The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought

Use this book: Thomas Kuhn, The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought (ISBN: 978-0674171039) PLEASE ADD A BIBLIOGRAPHY AT THE END. 1. According to Kuhn, Medieval thinkers (the “Scholastics”) make two important critiques of Aristotle’s cosmology that paved the way for the Copernican Revolution. One of these critiques had to do with logical possibility and one with the theory of impetus. Explain both of these critiques in very clear terms. What were the two criticisms and who made them? (400-500 words; include at least 3 shorts quotes from the text with corresponding page numbers; 20 points)

2. Kuhn argues that when European thinkers re-discovered Aristotle (thanks to the preservation of his works by Islamic thinkers), they initially focused on his philosophical and ethical writings. They didn’t focus on his astronomical writings because they seemed too technical. But then, a number of changes associated with the Renaissance made Aristotle’s astronomy relevant once more. What were these social and political changes? Why did 16th and 17th century thinkers suddenly get interested in Aristotle’s astronomical theories? (350-400 words; include at least 3 shorts quotes from the text with corresponding page numbers; 20 points)

3. In page 129, Kuhn talks about “Neoplatonism and sunworship.” What is neoplatonism and what is the point Kuhn is making about it in relation to Copernicus? Be concrete in your answer. (300-400 words; include at least 3 shorts quotes from the text with corresponding page numbers; 20 points)

4. Explain the different kinds of motion that Copernicus attributes to the earth (see p 147-160). In which ways does the earth move? (400-500 words; include at least 3 shorts quotes from the text with corresponding page numbers; 20 points)

5. One of the most common interpretations of Galileo’s trial is that Galileo upset the Catholic church, which then persecuted him for his scientific beliefs. But Lessl argues that opposition to Galileo’s work also came from “Aristotelian professors”. Why does he say this? What evidence does he provide? And what does this prove about how we should think about Galileo?