Abstracts (listed alphabetically)
B. N. Narahari Achar (Univ. of Memphis)
“The Hindu Calendar”
The Hindu Calendar currently in practice reckons time in terms of very large cycles called Kalpa (4.32 billion years) consisting of 14 Manvantataras(Manvantara or age of Manu,~ 308 million years). Manvantara is made up of Mahayugas (Mahayuga= great yuga consists of 4 yugas: Krita, Treta, Dwapara and Kali). Kali yuga is equivalent to 432000 years and 1 Mahayuga= 4.32 million years. This system appears to have been in use since the days of the Epics and Puranas, and attested in the Siddhantas. However, the earliest Vedic Calendar was based on a cycle also called yuga, but consisting of only five years.
This ancient Vedic Calendar was a Luni-solar calendar and used two intercalary months in a five year period and has often been criticized as being very crude. Some historians have gone so far as to say that Indians had no system of observational astronomy based on the continued use of the five-year cycle over thousands of years and that they had no knowledge of the Metonic cycle. We offer the reason for the continued use of the five-year cycle is due to the intimate connection between astronomy and the Vedic ritual and show that the elements of the larger cycle currently in use and the ideas resembling the Metonic cycle can be found in the Vedic literature.
B. N. Narahari Achar (Univ. of Memphis)
“Vedic Astronomy and Ritual: Nakshatra, the Stellar Frame and Yajna, the Ritual”
Nakshatras (loosely translated as asterisms) play a crucial role in Vedic astronomy in addition to providing a stellar frame of reference. A great controversy raged about a hundred years ago over the origin of a stellar frame of reference because of the apparent similarity between the systems used by different civilizations-nakshatras by Indians, hsius by the Chinese, and manazil by the Arabs and so on. However, a closer examination reveals that the similarities are only superficial. The Indian system has its origin in the Vedic ritual yajna. This paper examines the connection between the ritual and astronomy going back to the Vedic sources.
It tries to answer some of the questions that have not been answered satisfactorily, such as: are there twenty seven or twenty eight nakshatras? which is the earlier list and which later? etc. It will also point out the Vedic origin of the nakshatra system in contrast to a Mesopotamian origin.
Marvin Bolt (Adler Planetarium and Astronomical Museum)
“Presenting Astronomy to the Public via Texts, Talks, and Toys”
As a vehicle for popularizing astronomy, the public lecture was often supplemented by popular astronomical texts and scientific instruments. We will look briefly at each of these three media, examining a few of their characteristics and their intersection from ca. 1700 to the present, noting the connections between various popular astronomy media and their social context.
Dennis Danielson (Univ. of British Columbia)
“The Discourse of Cosmology in Calvin and Kepler”
Cosmology, if we avoid restricting its territory too narrowly, is a place where the humanities, science, and religion can talk to each other about the world - its origin, structure, extent, and purpose. Moreover, it is a place, historically, where we can observe the practical exercise of what a literary person might call hermeneutics on a large scale: reading the book of the cosmos.
A diptych in which we can profitably observe this process - a process in which astronomy, religion, and the practicalities of “reading” come together - is provided by Calvin and Kepler in their remarkably parallel discussions of how astronomical insights may be harmonized with - while recognized as being distinct from - naive or poetic descriptions of the heavens given in the Bible.
Calvin in his commentary on Genesis, and Kepler in his discussion of Psalm 104, show how both the theologian and the astronomer may, perhaps must, reconcile what they see and read with what science teaches. Calvin draws a sharp distinction between the practical experience of the senses and the theoretical knowledge gained through astronomy, whose practice and value he defends: “Moses makes two great luminaries; but astronomers prove by conclusive reasons that the star of Saturn, which on account of its great distance appears the least of all, is greater than the moon. Here lies the difference: Moses wrote in a popular style things which, without instruction, all ordinary persons endued with common sense are able to understand; but astronomers investigate with great labor whatever the sagacity of the human mind can comprehend. Nevertheless, [astronomy] unfolds the admirable wisdom of God.”
Kepler for his part employs similar distinctions between scientific and popular style in order to solve apparent conflicts between the Bible and heliocentrism: the Psalmist clearly “acted not the part of an astronomer. For if he had, he would not then have omitted to mention the five planets, than whose motion nothing is more admirable, nothing more excellent, nothing that can more evidently set forth the wisdom of the Creator among the learned.”
Whether it is the Book of God's words or the Book of God's works, both Calvin and Kepler read their texts critically. Both draw the distinction between everyday language and specialist discourse. Both agree on the meaningfulness of their “texts.” Yet in making those necessary distinctions between the discourses of religion and science, neither Kepler nor Calvin dismisses or diminishes the value of either discourse. Neither of them absolutizes the one while radically relativizing the other. Indeed, in the work of both Calvin and Kepler we can see a salutary example of how two discourses that are clearly distinct can nevertheless enrich each other if their human practitioners themselves are sufficiently “bilingual.” Discourses distinct yet managing to inhabit, and to speak about, the same universe - this is a pretty good model of interdisciplinarity even in our own time.
John Dimmock (Univ. of Alabama in Huntsville) and Mitzi Adams (NASA Marshal Space Flight Center)
“Theories of the Universe: One Semester Course for Honors Undergraduates”
For the last two years The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) has delivered a one semester course entitled Theories of The Universe as a seminar for undergraduate honors students. The enrollment is limited to fifteen students to encourage a maximum amount of interaction and discussion. The course has been team-taught enlisting the support of four scientists from the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center as well as UAH faculty from the history, philosophy, biology and physics departments. The course mixes history, mythology, philosophy, religion, and, of course science and astronomy. The course traces mankind's view of the universe and how that has changed from about 30,000 years BCE to the current observations and models.
Starting with a brief history of mankind we trace the evolution of ideas including Prehistoric European, Babylonian, Egyptian, Asian, North, Central and South American, African, Chinese, Greek, Middle Ages, Copernican, Galileo, Kepler, the Renaissance and Enlightenment, Newton, Einstein, and Hawking etc. Namely, we try to touch on just about every different view to puzzles of quantum cosmology, missing mass and the cosmological constant.
By the end of the course, students should have a good understanding of: (1) the human desire and need for understanding; (2) the interplay between observations, modeling and theory development, and the need for revisions based on further observations; (3) the role of developing technology in advancing knowledge; (4) the evolution of our views of the universe and our relation to it; and (5) where we are today in our quest. Students are required to write two term papers and present them to the class. The final exam is a open discussion on our views of what we have learned.
Matthew F. Dowd (Univ. of Notre Dame)
“Apropos of the New Millennium: William Herschel's Comments on the Beginning of the Century”
As a prominent astronomer, William Herschel's opinion was sought by three different persons regarding the beginning of the eighteenth century. Herschel's replies to these requests are contained in five letters contained in the Royal Astronomical Society Microfilm collection. The letters date from Feb. 20, 1798 to November or December of 1799. This paper will include an analysis of the letters, and an explanation of Herschel's opinions on a timely question, apropos of our own situation at the eve of the new millennium. The paper will include the complete transcriptions of the letters in an appendix.
Sven Dupre (Univ. of Ghent)
“Galileo, Magini and the Moon: An Analysis of the 'Theory of the Concave Spherical Mirror'”
In the MS Galileiana 83, there is a hitherto largely unnoticed table of a concave spherical mirror, bearing the title “Theorica speculi concavi sphaerici.” Although Galileo's interest in the subject of spherical mirrors paired with the contemporary artistic tendencies towards anamorphic art of his friend Lodovico Cigoli, Galileo's diagram and commentary testify of his awareness of scientific catoptrics, in particular, the old fascination with burning mirrors. However, Galileo's theory of concave mirrors was not original, but borrowed from a manuscript of the physician and mathematician of Venice, Ettore Ausonio, whose work was published by Magini, the astronomer of the university of Bologna, in 1602.
Although not original, Galileo's “Theory of the Concave Spherical Mirror” was not just a didactic instrument, copied to use in one of his classes. It will be argued that Galileo put his catoptrical theory to work in his astronomy, comparing the perceptual effects of spherical mirrors with those perceived when observing the moon, for instance the secondary light and the size of the solar image reflected in a spherical mirror. Although Galileo published these observations in his “Dialogue concerning the two chief world systems” in 1632, these experiments with mirrors are to be dated to the first decade of the seventeenth century, prior to his telescopic observations of the moon. So, it will be argued that the table in the MS Gal. 83 contains Galileo's notes, experimenting with spherical mirrors, and it will be shown how these observations have influenced Galileo's telescopic observations of the moon.
James Evans, The University of Puget Sound
“What Was New in Ptolemy's Astronomy?”
No one doubts that Ptolemy's Almagest incorporated work produced by his predecessors over a period of several centuries. Was Ptolemy a mere compiler and textbook writer or was he an astronomer of considerable originality?
One way to address this question is to examine issues about which Ptolemy changed his mind or technique as he developed his ideas between the publication of one work and the publication of the next. A second way to address the question of Ptolemy's originality is to compare his astronomy with what his own contemporaries were demonstrably doing. I shall examine the following cases.
1. Atmospheric refraction. In the Almagest there are a few vague and rather confused references to atmospheric refraction of the visual ray. When we turn to the later Optics we find not only a very satisfactory exposition of the phenomena but also a detailed account of how they can be observed. So here we see clear evidence of a development in Ptolemy's thought.
2. Latitude theory of the planets. The latitude theory is one of the least satisfactory aspects of Ptolemy's planetary theory in the Almagest. The systems for both the superior and the inferior planets are rather complicated. When we turn to the later Planetary Hypotheses and the Handy Tables we find that Ptolemy has greatly simplified and in fact improved his theory of the latitudes. This is another sign of his own activity as an astronomer.
3. The theory of longitudes. The introduction of the equant point is what made possible, for the first time, the accurate calculation of planet positions from a geometrical theory. There is no mention of this device in any writer before Ptolemy. Moreover, when we compare the way it is presented in the Almagest with its presentation in the Handy Tables, we again see evidence of a process of development in Ptolemy's thought.
4. Contemporary Alexandrian planetary theory. We have come to know a great deal about how calculation of planet positions was carried on in Greek Egypt during Ptolemy's day. Our new understanding has come about largely through the decipherment of astronomical papyri, including planetary tables. Most important among these are the astronomical materials among the Oxyrhynchus Papyri. These were unearthed in the early decades of this century, but were largely ignored until recently, when their editing was undertaken by Alexander Jones.
What develops is that Greek astronomers of Ptolemy's own time did their calculation of planet positions, not from deferent-and-epicycle theory, but from arithmetic schemes taken directly from Babylonian astronomy. This evidence is especially telling because it comes to us right out of the ground, without having passed through the hands of medieval copyists. The planetary theory of the Almagest, including Ptolemy's design of planetary tables, stands out as something quite different from the planetary schemes of his contemporaries.
In closing, I will point out that when we evaluate Ptolemy's Almagest for clarity or consistency, it is important to keep in mind that we may not have the text he wrote. Rather, as argued by Alan Cameron, our text of the Almagest is very likely a fourth-century edition by Theon of Alexandria and Hypatia. Cameron's argument, now about a decade old, is well known among classicists, but has not circulated as much in the history of astronomy community. I will discuss Camerons evidence briefly and say something about what the edition of a mathematical text meant in Antiquity.
Dana Freiburger (Independent Scholar)
“John Thompson, English Philomath - A Question of Land Surveying and Astronomy”
John Thompson (1720-1783) of Witherley Bridge, England, created a challenging mathematical problem for the readers of the 1766 Gentleman's Diary. Based on an actual land survey connected to the Atherstone Enclosure of 1765, it combined traditional land surveying measures (lengths and angles) with two shadow lines for sunrise and sunset at a given latitude. His abilities in both surveying and mathematics are very well displayed by this problem as well as his sportsman-like posturing over those he called “unmathematical bunglers” of an earlier survey.
Anna Felicity Friedman (Adler Planetarium and Astronomy Museum)
“Teaching the History of Astronomy through Art”
Instead of teaching the history of astronomy through texts, another way to teach it is through images in the form of an exhibition. In addition, it is possible to open up the history of astronomy to a wider audience by creating an exhibit with an interdisciplinary theme, in this case art and astronomy, and by selecting a venue outside of a science institution. This paper will discuss the exhibit Awestruck by the Majesty of the Heavens: Artistic Perspectives from the Adler Planetarium and Astronomy Museum History of Astronomy Collection, which took place at the Chicago Cultural Center from January to March of 1997.
Awestruck featured a selection of celestial charts, portrait prints of famous astronomers, plates from books on astronomical topics, and other works on paper. It focused on the connections between art and science during the period 1500-1800. Scientific content and place within the history of astronomy were discussed in addition to the artistic merit of the objects.
The Chicago Cultural Center is an institution that is home to a wide variety of cultural programming including art, music, film, theater, and dance. In addition to providing a different audience for this material than that which typically visits the Adler, Awestruck also represented an expansion of material for the Cultural Center's audience to view, as their exhibition spaces primarily show only 20th-century art.
Programming such as gallery talks and the production of an art-museum-type exhibition catalog will also be discussed.
Owen Gingerich (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics)
“The Trouble With Ptolemy”
As the first applied mathematician with an encyclopedic vision, Claudius Ptolemy stands as one of the major figures of early science. Using Euclid as his model, Ptolemy brought mathematics to bear on cartography, astronomy, astrology, optics, and harmony. Alas! the real world of observed data is nowhere as clean as the pure mathematics of Euclid, and as he had to wrestle with errors of measurement without any error theory, Ptolemy was repeatedly forced into compromises to reconcile discordant observations, and, as we can easily see with 20-20 hindsight, not all of his pioneering decisions were the correct ones.
For example, it has been recognized for nearly two centuries that Ptolemy's times of equinoxes and solstices were calculated from the data of Hipparchus, and these data are explicitly presented as Hipparchian in Neugebauer's A History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy. Even today few astronomers would start from scratch without benefiting from a prior tradition, but it was Ptolemy's misfortune to trust his illustrious predecessor more than the ambiguous observations available in his own day.
To show within a very limited time how subtle and difficult the interpretation of some aspects of Ptolemy's Almagest are, I shall examine two arguments that have been advanced to prove that Ptolemy was a fraud. The first concerns the mean motion tables, which stop before Ptolemy's own time. It had been claimed that this shows that he stole the tables from a predecessor, but a close examination of the formats of all the tables in the Almagest shows another rational reason for this particular arrangement.
Secondly, Ptolemy gives two differing dates for the same “greatest elongation” of Venus, but rather than being a blunder, the geometery reveals that Ptolemy was exceedingly clever in his use of observationally limited data to extract the orbital parameters for this planet. In contrast, Copernicus gives no observational support at all from his own day for Venus because the geometry was even more unfavorable in 1530 than it had been in AD 140.
Thomas Hockey (Univ. of Northern Iowa)
“The 'Shadow Argument' for Jupiter”
Ten years ago, detailed images of Neptune (taken by the Voyager II spaceprobe) showed cirrus cloud features rising to great heights above a pervasive cloud “deck” below. This planetary relief was evident because the high clouds cast dark shadows on those fifty kilometers below.
More than a century before Voyager, earth-bound observers equated albedo variations (this time, on Jupiter) with shadows, too. Their interpretation of postulated shadows helped change the paradigm model for jovian planets. While such shadows cannot be substanciated today, the theory developed in support of these observations remains intact.
Jesse Kraai (Univ. of Bielefeld)
“The Astrological Philosophy and Coincidences Which Lead to the Publication of Copernicus' De revolutionibus: Georg Joachim Rheticus (1532-1543)”
This project concentrates upon the life and work of Rheticus from the time he entered the University of Wittenberg (1532) to the publication of De revolutionibus (1543). With the help of two newly found manuscripts we are able to better understand the development of Rheticus' thought before and during his encounter with Copernicus. The first manuscript is composed of notes taken by a student by the name of Gugler from 1536 to 1539. This manuscript contains elementary astronomy lectures based on the texts of Proclus (The Sphere) and Alfraganus (Elementa Astronomica) as well as close to 250 pages devoted to astrology. (I discuss the provenance of this manuscript in a forthcoming article entitled “Rheticus uber Proclus, Alfraganus und die Astrologie”.)
The second manuscript arose from a short visit Rheticus made to Wittenberg to fulfill his teaching obligations in January 1540. It contains two rather dry introductory lectures to astronomy using Sacrobosco's De sphera and Plinius' Natural History. Although neither lecture contains any reference to either Copernicus or heliocentrism, an unknown student who took the lecture down referred to Rheticus as “Joachim of the City of the Sun”(I discuss this text in an article entitled “The Newly-found Rheticus Lectures” in Acta Historica Astronomiae, vol. 1).
David J. Krause (Henry Ford Community College)
“The Phases of Venus – What Do They Prove, and Why Should We Care?”
A number of historians and philosophers of science, including S. Drake, T. Kuhn, I. B. Cohen, M. Finocchiaro, and, most recently, N. Swerdlow, have claimed that Galileo's observations of the phases of Venus prove, in some strong sense, that Venus orbits the Sun. It is clear, however, from general considerations that such an observational proof is impossible. Alternative arrangements that satisfy the observations completely can easily be formulated, and an example of one in which Venus is motionless is illustrated. These individuals are therefore using the notion of “observational proof” rather loosely, and are invoking unstated presuppositions to eliminate from consideration other arrangements that observation alone would allow. I believe that this “loose” notion of proof can stand in the way of communicating to students and readers an accurate understanding of the nature of scientific theories and scientific knowledge. Comments on and criticisms of this paper are solicited.
Sofie Lachapelle (Univ. of Notre Dame)
“Astronomy, Religion, and the Psychical Research of Camille Flammarion”
Camille Flammarion (1842-1925) is emblematic of the popularization of science in nineteenth-century France. His engaging treatment of astronomy and his participation in the extraterrestrial life debate allowed him to attain commercial success and celebrity throughout Europe and the Americas. Flammarion also became prominent through his well-known interest in the spiritist movement and his contribution to psychical research. It is his interest in the fields of telepathy, clairvoyance, and apparitions of the near-dead that I want to explore in this presentation. I argue that Flammarion's study of paranormal phenomena was generated by his religious concerns. He saw the scientific confirmation of these phenomena as establishing the existence of human souls, a fact he was not willing to accept without scientific evidence.
Through a quantitative study of the paranormal phenomena, Flammarion hoped to prove the reality of an afterlife for all humans. He approached this problem in the same way he approached his research in astronomy: he amassed extensive observations of instances of telepathy, clairvoyance, and apparitions of the near-dead in hopes of drawing the desired conclusions. Thus, I claim that through their concerns and their methods, Flammarion's astronomy, his religious beliefs, and his psychical research formed a coherent whole.
Jordan Marché (Indiana Univ.)
“Remarks on Collective Biography in Astronomical Historiography”
I shall summarize my experiences in conducting an analysis of the American planetarium community, comprising over 700 institutions and 900 planetarium directors, across the period from 1930 to 1970. Examples will be given as to how concepts utilized in social and gender studies of American science may be extended to the realm of science popularization. In comparison with John Lankford's American Astronomy (1997), possible issues to be raised are: qualitative versus quantitative analysis; the importance of institution building; and the selection of a traditional (or 'analytical') narrative account.
Howard Margolis (Univ. of Chicago)
“Why did Tycho supplant Ptolemy BEFORE the telescope?”
Two years ago I gave a talk intended to show why a solid spheres interpretation of the Tychonic system was logically easy though cognitively difficult. But that argument itself proved to be sufficiently cognitively difficult that very few who heard the talk were persuaded by it. However, a suggestion from Owen Gingerich led me to a really effective way to make that point, as since reported in Nature (April 30, 1998). I propose to take a moment to show that simple demonstration, then devote the main part of the talk to a series of further cognitive oddities connected with the Tychonic system, as revealed by the response of Tycho's own contemporaries, and later by historians of astronomy down to our own time.
James A. Marshall (Independent Scholar)
“A New Rebuttal to the Archaeoastronomers”
This researcher has surveyed and mapped more than 230 prehistoric earthworks over eastern North America as an avocation since 1965. Nearly all these data remain unpublished. From the late 1970s, he has been aware of many claims of astronomical alignments on the same works. These archaeoastronomers launch theories, find facts in publications that fit their theories and have long ignored the many field-determined facts on these 230 sites that don't fit their theories. Their research procedure has provided them with few constraints on wild theorizing. They also seem unaware that they should demonstrate a pattern of alignments on at least 50 of these sites.
The works indicate that specific design and layout procedures were followed in ancient times, but the archaeoastronomers seem unaware that their alignments have to be shown to be a part of these procedures.
A case in point is the Hopeton work in Ross County, Ohio. An archaeoastronomer found 9 significant azimuths, but ignored 110 other potential azimuths on the same site that did not fit his theory.
Roberto de Andrade Martins (Group of History and Theory of Science, UNICAMP, Brazil)
“Searching for the Ether: Leopold Courvoiser's Attempts to Measure the Absolute Velocity of the Solar System”
The Swiss astronomer Leopold Courvoisier (24 January 1873-31 December 1955) was an observer at the Berlin-Babelsberg Observatory from 1905 up to his retirement in 1938. Most of his work was traditional astrometrical observation resulting in the publication of several star catalogues. A relevant part of his publications was devoted, however, to another subject: the attempt to detect the motion of the solar system through the ether. Most of Courvoiser's search for measurable effects of the ether was based upon two “principles.” According to him,
(1) The angles of incidence and reflection of light could be different, relative to the proper reference system of the mirror, if it moved through the ether.
(2) The Lorentz contraction of the Earth due to its motion through the ether produced observable effects relative to the Earth's reference system.
Both “principles,” of course, violate the principle of relativity, but Courvoisier presented theoretical arguments attempting to show that there should exist second order measurable effects. He searched for those effects using both astronomical observations and laboratory experiments and claimed that he had measured a velocity of the solar system of about 600 km/s in a direction close to 75 degrees right ascension and +40 degrees declination.
This paper will present a description and analysis of the astronomical part of Courvoisier's work.
Keith Pickering (Analysts International Corporation)
“The Ancient Star Catalog: A Question of Authorship”
No abstract is available for this paper.
Joseph Ross (Univ. of Notre Dame)
“Hegel's Typology of Celestial Bodies: Planets as Locus of Intellectual Life”
In this paper I shall present Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's theory of celestial bodies presented in the Philosophie der Natur, the second volume of his Enzyklopaedie. Hegel classifies celestial bodies into four groups: sun and stars, comets, moons, and planets, differentiated by their physical composition as well as by their motions. His classification is a rejection of Johann Elert Bode's astronomical theories, which considered not only the moon and planets to be terrestrial in nature but also the comets, sun, and stars; it also takes issue with Christian Wolff's theory that celestial bodies have either a solar or terrestrial nature. Hegel bases his classification upon contemporary theories of the sun, moon, comets, and planets.
For Hegel, planets are the only celestial bodies that have life because they are the only ones to have meteorological change, which he considers the logical foundation of dynamical processes, which culminate in organic and intellectual life. I shall present texts which show that Hegel believed that observation had demonstrated existence of clouds and thus an atmosphere and water on Venus and Jupiter. Hegel's use of the words earth and planet as synonyms has led many interpreters of his discussion of planets as the “home of Geist (spirit or intellect)” to misunderstand it as a discussion of the earth as the unique rather than typical planet. Thus, I will conclude that Hegel did consider planets and not just the earth to be capable of organic and intellectual life.
Bruce Stephenson (Adler Planetarium and Astronomy Museum)
“X-ray Studies of (Real and Fake) Astrolabes”
Historians study astrolabes with many techniques, including linguistic and stylistic analysis of an instrument's engravings, mathematical analysis of its design, and metallurgical analysis of its substance. The last of these has always been problematic because it is potentially destructive. A high-energy, tightly focused X-ray beam permits nondestructive study of several important aspects of an astrolabe's construction. Fluorescence analysis yields the alloy composition of the metal (typically brass) in an instrument. Simple scanning measurements of transmission produce a thickness profile which indicates whether the plate was worked by hammering or more modern cold-rolling. Diffraction studies provide information about the crystalline structure of the metal, which again reveals how the metal was worked.
Results of these types of analysis, performed at Argonne National Laboratory's High Energy Photon beam, are strikingly different for two astrolabes discussed in Derek Price's “Fake Antique Scientific Instruments” (1958). The techniques are promising-although one should not expect automatic, objective answers to any really interesting questions.
Douglas A. Vakoch (SETI Institute)
“Assumptions of the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence: Historical Perspectives on the Nature of Extraterrestrials, Science, and Mathematics”
One of the central premises of the contemporary Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) is that humankind may well not be the only intelligent species that exists. Paradoxically, however, SETI researchers are often quite anthropocentric in their assumptions about the nature of extraterrestrial beings and cultures. In this paper, I will argue that SETI researchers who wish to consider alternatives to their own implicit assumptions might benefit considerably from studying the history of the extraterrestrial life debate.
Two assumptions of many modern SETI researchers are that 1) extraterrestrials will be benevolent or at least not have harmful intentions toward humankind, and 2) our current framework of science, technology, and mathematics provides an adequate basis for communicating intelligibly with alien civilizations. These assumptions were challenged by some of the discussants in the modern extraterrestrial life debate beginning in the late 1950s, particularly when that debate turned to speculations about the spiritual nature of extraterrestrials and to questions about the universality of science and mathematics.
Among Roman Catholic writers, there were significant differences in the anticipated spiritual status of extraterrestrials, but these discrepant views could typically be subsumed within an overarching typology of salvation consistent with orthodox Christianity. Within this typology, extraterrestrials can be categorized as 1) either elevated or in a state of pure nature, 2) if elevated then either fallen or not, and 3) if fallen then either redeemed or not. This typology-interpreted either literally or metaphorically – may provide SETI researchers with one way to think about the nature of extraterrestrials, including the extent to which extraterrestrials may be either benevolent or malevolent.
Views of the universality of science and mathematics varied with the disciplinary background of the discussants: physical scientists and mathematicians tended to assume the comparability of human and extraterrestrial systems, while scholars from the humanities and social sciences were more skeptical of such universality. These divergent perspectives highlight the importance of distinguishing between physical reality and ways of knowing that reality, a distinction that was sometimes blurred.
B. L. Welther (Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory)
“The Founding of the AAS: Opportunities for Women and Amateurs”
In conjunction with the dedication of the Yerkes Observatory in 1897, George Ellery Hale organized a Conference of Astronomers and Astrophysicists. It was so successful that Hale wanted to host a second conference in 1898 to launch an astronomical society in the United States. However, to ensure the participation of East Coast astronomers, Hale asked Edward Pickering to host the conference at Harvard. With this change of venue, the new society developed with less stringent membership requirements than those originally proposed by such astronomers as James Keeler of Lick Observatory. Essentially, Keeler's requisites would have barred amateurs from joining the society and didn't even consider women. However, the first Executive Council that met in Cambridge in 1898 decided that membership could be extended to anyone capable of producing an acceptable paper pertaining to some astronomical subject.
This poster paper will feature the 1898 photograph of the Conference at Harvard and will identify some of the attendees.
Patricia S. Whitesell (Detroit Observatory, Univ. of Michigan)
“”
The University of Michigan's first President, Henry Philip Tappan, created an astronomical observatory in 1854 and named it the Detroit Observatory to honor the city of its major benefactors. The early history of the observatory that was Tappan's personal creation is chronicled in A Creation of His Own: Tappan's Detroit Observatory, a book by Patricia S. Whitesell available from the University of Michigan Press. The story begins with the germ of an idea and progresses through fund raising, the acquisition of astronomical instruments, design and construction of the building, and the early years of what was sometimes referred to as the Ann Arbor School of astronomy. Also covered is the recent historic restoration of the observatory building and its telescopes.
The restored Detroit Observatory is preserved as the University's first scientific laboratory and a physical legacy of the University's first president. The building retains its original equipment: a 6-inch Pistor-Martins meridian circle telescope made in Berlin in 1854; a 12 5/8-inch Henry Fitz, Jr. refracting telescope made in New York in 1857; and the 1854 astronomical clock by Tiede of Berlin.
Thomas Nelson Winter (University of Nebraska)
“Big Geometry: The Third Century B.C. Measures of Earth, Sun and Moon”
The current word in History of Science about Eratosthenes's measure of the Earth is that his recorded way of doing it was too difficult, and therefore he did it in a different and easier, but less accurate way. The perceived difficulty or hardship was in getting a value for the baseline distance from Alexandria, Egypt to Syene, Egypt.
But this difficulty was zero. Even today, we find this distance in Herodotus. Further, none of the ancient sources say he had subalterns actually measure the distance. Then-contemporary context, seen for instance in The Magnitudes and Distances of the Sun and Moon by Aristarchus of Samos, shows that Alexandrian savants selected their values, rather than base them on actual measurement, as values had to be chosen which would work with the mathematical tools they had. The fullest source, Cleomedes, presents the baseline distance among the hypotheses. I.e, suppose it is ____.
Therefore the modern stories about Eratosthenes sending surveyors or pacers to measure this distance are a modern reconstruction or back-formation, and a projection of modern priorities back into the past. Eratosthenes either (a) knew the standard distance already, (b) found a good value for it among the 700,000 volumes of the Museum of Alexandria, or (c) looked it up in Herodotus, as we can still do today. (Actually, he probably had an array of Syene-Alexandria valueson the shelf, and picked a nice one, without ever, in effect, leaving his armchair.) Since the baseline distance can still be found in Herodotus, no reason remains to disallow the ancient account. It is therefore worthwhile to take a fresh look at Eratosthenes' Measure of the Earth, and then the Measure of the Earth by Posidonius.
|
