Search

We propose that the epistemic functions of replication in science are best understood by relating them to kinds of experimental error/uncertainty. One kind of replication, which we call "direct replications," principally serves to assess the reliability of an experiment through its precision: the presence and degree of random error/statistical uncertainty. The other kind of replication, which we call "conceptual replications," principally serves to assess the validity of an experiment through its accuracy: the presence and degree of systematic errors/uncertainties. To illustrate the aptness of this general view, we examine the Hubble constant controversy in astronomy, showing how astronomers have responded to the concordances and discordances in their results by carrying out the different kinds of replication that we identify, with the aim of establishing a precise, accurate value for the Hubble constant. We contrast our view with Machery's "re-sampling" account of replication, which maintains that replications only assess reliability., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

In this article, the extraordinary life of the astronomer Dorothea Klumpke (1861-1942) is described in detail for the first time, focussing on the four phases of her career, in which she researched various astronomical questions both as an amateur and as an employee of an observatory and as one half of a couple in science. For this reason, Klumpke's biography provides insights into the cornucopia of research approaches in astronomy at the time, in which professional and amateur astronomers explored the heavens in observatories, on field trips to exotic countries, in their own backyards, or aboard hot air balloons, using telescopes, gazing through the lenses of cameras and spectroscopes, or based on mathematical reasoning. By comparing her life to biographies of other contemporary women, including Klumpke's sisters, among them the famous neurologist Augusta Klumpke-Déjerine, the criteria that women had to fulfill in order to pursue an academic career in the long nineteenth century will be discussed at the same time. In this, particular attention will be paid to factors over which women themselves had no influence, also to show that before the middle of the twentieth century, many stars had to align in order to have such an unusual career as Dorothea Klumpke., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

This paper investigates the functioning of the 'Copernican paradox' (stating that the Sun stands still and the Earth revolves around the Sun) in the late sixteenth- and early seventeenth-century England, with particular attention to Edward Gresham's (1565-1613) little-known and hitherto understudied astronomical treatise - Astrostereon, or A Discourse of the Falling of the Planet (1603). The text, which is fully appreciative of the heliocentric system, is analysed within a broader context of the ongoing struggles with the Copernican theory at the turn of the seventeenth century. The article finds that apart from having a purely rhetorical function, the 'Copernican paradox' featured in the epistemological debates on how early modern scientific knowledge should be constructed and popularised. The introduction of new scientific claims to sceptical audiences had to be done both through mathematical demonstrations and by referring to the familiar concepts and tools drawn from the inventory of humanist education. As this article shows, Gresham's rhetorical techniques used for the rejection of paradoxicality of heliocentrism are similar to some of the practices which Thomas Digges and William Gilbert employed in order to defend their own findings and assertions., (Copyright © 2019 The Author. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

The goal of this paper, both historical and philosophical, is to launch a new case into the scientific realism debate: geocentric astronomy. Scientific realism about unobservables claims that the non-observational content of our successful/justified empirical theories is true, or approximately true. The argument that is currently considered the best in favor of scientific realism is the No Miracles Argument: the predictive success of a theory that makes (novel) observational predictions while making use of non-observational content would be inexplicable unless such non-observational content approximately corresponds to the world "out there". Laudan's pessimistic meta-induction challenged this argument, and realists reacted by moving to a "selective" version of realism: the approximately true part of the theory is not its full non-observational content but only the part of it that is responsible for the novel, successful observational predictions. Selective scientific realism has been tested against some of the theories in Laudan's list, but the first member of this list, geocentric astronomy, has been traditionally ignored. Our goal here is to defend that Ptolemy's Geocentrism deserves attention and poses a prima facie strong case against selective realism, since it made several successful, novel predictions based on theoretical hypotheses that do not seem to be retained, not even approximately, by posterior theories. Here, though, we confine our work just to the detailed reconstruction of what we take to be the main novel, successful Ptolemaic predictions, leaving the full analysis and assessment of their significance for the realist thesis to future works., (Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

In the Scholium to the Definitions in Principia mathematica, Newton departs from his main task of discussing space, time and motion by suddenly mentioning the proper method for interpreting Scripture. This is surprising, and it has long been ignored by scholars. In this paper, I argue that the Scripture passage in the Scholium is actually far from incidental: it reflects Newton's substantive concern, one evident in correspondence and manuscripts from the 1680s, that any general understanding of space, time and motion must enable readers to recognize the veracity of Biblical claims about natural phenomena, including the motion of the earth. This substantive concern sheds new light on an aspect of Newton's project in the Scholium. It also underscores Newton's originality in dealing with the famous problem of reconciling theological and philosophical conceptions of nature in the seventeenth century., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

In his Letters on the motion impressed by a moving mover, the theory of the motion of composite bodies put forth by Gassendi is strikingly similar to Galileo's. In other of his writings, however, his description of the motion of individual atoms is understood very differently. In those places, he holds (1) that individual atoms are always in motion, even when the body that contains them is at rest, (2) that atomic motion is discontinuous although the motion of composite bodies is at least apparently continuous, and (3) that atomic motion is grounded in an intrinsic vis motrix, motive power. In contrast, composite bodies simply persist in their state of motion or rest in the absence of outside interference. Unfortunately, Gassendi neglects to explain how his accounts of atomic and composite motion fit together, and it is difficult to see how they could possibly be integrated. My goal is to explain, given this difficulty, why he accepted both the Galilean theory of the motion of composite bodies and the Epicurean theory of atomic motion., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Galileo and Descartes were on the front lines of the defense of Copernicanism against theological objections that took on special importance during the seventeenth century. Galileo attempted to overcome opposition to Copernicanism within the Catholic Church by offering a demonstration of this theory that appeals to the fact that the double motion of the earth is necessary as a cause of the tides. It turns out, however, that the details of Galileo's tidal theory compromise his demonstration. Far from attempting to provide a demonstration of the earth's motion, Descartes ultimately argued that his system is compatible with the determination of the Church that the earth is at rest. Nonetheless, Descartes's account of the cause of the tides creates difficulty for this argument., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Yale science professor Denison Olmsted used crowdsourcing to gather observations from across the United States of the unexpected deluge of meteors on 13 November 1833--more than 72,000/h. He used these observations (and newspaper accounts and correspondence from scientists) to make a commendably accurate interpretation of the meteor storm, overturning 2100 years of erroneous teachings about shooting stars and establishing meteor science as a new branch of astronomy. Olmsted's success was substantially based on his use of newspapers and their practice of news pooling to solicit observations from throughout the country by lay and expert observers professionally unaffiliated with Yale College and him. In today's parlance, Olmsted was a remarkably successful early practitioner of scientific crowdsourcing, also known as citizen science. He may have been the first to use mass media for crowdsourcing in science. He pioneered many of the citizen-science crowdsourcing practices that are still in use today: an open call for citizen participation, a clearly defined task, a large geographical distribution for gathering data and a rapid response to opportunistic events. Olmsted's achievement is not just that he used crowdsourcing in 1833 but that crowdsourcing helped him to advance science significantly., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Previous research on the origins of double star astronomy in the early nineteenth century emphasized the role mathematical methods and instrumentation played in motivating early observations of these objects. The work of the British astronomer John Herschel, however, shows that questions regarding the physical nature of double stars were also important. In particular, an analysis of John Herschel's early work on double stars illustrates the way in which speculations regarding these objects were shaped by assumptions of the properties of stars themselves. For Herschel, a major consideration in double star astronomy was distinguishing between types of double stars. Optical doubles were useful in determining parallax while binary doubles were not. In practice, classification of a specific double star pair into one of these categories was based on the assumption that stars were of approximately the same luminosity and thus differences in relative brightness between stars were caused by difference in distances. Such assumptions, though ultimately abandoned, would lead Herschel in the 1830s to advance the possibility that the dim companion stars in certain double star pairs were not stars at all but in fact planets., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Nicholas Copernicus'De revolutionibus (1543) is a frequent starting point for histories of the Scientific Revolution on account of his dramatic reversal of the cosmic order handed down from antiquity. Nevertheless, Copernicus also mounted a surprisingly sharp attack on one of his contemporaries who tried to correct ancient astronomers. This uneasy balance between respecting and criticizing ancient works was part of broader contemporaneous attempts to grapple with the fragmentary legacies of past generations. Debates over stone ruins as well as manuscript texts shaped the evolution of early printed books, and artists, printers and instrument makers joined natural philosophers in pursuing novelties even while emulating tradition.

An explosion on the Sun in 1859, serendipitously witnessed by amateur astronomer Richard Carrington, plunged telegraphic communications into chaos and bathed two thirds of the Earth's skies in aurorae. Explaining what happened to the Sun and how it could affect Earth, 93 million miles away, helped change the direction of astronomy. From being concerned principally with charting the stars to aid navigation, astronomers became increasingly concerned with what the celestial objects were, how they behaved and how they might affect life on Earth.

Although the Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe reacted against Copernicus by restoring the earth to the centre of the cosmos, he built sophisticated instruments to compile massive sets of accurate data. A skilled self-publicist, he commissioned portraits of himself as he established a new type of astronomical research.

The reputations of scientific heroes shift constantly, modified by politicians as well as by historians. Now that the Scientific Revolution has been reappraised, Nicolas Copernicus is portrayed as a friend of the Catholic Church rather than a scientific martyr. As a German-speaking Pole he has been claimed as a figure of national historical importance by both Germany and Poland, and since the early 20th century has been an important symbol of Polish independence.

Francis Baily's publication of the manuscripts of John Flamsteed, the first Astronomer Royal, provoked a furious response. Flamsteed had quarrelled with Isaac Newton, and described him in terms unforgivable to those who claimed him as a paragon of all virtues, both moral and scientific. Baily was condemned for putting Flamsteed's complaints in the public sphere. However, his supporters saw his work as a critique of the excessive hero-worship accorded to Newton. Written when the word 'scientist' had been newly coined, this work and the debates it provoked gives us an insight into contemporary views of the role of the man of science and of the use of science to back political, religious and moral positions.

After Galileo had discovered the four moons of Jupiter in 1609 he became increasingly convinced that the Copernican, heliocentric system of the world was correct. However, this ran against the opinions of the Church and a large number of contemporary astronomers and natural philosophers. The ensuing development culminated in the condemnation of the Copernican system by the Church in 1616 and of Galileo himself, who had propagated the Copernican system in his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (1632), in 1633. Nevertheless, there was a constant debate about the right world system during the whole 17th century. Pictorial representation played an important role in it and the illustrations used as book frontispieces were a significant medium for the dispute.

In 1833 Sir John Herschel sailed to the British Cape Colony in southern Africa. It was a private voyage, the purpose of which was to undertake an astronomical survey of the southern heavens. But his private voyage was interpreted by both the British Government and the British public as a voyage of Imperial scientific exploration. Despite Herschel's explicitly private scientific intentions, he nonetheless became popularly incorporated into the ranks of imperial scientific explorers.

Elizabeth Hevelius (1647-1693) was the second wife of Johann Hevelius, the renowned astronomer of Danzig, and assisted with his observations from the first years of her marriage. Hevelius wrote of her in his books as an able collaborator and she is portrayed in one of them observing with him. She brought out his final, posthumous work. With Johann, she received many notable visitors (including Edmond Halley) and observed with some of them at Danzig. She is the first woman astronomer of whom we have any record.

Astronomical techniques, calendars and devices were developed independently in many places around the world. However, there was much cross-cultural exchange of technology over the centuries. The cultures of Egypt, Greece, India and China influenced each others' astronomy and each cannot be treated in isolation.