英语论文网

First, the mathematics was much easier on the heliocentric theory. To use the geocentric theory predictively, one had to engage in very complex mathematical procedures. Not so for the heliocentric theory. This points to our first general principle, the principle of least effort or, for short, the laziness principle. If we have a choice between two methodologies, both of which are up to the task, we will take the one that is easier to operate.

The second factor was that of lateral explanatory integration. At the same time as the heliocentric theory (in its Galilean form) was gaining currency, work in physics on gravity and on theories of the transmission of light was proving extremely fruitful. And this work, though not itself astronomical, fitted beautifully with the heliocentric theory, but more awkwardly with the geocentric theory. So in the battle of lateral explanatory fit, or how it sat with other scientific work in other fields, the heliocentric theory won out.

But when it came to the third factor, vertical explanatory fit, the geocentric theory did much better. This was because it sat very will with the traditional Christian view of man’s place in God’s universe. It was only natural that man, the highest form of created life, should be at the centre of God’s creation. The views of Ptolemy sat very well with this Christian view of the cosmos; so much so that followers of Copernicus were executed for witchcraft and Galileo twice faced the Inquisition for denying that the Earth was at the centre of the solar system and for teaching that the Earth moves. These scientific doctrines were regarded by the Church as a repudiation of Christian truths, so well was the geocentric cosmology vertically integrated with Christian theology. This was not a lateral fit with another branch of science but a vertical fit with something regarded as higher than science (science was seen as the hand maiden of theology.)

So at first the heliocentric theory lost out (and painfully so!) on the issue of vertical explanatory integration. Nonetheless it did come to prevail in the years to come. This was because the Church quietly abandoned its engagement with the geocentric theory. The heliocentric explanatory theory no longer had a vertical integration problem, because the Church had loosened its attachment to scientific detail.

Finally, there is an aesthetic consideration. Which explanation is the more elegant? Elegance is an intuitive notion, hard to describe (like the aroma of coffee!) But I bet you recognise it in your primary field of study. With your reading of many alternative explanations of certain phenomena, some will strike you as having a more elegant character than the others. Elegance is essentially subjective aesthetic fit. Like fine wines, it is almost impossible to explain to a non-drinker why this wine is finer than that, and experienced wine tasters will not always agree, but the one thing that is clear is that the more reflective experience you have, the more likely you will be to be able to identify the finer qualities of a fine wine (Trust me!).

So, in sum, we can list these principles of explanatory choice: