8/9/2019 Derry - Chapters 4 and 5 Reflection

1/1

Derry identified a few key points toward the end of Chapter Five, themes that run throughout the stories

of progress. The first was the influence of metaphysical ideas on the thinking of scientists. These big ideas were

floating around, out there, and without them small deviations from what may have been understood as truth

would have been overlooked. I interpret Derrys theme here as putting yourself in the way of ideas -- as described

by several faculty while we were on campus last week. Its not possible to be aware of what small discrepancies

mean unless these metaphysical ideas exist somewhere in our understanding.

Kepler undoubtedly was aware of the ideas Pythagorean astronomers had of the composition of the planets, butBrahe likely did not. The independent study that the two of them completed were, of themselves, extraordinary.

But, without the product of the two, they would have remained distinct and left for later observers to discover.

Yet Kepler was able to capitalize on the precision of Brahes measurements and observations to identify three very

critical concepts or laws of planetary physics.

The development of theory, therefore, is not a process that is structured, defined, and reproducible. Derry

emphasized this in earlier chapters. The theories from the several examples from the discovery of inert gases, to

the development of elliptical orbits, were decades, even millennia in the making. Their origins are spread out among

individuals, metaphysical ideas, and cultural influences. Additionally, making reference to another of Derrys stated

points, is that none of these developments could have been achieved without better observations and more precise

measurements. Without the ability to notice the slightest residue of gas left behind after extracting all the known gas

from the air we breathe, argon would never have been discovered. The observational tools and measurements we

take allow us to see what was never before visible.

It is also worth noting that circumstance, in combination with a good bit of fortune (p. 50) is responsible for the

production of theory as well. Derry writes, Kepler joined Brahe at the Imperial court in Prague, thus gaining access

to the planetary measurements... (p. 58) to signify that the two met. Can we assume that this was an intentional

meeting? Given the thousands of years of planetary theory was in the making, is it fortune that these men existed

in the same time? If they had not been able to meet, would our understanding of planetary orbits be what it is

today?

The role of cultural and social forces are a scientific blunder by effectively blinding progress and causing observers

to ignore what might be. Galileo was able to ignore the cultural forces and defended what believed to be truth, even

though he was unable to develop the scientific arguments to completely effect the change as he understood it. He

provides an example of what it means to truly observe and know what it is you see, even if it cannot yet be defined.

Lastly, Derry states that it is not enough to observe and measure for science to evolve, rather it requires that people

ask questions in pursuit of explanations. There is no such thing as a passive scientist. How, then, should we expect

our students to learn? Actively, or passively?