David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Perspectives on Science 15 (3):327-358 (2007)
: The Hellenistic reception of Babylonian horoscopic astrology gave rise to the question of what the planets really do and whether astrology is a science. This question in turn became one of defining the Greco-Latin science of astronomy, a project that took Aristotle's views as a starting-point. Thus, I concentrate on one aspect of the various definitions of astronomy proposed in Hellenistic times, their demarcation of astronomy and physical theory. I explicate the account offered by Geminus and its subordination of astronomy to arguments made in physical theory about what really is the case. I then show how Ptolemy treats the same topic but maintains that this science is sufficient on its own to determine the realia it studies. In this way, I identify two moments in an obvious process of intellectual change that had profound consequences for the history of astronomy and cosmology over the next 1500 years. My hope is that this will advance our understanding of the reception of horoscopic astrology in Hellenistic times and also serve to locate Ptolemy more fully in his intellectual context.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Alan C. Bowen (2002). Simplicius and the Early History of Greek Planetary Theory. Perspectives on Science 10 (2):155-167.
Bernard Vitrac (2005). Les classifications des sciences mathématiques en Grèce ancienne. Archives de Philosophie 2 (2):269-301.
Citations of this work BETA
Damien Janos (2011). Moving the Orbs: Astronomy, Physics, and Metaphysics, and the Problem of Celestial Motion According to Ibn Sīnā. Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 21 (02):165-214.
Similar books and articles
D. J. Raine (1986). GINGERICH, OWEN (Ed.) : Astrophysics and Twentieth-Century Astronomy to 1950, The General History of Astronomy, Vol. 4A. Cambridge University Press. Pp. X+198 (ISBN 0-521-24256-8). [REVIEW] British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 37 (4):510-513.
F. Rochberg (2002). A Consideration of Babylonian Astronomy Within the Historiography of Science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 33 (4):661-684.
F. Jamil Ragep (1990). Duhem, the Arabs, and the History of Cosmology. Synthese 83 (2):201 - 214.
Ian Mueller (2006). Physics and Astronomy: Aristotle's Physics II.2.193b22–194a12. Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 16 (2):175-206.
K. V. Krishnamurthy (ed.) (2006). National Seminar on "Vedic Astronomy & Cosmology": 10-11th December 2006. I-S.E.R.V.E (Institute of Scientific Research on Vedas).
Dudley Shapere (1993). Astronomy and Antirealism. Philosophy of Science 60 (1):134-150.
Patrick Suppes (2007). Statistical Concepts in Philosophy of Science. Synthese 154 (3):485--496.
Bernard R. Goldstein (1992). Book Review:The General History of Astronomy. Vol. 2: Planetary Astronomy From the Renaissance to the Rise of Astrophysics. Part A: Tycho Brahe to Newton Rene Taton, Curtis Wilson. [REVIEW] Philosophy of Science 59 (4):698-.
Peter Barker & Bernard R. Goldstein (1998). Realism and Instrumentalism in Sixteenth Century Astronomy: A Reappraisal. Perspectives on Science 6 (3):232-258.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads20 ( #96,845 of 1,410,137 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #177,743 of 1,410,137 )
How can I increase my downloads?