and politics. The enlightenment stamp he put on these fields was firmly grounded in Newtonian physics.

Robert Tulip

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldcreation

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgruss23

[snip]

Of course there is the sub-topic as to whether or not Kant was doing science. But that seems to have fizzled despite the asking of direct pertinent questions over a week ago.

Here is a text from the last section of the link above: Kant's Universal Natural History, with respect to Thomas Wright, from who Kant was inspired:

Quote:

BE MORGAN'S ACCOUNT OF WRIGHT'S SPECULATIONS 205

It seems to me that Wright is entitled to have his speculations considered, not as the accident of a mind which must give the rein to imagination, and sometimes get into a right path, but as the justifiable research and successful conclusion of thought founded on both knowledge and observation. And I submit that his name ought to be enrolled in the list of discoverers.

University College,
March 7, 1848.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgruss23

Yes, I disagree with the claim that Kant was not doing science, but just telling a story.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldcreation

The reason for bringing Kant into the discussion in the first place, here, was precisely because his writings are a clear and blatent violation of the entire premise set out in the OP of this thread: that without math, you are not doing physics (which includes astronomy, cosmology, etc.)...

To date, it seems Nereid had dodged the Kant factor, albeit artfully (with adjectives like lucky, lottery, something Kant ate, drank, smoked... or 'that was then, I'm talking about now,' etc).

I'm still eagerly awaiting his response to your inquiry...

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgruss23

In response to that post Nereid said this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid

Kant wrote down an idea, a story; Kant was a philosopher, and he was not doing astronomy.

I think the quotes taken directly from Kant's writing showed this statement to be wrong here . A direct question was asked in the course of rebutting Nereid's claim about Kant.

Is anyone prepared to defend the claim that Kant was not doing science? Or shall it be conceded that such a statement is incorrect?

Crimson · #3 (**permalink**) 12-January-2007, 07:50 PM

It was not good astronomy. It was EXCELLENT astronomy!

In addition to suggesting the existence of external galaxies, Kant recognized that the Milky Way's brightest component is a disk. He also correctly explained why Mars is smaller than Earth: because Jupiter interfered.

Incidentally, Kant was not the first to suggest the existence of external galaxies. English architect Christopher Wren did so in 1657.

ToSeek · #4 (**permalink**) 12-January-2007, 08:29 PM

I'm inclined to give Kant a certain amount of credit here, but at the same time that doesn't exclude modern astronomers from providing quantitative analyses. Times have changed, and we have vastly better tools now. If someone made a conjecture similar to Kant's, we would expect him to back it up with observation and analysis.

01101001 · #5 (**permalink**) 12-January-2007, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ToSeek

If someone made a conjecture similar to Kant's, we would expect him to back it up with observation and analysis.

I expect Kant to do so, as well, but he can't (ha) or so it seems.

Ken G · #6 (**permalink**) 12-January-2007, 09:49 PM

I think it's fair to say that what Kant did was a piece of the scientific process, but the fact that he was right was indeed a bit lucky. History remembers the correct theories and forgets the ones that didn't pan out, even though they may have all been equally good when they were first invented. It's unfair, but human, to credit the winner when in fact they were all doing more or less the same things. Kant was remarkably right though, so one must entertain the possibility that his extreme intellect helped him to penetrate through the uncertainties. But I've no doubt that equally powerful intellects have been totally forgotten simply for being wrong.

Disinfo Agent · #7 (**permalink**) 13-January-2007, 12:20 AM

I didn't know about all those things, but I do remember hearing that Kant was the first to propose the "primordial solar nebula hypothesis" by which we currently explain the formation of the planets.

He was a clever guy, even if his philosophical works are a chore to read. And an honest philosopher too, not a quack like so many who claimed to follow his footsteps.

Quote:

Kant was 31 years old when he wrote what is often credited to E. Hubble: the discovery that galaxies (nebula) are star systems that lie beyond the Milky Way, and thus enlarging our view of the heavens.

That shows that Kant had good "instincts", but I'm guessing it was Hubble who first came up with some semblance of evidence in support of that theory.

Romanus · #8 (**permalink**) 13-January-2007, 01:49 AM

I've always been impressed by how far ahead of the time some of Kant's astronomical ideas were, however little evidence he put forth for them. If he'd applied himself full-bore to astronomy, he might have been one of the greats, IMO, perhaps even of Herschelian stature.

Coldcreation · #9 (**permalink**) 13-January-2007, 02:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disinfo Agent

I didn't know about all those things, but I do remember hearing that Kant was the first to propose the "primordial solar nebula hypothesis" by which we currently explain the formation of the planets.

He was a clever guy, even if his philosophical works are a chore to read. And an honest philosopher too, not a quack like so many who claimed to follow his footsteps.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldcreation

Kant was 31 years old when he wrote what is often credited to E. Hubble: the discovery that galaxies (nebula) are star systems that lie beyond the Milky Way, and thus enlarging our view of the heavens. .

That shows that Kant had good "instincts", but I'm guessing it was Hubble who first came up with some semblance of evidence in support of that theory.

I don't think it was instinct that would lead Kant to his conclusions, though that may have helped, along with some pure logical reasoning. He was very familliar with Newton's work.

Hubble discovered a variable star (as I recall) in a distant 'nebula' but the supernova discovery years earlier in the Andromeda nebula, 1880's was already evidence enough. Either way Hubble showed observationally that the universe was much larger than most others (not all) before him thought, that the distance to remote objects, nebula, was emormous. Whether or not he's tha man behind the grim landscape of expansion, a hero of the foremost blue-collar epic ever created (the BB), appears almost trivial. He was, either way, an enthralled guide to the universe at large: that is for sure.

Another note on Kant. He did not stop with the galaxies. I'll have to double check this, but if I'm not mistaken he went on to predict the universe itself was eliptical: an idea not backed by observations available at the time, and disproved by observation today. That of course takes nothing away from the insight that both he and Thomas Wright of Duram showed with the extragalactic nebulae prediction.

Coldcreation

Nereid · #10 (**permalink**) 13-January-2007, 02:51 PM

There are many different ways one could approach the question which is the title of this thread. One such would be to ask something like "But just what do you mean by the words 'good astronomy'?" or "How do you decide what 'good astronomy' is?"

One approach is to say "If Kant's contemporaries said, about Kant's writings, that it was 'good astronomy', then it was."

And such an approach is obviously valid (and so the question in the OP relatively easy to answer).

Another approach is to examine his work in the light of what the community of (professional) astronomers today considers to be 'good astronomy'.

Yet another is to approach the question from the perspective of the history of ideas, and ask something like "To what extent did Kant's writings influence the content and direction of astronomy, of his time and in the following decades and centuries?"

Ken G · #11 (**permalink**) 13-January-2007, 04:06 PM

And another general measure for this sort of thing is to ask, "if Kant had never been born, how many extra years would it have taken astronomy to reach the understanding it has today?" The way scientific progress has accelerated with modern technology, that one is probably a particularly sobering metric! Or a somewhat different question is, what service did Kant do for his followers by giving them a correct picture of nebulae, in the absence of proof, versus just some other equally satisfying but incorrect picture?

Ari Jokimaki · #12 (**permalink**) 14-January-2007, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldcreation

Hubble discovered a variable star (as I recall) in a distant 'nebula' but the supernova discovery years earlier in the Andromeda nebula, 1880's was already evidence enough.

Here is a paper discussing early distance measurements to galaxies. It seems that Hubble wasn't the first one to do that, but Hubble's result was accepted because he used Cepheid variables which according to the linked article was then only accepted distance determination method.

Here is Hubble's own paper about it.

Nereid · #13 (**permalink**) 14-January-2007, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken G

And another general measure for this sort of thing is to ask, "if Kant had never been born, how many extra years would it have taken astronomy to reach the understanding it has today?" The way scientific progress has accelerated with modern technology, that one is probably a particularly sobering metric! Or a somewhat different question is, what service did Kant do for his followers by giving them a correct picture of nebulae, in the absence of proof, versus just some other equally satisfying but incorrect picture?

These are fascinating questions to ponder.

However, I wonder if any kind of objective answer would be possible ...

Ken G · #14 (**permalink**) 14-January-2007, 05:02 PM

Probably not! If one chooses to use the "accelerated advancement" metric to gauge the importance of Kant's contribution to science, chances are it strongly favors those who contributed to technology over those who contributed to ideas. And if one uses the "how many people were rescued from an incorrect picture" metric, one would need to quantify the harm in having an incorrect picture!

Coldcreation · #15 (**permalink**) 14-January-2007, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken G

Probably not! If one chooses to use the "accelerated advancement" metric to gauge the importance of Kant's contribution to science, chances are it strongly favors those who contributed to technology over those who contributed to ideas. And if one uses the "how many people were rescued from an incorrect picture" metric, one would need to quantify the harm in having an incorrect picture!

If you look here http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Hubble in Español you will read under Obra (work):

Quote:

Originally Posted by about Kant and Hubble

Remarcablemente la idea de que las nebulosas espirales observadas por Hubble fueran objetos extragalácticos había sido sugerida en otros términos mucho antes por Immanuel Kant en 1755 acuñando el término de Universos isla.

I have not checked the English version, but the fact that when you look up Hubble, and a link is provided for I. Kant as a precurser to Hubble's idea (as stated above) says it all.

CC

Coldcreation · #16 (**permalink**) 18-January-2007, 01:11 AM

I rest my case then.

To what extent should Kant's work be considered good astronomy?

There can hardly be better astronomy.

CC

Kristophe · #17 (**permalink**) 18-January-2007, 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldcreation

I rest my case then.

To what extent should Kant's work be considered good astronomy?

There can hardly be better astronomy.

CC

One could, and clearly people do, argue that Kant performed some measure of "good astronomy" when you consider when he postulated his ideas, and who he may have influenced and how. To claim that there can hardly be better astronomy, though, is laughable. You're saying that just about everyone who followed Kant, and did actual science (and astronomy is a science) are not performing at the same level as someone who simply made claims.

Kants claims may have ended up being demonstrated to be correct. I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for the same confirmation of your own.

George · #18 (**permalink**) 18-January-2007, 02:15 AM

Kant does receive considerable credit for his early conjectures. Gingerich is not shy in quoting him, nor many other authors, though the reference to him seems more respectful of his seed sowing, as valid and sound logic that preceeded his conclusions does not exist.

Copernicus dug back into the Greek past and found other seeds to help support ideas he had. These early Greeks were stated in his Revolutions to help bolster his heliocentric theory. However, his strength was in his evidence (eg Venus variability)

Ken G · #19 (**permalink**) 18-January-2007, 05:26 AM

To underscore George's point about the importance of evidence in science, ask yourself this question: would Kant have been doing worse astronomy had his picture been wrong? Why?

Jerry · #20 (**permalink**) 18-January-2007, 07:55 PM

Kant saw the big picture...the really big picture, and to the best of my knowledge he was the first to expand the universe beyond our own galaxy.

This is an important, observation-based idea, and it is new ideas that drive the scientific discovery process. What kind of mental calculations are necessary to introduce a new concept?

First, you must realize that there may be something wrong with what you have been taught - and this was not any easier in Kant's time than in our own.

Second, in order to conjure up a new explanation which might be scientific in nature, you must be able to do some good mental approximations, rejecting solutions which fail mental sanity checks. This takes a good analytical mind - just as important today as in Kant's times.

Finally, you must convince a reasonable number of your peers that the new prospective makes sense. No one would remember Kant if everyone threw away his work.

I humbly submit that these are the most difficult parts of the scientific process: Once others are convinced the idea has merit, it is possible to obtain the necessary funding to do the bean counting...which can even be trivial if the concept is truly correct.

As a philosopher of science, Kant is peerless.

Coldcreation · #21 (**permalink**) 18-January-2007, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kristophe

To claim that there can hardly be better astronomy, though, is laughable. You're saying that just about everyone who followed Kant, and did actual science (and astronomy is a science) are not performing at the same level as someone who simply made claims.
.

What is laughable is that most (if not all) astronomers that followed Kant were under the impression that the Galaxy was surrounded by an infinite void.

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.

What is laughable is that most (if not all) astronomer that followed Kant, and who were likely aware of Kant's Universal Natural History and Theory of the Heavens (great title), refused to let go of the old dogma that the Milky Way was unique. That would last from 1755, en passent par the SN in the Andromeda nebula (1880's) all the way to 1929 (Hubble's famous paper, A Relation Between Distance and Radial Velocity Among Extra-Galactic Nebula).

What is laughable is that you, Kristophe, permit yourself the rather frivolous remarks of the kind posted above without apparently knowing the subject of the discussion very well at all.

Stick to questions, others will provide the answers.

Don't fight the chill.

Coldcreation

George · #22 (**permalink**) 19-January-2007, 12:49 AM

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.

Disinfo Agent · #23 (**permalink**) 19-January-2007, 12:24 PM

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.

George · #24 (**permalink**) 19-January-2007, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disinfo Agent

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.

I believe I am correct. Here is one article on him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by article

I found it utterly incredible that, during the Italian Renaissance, Bruno as a natural philosopher had developed a cosmology grounded in the concept of infinity. In fact, Bruno's worldview far surpasses those ideas of Cusa, Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler, and Galileo: it argues for an infinite number of stars, planets, and galaxies!

It wouldn't surprise me if some Ionian or Greek beat him to it, however.

Quote:

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.

Hardly silly. I say the sun is not yellow but is white (irradiance). I used to look (ok, and acted) silly about it 'cause it's fun. However, now I support it with hard data and math, thus, will I not garner far greater respect?

Regarding Newton, gravity was known prior to Newton, but Newton's triumphs did come from math (ie calculus). This put meat on the bones of Kepler's laws and engineers today us Newton's math to no small degree, vastly more than GR or QM.

Newton may not have mentioned his view on the possibility of other galaxies because of his more scientific approach of producing repeatable tests and math. Conjecturing is fine but is limited in merit compared to hard, supportable and predictable theory.

Quote:

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.

It is a hard question that I would assume all scientists ask. Aren't Nobel prizes awarded for contributing efforts that noteably make a difference?

Quote:

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.

Agreed. He was brilliant in many ways. [How did he support his conjecture of galaxies?] As for math, I also agree as even Einstein sought and received great math help.

My view is that the degree of merit is proportional to the degree of substantiation of the original conjecture. Greater is the merit for hypothesis, and greater still is given to one who offers a genuine theory. Also, greater merit is given for the efficacy of the contribution. [The sun's true color ranks rather low in this category, otherwise astronomers would have nailed it long ago. ]

Coldcreation · #25 (**permalink**) 23-January-2007, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George

[snip]
Agreed. He was brilliant in many ways. [How did he support his conjecture of galaxies?] As for math, I also agree as even Einstein sought and received great math help.

My view is that the degree of merit is proportional to the degree of substantiation of the original conjecture. Greater is the merit for hypothesis, and greater still is given to one who offers a genuine theory. Also, greater merit is given for the efficacy of the contribution. [The sun's true color ranks rather low in this category, otherwise astronomers would have nailed long ago. ]

The efficacity of Kant's contribution to astronomy and cosmology can be seen in the degree to which he is referred to, not just during the early years of modern cosmologly, prior to and following Einstein's general postulate of relativity, but today still.

Coldcreation

George · #26 (**permalink**) 23-January-2007, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coldcreation

The efficacity of Kant's contribution to astronomy and cosmology can be seen in the degree to which he is referred to, not just during the early years of modern cosmologly, prior to and following Einstein's general postulate of relativity, but today still.

Popularity is nice and is a reasonable indicator there is substance behind it, but it is not, necessarily, solid grounds for merit. Which of his ideas were truly original? If I didn't know better, I would assume Kant originated the idea of the Milky Way consisting of many distant stars. He didn't, Galileo, more than century earlier, beat him to it, and used his telescopic results to help justify his claim.

Disinfo Agent · #27 (**permalink**) 23-January-2007, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George

If I didn't know better, I would assume Kant originated the idea of the Milky Way consisting of many distant stars.

Why would you feel inclined to think that? No one here has claimed it!

Isn't that a straw man?

George · #28 (**permalink**) 23-January-2007, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disinfo Agent

Why would you feel inclined to think that? No one here has claimed it!

A fair point, I suppose. I think it is implied because of the many times the term nebula has been explained by Kant as being stars.

Also, though elsewhere, Kant is credited for this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by article

..he set out his revolutionary claims that the Milky Way was an optical effect due to our location within a large disk of stars...

The two claims seem to go hand-in-hand. Indeed, the second half of their sentence states...

Quote:

...and that the fuzzy patches known as nebulas were, in reality, other Milky Ways (external galaxies).

Quote:

Isn't that a straw man?

If so, it is not be intent.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The energy machine of Joseph Newman	banquo's_bumble_puppy	Off-Topic Babbling	243	09-July-2009 09:29 PM
How much of Hannes Alfven's work is considered mainstream?	Zero Signal	Astronomy	2	18-April-2005 09:11 PM
Good Astronomy on "Birds of Prey"	R.A.F.	Small Media at Large	10	12-November-2002 12:46 AM
A REAL Bad Astronomer	XoFFoX	Against the Mainstream	142	16-September-2002 05:59 PM
Apollo 13 Hoax?	SAMU	Conspiracy Theories	209	24-November-2001 05:04 PM