Comments on, "Metaphysics and The Copernican Revolution: An Essay"
	__________________________________________________________________

			Jonathan M. Smith

			Department of Geography
			Texas A&M
			J0S7507@tamvm1.tamu.edu

			(received: February 15, 1995)

			

	I would like to comment briefly on a remark of Lynette Gelinas in the
December issue of METAPHYSICAL REVIEW.  She writes: "those of us accustomed
to living in a heliocentric system understand that Copernicus' model was
infinitely better than Ptolemy's."  Since Ptolemy was a geographer (as am I),
I must say some words in his defense.  First, the Ptolemaic model
passes the test of practical adequacy for most of mankind.  The fact of the
earth's rotation is relevant to the understanding of certain large weather
patterns, but little else.  This is not to deny its significance for astronomy,
physics, cosmography, etc., but only to underline the fact that the Copernican
revolution changed very little in the everyday lives of ordinary people.
Second, the phrase "infinitely better" is interesting from a metaphysical point
of view.  The model is not better, it is more accurate; in modern metaphysics
to be more accurate is necessarily to be better, but this is a metaphysical
assumption built on the belief that, to use Rorty's phrase, science is a
"mirror of nature."  One can insert other adjectives in the place of accurate.
Perhaps the better model is more beautiful, more supportive of past thought and
historical continuity, more expedient, or, as every teacher knows, more easily
grasped by students.  To return to the material of a geographer, I would not
say that a modern navigational chart is in every way better than a navigational
chart from the 16th century.  It is more accurate, to be sure; but it will very
likely be deficient in other respects (quality of the paper, artistic merit,
etc.).  Perhaps we should say that it is "better for navigation."  But this is
quite different from "infinitely better."  I realize the adverb was probably
chosen without long consideration, but it certainly implys better in every way.
Moreover, it implys a betterness that has exhausted the possibilities for
betterment; surely an excessive claim. The ready translation of "more accurate"
to better is, of course, a move from a demonstrable statement of fact to a
contestable statement of opinion.  It is in statements such as these that we
should look for metaphysical assumptions.