Epicycle: Difference between revisions

789 bytes added ,  19 January 2021
no edit summary
(Created page with "{{a|cosmology|450px|thumb|center|An [[ad hoc hypothesis yesterday.]]}}In Ptolemaic and other geocentric astronomies, epicycles were necessary fea...")
 
No edit summary
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 5: Line 5:
Of course it later became apparent that the planets weren’t orbiting the Earth at all, but were prescribing simple, lazy ellipses around the sun.
Of course it later became apparent that the planets weren’t orbiting the Earth at all, but were prescribing simple, lazy ellipses around the sun.


Why mention this on a wiki largely devoted to complaining about modern legal practice in financial services? Because of its ''metaphorical power'', or course. The existence of epicycles was classic “[[ad hoc hypothesis]]” — a desperate attempt to shore up a research programme that was otherwise in crisis, because no-one wants to give up a cosmological theory that has worked perfectly well for twelve centuries.
Why mention this on a wiki largely devoted to complaining about modern legal practice in financial services? Because of its ''metaphorical power'', of course. The existence of epicycles was classic “[[ad hoc hypothesis]]” — a desperate attempt to shore up a research programme that was otherwise in crisis, because no-one wants to give up a cosmological theory that has worked perfectly well for twelve centuries.


Similar things happen in all protected magisteria — [[paradigm]]s, in [[Thomas Kuhn]]’s terminology —where an intellectual community has invested a good deal of time in constructing an entire ecosystem in which a given discipline can flourish. The moment you find some apparently falsifying data you do not assume the whole intellectual superstructure is shot: you are committed, intellectually and ''emotionally'' to it: you derive your status from it; probably your income too. Instead your first priority is to ''contextualise'' the errant data: check it, make sense of it; ensure it is correct and valid by reference to your own-built intellectual rules; and then build a narrative to explain the apparent anomaly — which as often as not will be “this data is irrelevant”.


{{c2|Astrophysics|Metaphor}}
{{c2|Astrophysics|Metaphor}}