Poetic Structure of the World

Today I finished reading Fernand Hallyn's The Poetic Structure of the World.  Hallyn analyzes similarities between the work of Copernicus and Kepler and contemporary movements in art, music and literature.  Although he does not really claim that Copernicus and Kepler were specifically influenced by these movements, he does claim that there was a set of common aesthetic concerns that underlie both the science and the art.

In discussing Copernicus he particularly focuses on the notion of symmetry and order.  Copernicus makes his case for the truth (as opposed to the possibility or utility) of this theory almost entirely by pointing out the symmetry and beauty of his theory in contrast to the monstrosity of the Ptolemaic theory.  Copernicus' arguments about the planetary orbits being in proper proportion, with the Earth's orbit as a common measure, are mirrored by Renaissance artists concerns about properly displaying the proportions of the human figure.  Hallyn argues that Copernicus views the cosmos as an organism, thus imbuing the cosmos with a coherence and integration that it did not have for Ptolemy.

Hallyn also points out the ways Copernicus uses synecdoche: giving to a part (the Earth) a property (gravity) normally attributed only to the whole (the Universe).  Copernicus viewed gravity as a local attraction among like bodies (Earth is attracted to Earth, etc) rather than as a universal attraction to an absolute center.  Hallyn also notes Copernicus' use of metaphor in arguing why the Sun ought to be located at the center, and how this parallels similar discussions about the placement of altars in churches.

Hallyn associates Kepler's work with Mannerism.  He stresses Kepler's desire to uncover the signs that reveal God's plan for Creation.  Kepler's obsession with the Platonic solids was apparently shared by some Mannerist painters.  Likewise, Kepler's ellipse was, for Kepler, a conjunction of the divine curve and the physical line - thus representing the plan of the divine Creator executed within the physical world, rather than simply a deformed circle.

An important aspects of Kepler's work is his belief that God created the universe according to a specific plan that can be known by man.  He justifies this belief through the idea that man is made in God's image, and that the world was made for man.  Therefore we have an natural ability to recognize the divine signs and see the truth of the cosmos (which, of course, for Kepler, was heliocentric).  This divine order must be found intellectually because it is hidden within the appearances we see.  For example, Kepler thought the motions of the planets represented a musical harmony, but this harmony could only be directly perceived by viewing the apparent motions of the planets as seen from the Sun.  This idea of viewing the world from another point is one I want to return to.

For now I just want to comment on how ideas from outside science can influence science in some very important, and positive, ways.  Hallyn makes the case that there were important aesthetic concerns that were prevalent in the cultural milieu of Copernicus and Kepler that played an important role in their scientific thinking.  There were also important religious considerations, such as that man should be capable of discerning the true structure of the cosmos.  This idea follows much more easily from a belief in a personal God who created the world for the benefit of man than it does from belief in an Aristotelian Prime Mover.

I think this is one of the dangers of scientism.  If science is held up as the only possible source of rational belief, then what can inform the development of science itself.  How can the criteria by which science judges itself evolve and grow?  From whence will come the new aesthetic notions and new philosophical perspectives that have, in the past, led to important revolutions in scientific thinking?  If scientists listen to no one but other scientists, science will suffer.