Duhem has generally been understood to have maintained that the major Greek astronomers were instrumentalists. This view has emerged mainly from a reading of his 1908 publication To Save the Phenomena. In it he sharply contrasted a sophisticated Greek interpretation of astronomical models (for Duhem this was that they were mathematical contrivances) with a naive insistence of the Arabs on their concrete reality. But in Le Système du monde, which began to appear in 1913, Duhem modified his views on Greek (...) astronomy considerably; his more subtle understanding included the recognition that many Greeks subordinated mathematical astronomy to physical theory. But he could not completely repudiate his earlier views about Greek astronomy in part because his extreme nineteenth century prejudices led him to continue to insist on a clear-cut demarcation between Greek and Arabic astronomy. The inevitable result is a certain unevenness in the Système and some glaring inconsistencies. (shrink)

Based upon research over the past half century, there has been a growing recognition that a number of mathematical models used by Copernicus had originally been developed by Islamic astronomers. This has led to speculation about how Copernicus may have learned of these models and the role they played in the development of his revolutionary, heliocentric cosmology. Most discussion of this connection has thus far been confined to fairly technical issues related to these models; recently, though, it has been argued (...) that the connections may go deeper, extending into the physics of a moving Earth and the way in which astronomy itself was conceived. The purpose of this article is to give an overview of these possible connections between Copernicus and his Islamic predecessors and to discuss some of their implications for Copernican studies. (shrink)

If one is allowed to speak of progress in historical research, one may note with satisfaction the growing sophistication with which the relationship between science and religion has been examined in recent years. The "warfare" model, the "separation" paradigm, and the "partnership" ideal have been subjected to critical scrutiny and the glaring light of historical evidence. As John Hedley Brooke has so astutely noted, "Serious scholarship in the history of science has revealed so extraordinarily rich and complex a relationship between (...) science and religion in the past that general theses are difficult to sustain. Unfortunately, this more nuanced approach has not been as evident in studies of Islam and science. Though there has been some serious scholarship on the relation between science and religion in Islam, such work has made barely a dent in either the general accounts or the general perceptions of that relationship. These latter continue to be characterized by reductionism, essentialism, apologetics, and barely masked agendas. (shrink)

A passage in Copernicus's De Revolutionibus regarding the rotation of the Earth provides evidence that he was aware, whether directly or indirectly, of an Islamic tradition dealing with this problem that goes back to Na[sdotu]īr al-Dīn al-[Tdotu]ūsī. The most striking similarity is the use of comets by both astronomers to discredit Ptolemy's “proofs” in the Almagest that depended upon observational evidence. The manner in which this question was dealt with by Copernicus, as an astronomical rather than natural philosophical matter, also (...) argues for his being within the tradition of late medieval Islamic astronomy, more so than that of medieval Latin scholasticism. This of course is bolstered by his use of non-Ptolemaic models, such as the [Tdotu]ūsī couple, that have a long history in Islam but virtually none in medieval Europe. Finally, al-Qūshjī, who was in Istanbul just before Copernicus was born, entertained the possibility of the Earth's rotation; this also opens up the possibility of non-textual transmission. (shrink)

RésuméLe modèle complexe de Mercure dans le De revolutionibus de Copernic est virtuellement identique, géométriquement, à celui d'Ibn al-Šāṭir. Cependant, le modèle, antérieur, du Commentariolus est différent et il fonctionne mal. Certains en ont déduit que le jeune Copernic n'avait pas compris le modèle de son pré- décesseur; d'autres ont affirmé que l'œuvre de Copernic était totallement indépendante d'Ibn al-Šāṭir. Nous soutenons que Copernic avait les modèles d'Ibn al-Šāṭir mais qu'il a dû les modifier pour les rendre “quasi-homocentriques” dans le (...) Commentariolus. Cette modification et le passage d'une cosmologie géocentrique à une cosmologie héliocentrique étaient rendus aisés par le “biais héliocentrique” des modèles d'Ibn al-Šāṭir, pour qui la Terre était le centre effectif du mouvement moyen, contrairement à Ptolémée et à la plupart des astronomes islamiques. Nous montrons que : 1) Ibn al-Šāṭir a cherché à reproduire les élongations critiques à ±120° de l'apogée, mais il a changé les valeurs ptoléméennes à 0, ±90 et 180° ; 2) dans le Commentariolus, Copernic n'essaie pas de reproduire des élongations viables pour Mercure;et 3) au moment de la rédaction du De revolutionibus, Copernic contrôle pleinement le modèle de Mercure et il est capable de reproduire les élongations de Ptolémée aux points critiques. Nous soutenons aussi que les arguments concernant des solutions “naturelles” qui excluent la transmission sont niés par l’évidence historique. (shrink)