Kepler and the Telescope

There is an uncanny unanimity about the founding role of Kepler's Dioptrice in the theory of optical instruments and for classical geometric optics generally. It has been argued, however, that for more than fifty years optical theory in general, and Dioptrice in particular, was irrelevant for the purposes of telescope making. This article explores the nature of Kepler's achievement in his Dioptrice . It aims to understand the Keplerian 'theory' of the telescope in its own terms, and particularly its links to Kepler's theory of vision. It deals first with Kepler's way to circumvent his ignorance of the law of refraction, before turning to Kepler's explanations of why lenses magnify and invert vision. Next, it analyses Kepler's account of the properties of telescopes and his suggestions to improve their designs. The uses of experiments in Dioptrice , as well as the explicit and implicit references to della Porta's work that it contains, are also elucidated. Finally, it clarifies the status of Kepler's Dioptrice vis-à-vis , classical geometrical optics and presents evidence about its influence in treatises about the practice of telescope making during roughly the first two-thirds of the seventeenth century.     

Galileo and Descartes on Copernicanism and the cause of the tides

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.     

Kepler: Analogies in the search for the law of refraction

This paper examines the methodology used by Kepler to discover a quantitative law of refraction. The aim is to argue that this methodology follows a heuristic method based on the following two Pythagorean principles: (1) sameness is made known by sameness, and (2) harmony arises from establishing a limit to what is unlimited. We will analyse some of the author's proposed analogies to find the aforementioned law and argue that the investigation's heuristic pursues such principles.     

Kepler,Tycho, and the ‘Optical Part of Astronomy’: the genesis of Kepler's theory of pinhole images

In the last half of the 16^th century, the method of casting a solar image through an aperture onto a screen for the purposes of observing the sun and its eclipses came into increasing use among professional astronomers. In particular, Tycho Brahe adapted most of his instruments to solar observations, both of positions and of apparent diameters, by fitting the upper pinnule of his diopters with an aperture and allowing the lower pinnule with an engraved centering circle to serve as a screen. In conjunction with these innovations a method of calculating apparent solar diameters on the basis of the measured size of the image was developed, but the method was almost entirely empirically based and developed without the assistance of an adequate theory of the formation of images behind small apertures. Thus resulted the unsuccessful extension of the method by Tycho to the quantitative observation of apparent lunar diameters during solar eclipses. Kepler's attention to the eclipse of July 1600, prompted by Tycho's anomalous results, gave him occasion to consider the relevant theory of measurement. The result was a fully articulated account of pinhole images. Dedicated to the memory of Ronald Cameron Riddell (29.1.1938–11.1.1981)     

Science, truth and history, Part I. Historiography, relativism and the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge

Recently, many historians of science have chosen to present their historical narratives from the ‘actors’-eye view’. Scientific knowledge not available within the actors’ culture is not permitted to do explanatory work. Proponents of the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge (SSK) purport to ground this historiography on epistemological relativism. I argue that they are making an unnecessary mistake: unnecessary because the historiographical genre in question can be defended on aesthetic and didactic grounds; and a mistake because the argument from relativism is in any case incoherent.The argument of the present article is self-contained, but steers clear of metaphysical debates in the philosophy of science. To allay fears of hidden assumptions, the sequel, to be published in the following issue, will consider SSK’s prospects of succour from scientific realism, instrumentalism, and a metaphysical system of Bruno Latour’s own devising.     

Science, truth and history, part II. Metaphysical bolt-holes for the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge?

Historians of science have frequently sought to exclude modern scientific knowledge from their narratives. Part I of this paper, published in the previous issue, cautioned against seeing more than a literary preference at work here. In particular, it was argued—contra advocates of the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge (SSK)—that a commitment to epistemological relativism should not be seen as having straightforward historiographical consequences. Part II considers further SSK-inspired attempts to entangle the currently fashionable historiography with particular positions in the philosophy of science. None, I argue, is promising. David Bloor’s proposed alliance with scientific realism relies upon a mistaken view of contrastive explanation; Andrew Pickering’s appeal to instrumentalism is persuasive for particle physics but much less so for science as a whole; and Bruno Latour’s home-grown metaphysics is so bizarre that its compatibility with SSK is, if anything, a further blow to the latter’s plausibility.