The boys from Cyzicus: reflections on academic astronomy

Abstract

My talk today is mostly a philosophical look at some issues in the history of observation, but I will look at some biographical issues as well. I shall be arguing for some sceptical theses, to mark off what we do not know and to emphasize what is likely. Many discussions in the history of astronomy in the 4th century, I fear, have taken on a theological tone. If such and such is possible, it must be so, especially if it is consistent with our prior ideology. In this, as in so many other academic fields, we have the grand pendulum. One hundred years ago, the boys from Cyzicus were doing careful observations to build astronomical theories. Today, in the words of one, dare I say, theologian, they made no observations at all and took what pittance they had of data from Babylon. As with music, between the heavy romantics of a hundred years ago and the minimalists of the present, I tend to prefer something in between, although I can still admire both. I shall also be concerned with evidence and how we read evidence. I sometimes read claims of the form, “there is no evidence for p,” where this is clearly false. Even bad evidence is evidence. Even if we take a normative view of the application of ‘evidence’, the alleged ‘bad’ evidence is usually not as bad as some of the plausibility arguments that we find. After a brief preamble, I shall make some biographical remarks and then will turn to some issues about observation, data, and evidence. (Henry Mendell, Los Angeles, CA)