Abstract
We investigate the complexity of three successive astronomical paradigms in the science of Physics, namely the Ptole- maic paradigm, the Copernican paradigm, and the Keplerian paradigm, and mention briefly some characteristic facts about the colossal Newtonian paradigm. This complexity can be understood according to five criteria, as proposed by Thomas Kuhn, the father of the epistemological notion of the paradigm, as well as the founder of an important episte- mological school within the realm of the 20 th century. We propose that there does not exists an overall formal criterion for deciding among these rival paradigms, that is of the existing astronomical paradigms at the age Johannes Kepler formulated its own breakthrough within the science of Astronomy. The further evolution of the science of Astronomy, as well as the advent of the telescope era for investigating the celestial phenomena surely decided for the Newtonian paradigm, which can be understood as the epitome of all past astronomical and cosmological paradigms, yet the ad- vance of the scientific study of the celestial phenomena did not evolved within a linear fashion, on the other hand, it has undergone many changes, subject to the great historical turns, that is the eras of the mentioned astronomical paradigms, during their evolution and their abandonment from the scientific community of the astronomers, the scholars and the polymaths of their age, respectively. We propose that each of Thomas Kuhn criteria imposes its own “complexity measure” of these paradigms, while the overall complexity criterion has to be regarded as the accumulating , over- whelming, empirical evidence, for finally deciding the new way of evolution and the novel turn within the science of Astronomy, especially in the post-Keplerian, and surely in the post-Newtonian era.
Highlights
The subject of paradigms in astronomy especially, and in the realm of the physical sciences, as well as its introduction for the study of the social sciences, as a case study of the Kuhnian notion of the paradigm, is of great importance and has produced fruitful studies in the epistemological community (Kuhn, 1996; Gutting, 1980)
We investigate the complexity of three successive astronomical paradigms in the science of Physics, namely the Ptolemaic paradigm, the Copernican paradigm and the Keplerian paradigm and mention briefly some characteristic facts about the colossal Newtonian paradigm
The further evolution of the science of Astronomy, as well as the advent of the telescope era for investigating the celestial phenomena surely decided for the Newtonian paradigm, which can be understood as the epitome of all past astronomical and cosmological paradigms, yet the advance of the scientific study of the celestial phenomena did not evolved within a linear fashion, on the other hand, it has undergone many changes, subject to the great historical turns, that is the eras of the mentioned astronomical paradigms, during their evolution and their abandonment from the scientific community of the astronomers, the scholars and the polymaths of their age, respectively
Summary
The subject of paradigms in astronomy especially, and in the realm of the physical sciences, as well as its introduction for the study of the social sciences, as a case study of the Kuhnian notion of the paradigm, is of great importance and has produced fruitful studies in the epistemological community (Kuhn, 1996; Gutting, 1980). Kuhn proposes five normative categories for judging the strength and the scientific explorative ability of a paradigm, in general These five criteria involve the accuracy, the internal and external consistency, the broad scope, the simplicity and the unification each paradigm introduces, as well as the fruitfulness it encloses. The criterion of broad scope refers to the fact that the consequences of the paradigm have to extend far beyond the particular observations, laws, or sub-theories, which had to be explained by the paradigm Another important criterion refers to the notion of simplicity, applicable to the structure and function of the paradigm, either in the sense of bringing order to the phenomena than in its absence would be individually isolated and, as a set, confused, and in the sense of applying Occam’s razor, that is on the economy and parsimony of the internal structure of the paradigm and its explanatory power. All of these criteria could be understood as a kind of measure of the complexity each paradigm encloses, due to its structure, to its function and due to the modeling of the Universe it proposes and justifies (Margolis, 1993)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
