Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Averroes argued Ptolemy's epicycles and eccentrics are ma... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Ptolemy's astronomical account saves the appearances but may not be true, since the phenomena could be saved in some other way

    Averroes argued Ptolemy's epicycles and eccentrics are mathematically useful fictions that violate Aristotelian physical principles about natural circular motion.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Aristotelian physics requires all celestial motions to be perfectly circular and centered on Earth, which observational data contradicts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Ptolemy's epicycles successfully predict planetary positions without claiming physical reality, making them mathematically useful fictions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Distinguishing between mathematical models and physical reality allows both empirical accuracy and philosophical coherence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Ptolemy himself presented epicycles as physically real mechanisms, not merely computational conveniences or acknowledged fictions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If epicycles truly violate Aristotelian principles, rejecting them entirely rather than calling them 'fictions' better serves natural philosophy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The distinction between 'useful fiction' and 'physically real' was not clearly established in Averroes' medieval philosophical framework.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedSkepticism1 linked

    Related

    Aristotelian physics requires all celestial motions to be perfectly circular and...Distinguishing between mathematical models and physical reality allows both empi...If epicycles truly violate Aristotelian principles, rejecting them entirely rath...Ptolemy himself presented epicycles as physically real mechanisms, not merely co...
    +3 moreShow less
    Ptolemy's astronomical account saves the appearances but may not be true, since ...Ptolemy's epicycles successfully predict planetary positions without claiming ph...The distinction between 'useful fiction' and 'physically real' was not clearly e...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit