1) The Aristotelian and Ptolemaic cosmos:

the theory of the heavens

• why the earth is
• spherical
• at the center of the universe
• does not move (clouds and birds, wind, tower experiment, centrifugal effects)

NOTE: Ptolemy consciously rejects heliocentrism
• the problem of planets and retrogression
spheres and epicycles (see epicycle demo)
• the heavens are unchangeable, made of aether; the sublunar world changes and is composed of the four elements

NOTE: this doesn't sit well with epicycles: hence, separation of astronomy and cosmology

• the four elements (earth, water, air, fire) and their natural places.
• a case of "Aristotelian" explanation: why iron moves in the presence of the loadstone;. In the presence of the loadstone, the substance of iron is altered in that it actually aquires a 'magnetic property' (which before it had only potentially), whose nature is to move the iron toward the loadstone.  Observation would be responsible for filling in the details, e.g, the actual paths of motion iron filings follow

NOTE: So, nature involves a vast number of properties which are irreducible to each other in the sense of not admitting of a unitary explanation.
• the rejection of maths as a tool for physiscs
• physics is about changing things, maths about unchanging things.  But only principles which are homogeneous with the subject matter they try to explain can be successsful.
• maths too abstract (spheres on planes touching at one point only in maths) and detached from experience.
• naive physics: no notion of inertia; confusion between force and momentum; lack of Galilean relativity.

NOTE: geocentrism, hierarchically ordered universe, unisotropic space, and medieval culture

• economic expansion of xvi cent., partially fuelled by American gold and silver (Cerro Rico), creates a need for new techonolgy (mining pumps, casting techinques, water loom, spring watch) and better transportation, irrigation, building, etc. This creates a new role for the technician and the engineer.

NOTE: however, the figure of the professional scientist begins in the 1800's; moreover, most scientists in the 1600' and 1700's work outside universities, and associate though academies, scientific societies and their publications.
• perfect assimilation of ancient science, made possible by new editions and translations of Greek scientific texts (e.g., Euclid's Elements; Apollonius' Conics, Archimedes' work, Hero's Pneumatica)
• the belief, present in the Aristotelian tradition, that nature is ultimately intelligible through a combination of sensation and reason
• the belief, present in Renaissance Neo-platonism, that the magician could aquire power over nature by discovering the hidden mathematical relation which have a mystical and religious significance (e.g. Kepler and the 5 solids)

3) The scientific revolution:

the astronomical revolution:

• Copernicus (quasi heliocentric & epicycles without equants)
• Brahe (own system; note: successfully explains Venus's phases although not heliocentric)
• Kepler (elliptical orbits)
• Galileo (developed attempt to answer mechanical objections against earth's diurnal motion)

NOTES:
• Venus's phases
• the lack of parallax shows that the universe is immense or even infinite

• Application of maths

Problem: Galileo shows that projectiles follow a parabolical path.  And yet, actual projectiles don't.  Isn't the new  science too abstract from actual material conditions, as the massive use of maths shows?
Galileo's replies:
• new science hypthetical deductive system of intrinsic value
• all is needed is to eliminate material hindrances from calculation, like a merchant eliminates the weight of containers
• Mechanical models (e.g. Descartes' explanation of magnetism)
• Primary/secondary qualities; the former mathematizable and in objects, the latter in the mind

• heliocentrism
1. deprives us of our focal position in the universe
2. is in conflict with a literal reading of the Bible: this calls into question the leading role of the church, or religion, in cultural issues.

NOTE: here 4 main "solutions" were pursued: 1. the Scriptures ought to be interpreted in the light of scientific discoveries (e.g.Galileo's view); 2. the Scriptures and science have nothing to do with each other (e.g. Bacon's view); 3. a literal reading of the Scriptures takes precedence over science (the answer of most institutional churces); 4. some sort of dissimulation is necessary, e.g., by taking an "instrumentalist" view of theories (e.g.Copernicus, Galileo at times, Descartes)
• mechanism (often understood as atomism) was traditionally associated with world views which rejected final causes and a God operating in the world to activate them.  In addition, the distinction between primary and secondary qualities raises problems about the epistemological value of sensation and the nature of a world without colors or sounds.
• the possibility that physical explanation could be extended to human beings, thus making us part of nature (naturalism)
• "the equality of intelligences": science uses methods which are open to all and don't presuppose any religious initiations or special enlightenment beyond what's natural tu humans.  Hence, the separation of humankind into "philosophers" and the vulgar (e.g. Plato, Aristotle-Averroes) is unjustified.  This has political ripercussions because it undermines the image of the "noble lie" and sows the seeds of democracy.
• the rejection of the exemplary character of classical culture (against Humanism and the Renaissance) and of tradition.  This too had political implications.

NOTE: however, see Newton and the prisca philosophia.