MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2984560211 · doi:10.1353/jwh.2019.0067

Before Copernicus: The Cultures and Contexts of Scientific Learning in the Fifteenth Century ed. by Rivka Feldhay and F. Jamil Ragep

2019· article· en· W2984560211 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Matthew Stanley

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of world history · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistory of Science and Medicine
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCopernicusFifteenthContext (archaeology)ClassicsAstronomerPhilosophyHistorySociologyArt historyArchaeologyAstronomyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Before Copernicus: The Cultures and Contexts of Scientific Learning in the Fifteenth Century ed. by Rivka Feldhay and F. Jamil Ragep Matthew Stanley Before Copernicus: The Cultures and Contexts of Scientific Learning in the Fifteenth Century. Edited by rivka feldhay and f. jamil ragep. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2017. 344 pp. $120.00 (hardcover); $39.95 (paper); $39.95 (ebook). Once your name is on a revolution, you become special—uniquely worthy of attention, while your predecessors fade in importance. This has been the case for Copernicus for a long time. While historians of science have certainly tried to understand and explain his context for the last half-century or so, Before Copernicus represents a new, singular attempt to solve the "Copernicus problem" by focusing completely on the era before him—fifteenth century astronomy and how it was formed. This book is an attempt to reject efforts to find a single explanation for Copernicus, instead assembling a methodologically diverse group of [End Page 645] scholars to talk about him in a multicultural and multidisciplinary way. The introduction by Feldhay and Ragep provides an excellent review of the Copernicus historiography, against which they explicitly contrast themselves. They take as their point of departure the assumption (based on good evidence) that Copernicus was originally only interested in reforming the geocentric system of astronomy. And to do that, heliocentrism was not a necessary step. He chose to use that solution. Why did he do so? They do not accept "genius" as an answer. Rather, they contend that historians should think of knowledge in a dynamic way, as something that accumulates in communities and around problems. In particular, they say, there is increase in production of knowledge wherever there are boundaries crossed (language, discipline, or culture). In a highly unusual and refreshing move, they lay out all the historical assumptions and guideposts they are working with, and the conclusions they draw from them. The most important assumption is that they take the similarities between Copernican and Islamic hay'a astronomy seriously, and demand explanations for them. The book concludes that the Copernican system came from what the editors call multiple transformations along multiple paths—most importantly of the practices of Ptolemaic astronomy and of the social and epistemic status of astronomy. The eight chapters are divided into three categories: fifteenth century European social and political contexts, fifteenth century European intellectual and scientific contexts, and the multicultural background to the Copernican revolution. The individual authors try to establish what it was like to be a scholar of astronomy in that era, particularly in the specific locales where Copernicus would be learning and working. The core question that all the chapters touch on is: which Islamic astronomy texts likely laid the foundations for the Copernican system, and how did the ideas and practices in those texts arrive in Latin Europe? A crucial part of this puzzle is that, if Copernicus and his predecessors were indeed indebted to these Islamic astronomers, why did they never say so? None of those figures or texts were explicitly named by contemporary European astronomers. Nancy Bisaha's chapter is extremely helpful for making sense of this. She explains how contemporary European ideas about their own identity and their relationship with Ottoman civilization made it eminently reasonable that Islamic astronomy was brought to Italy by people either who did not know its origins or who deliberately obscured it out of social discomfort. As ideas traveled west they were changed or cloaked, consciously or unconsciously. [End Page 646] Chapters by Edith Dudley Sylla and Jamil Ragep make detailed cases for a technical genealogy between Islamic astronomy and the Copernican system, presenting the most concentrated and focused arguments available on this issue. Perhaps the most valuable chapter is the one written by Raz Chen-Morris and Rivka Feldhay on an essential epistemic foundation for Copernicus—the idea that astronomical observations do not necessarily speak for themselves, but should be interpreted according to the conditions of the observer. This volume's significance for world history is best exemplified by essays such as Sally Ragep's careful exploration of exactly what astronomy looked like in the fifteenth century Islamic world. These...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.246
Threshold uncertainty score0.524

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of world historySame topicHistory of Science and MedicineFrench-language works237,207