You are here:   Reputations >  Overrated > Overrated: Ptolemy
 
Overrated: Ptolemy
January/February 2014

Claudius Ptolemy was the author of the famous Almagest, a compendium of astronomical observations and calculations that remained the main reference work on the subject for the best part of 1,500 years. Unfortunately this great work has serious flaws that have been picked over by historians of astronomy, who argue about whether they represent mere errors in Ptolemy's observations or, much worse, in the methods he used. A red flag was raised in the 16th century by that great observational astronomer Tycho Brahe, who had no quibble with the earth-based system in the Almagest, but found it unreliable and pursued his own methods.

Ptolemy lived in Egypt around AD 85-165 and the name Almagest came from Islamic astronomers, who combined the Arabic prefix "al" with the adjective of the Greek title, Megistē Syntaxis (greatest compendium). It was a beautifully written work, whose observations and methods held sway until the earth-based model of the universe that it propounded was overtaken by the solar-based model that emerged from the work of Copernicus, and later Kepler. So famous was its author that medieval artists portrayed him with a crown on his head, confusing him with being a member of the Greek Ptolemaic dynasty that ruled Egypt after the conquests of Alexander the Great. Being a brilliant expositor, he also wrote a popular account of his great Syntaxis, as well as serious work on optics and on geography, which was still used in relatively modern times by travellers attempting to circumnavigate the globe.

Little is known of Ptolemy's life, but we do know something of his astronomical antecedents. In the Bible we read of famous Chaldean astronomers, now known as Babylonians, whose careful observations over hundreds of years paved the way for their method of eclipse prediction, using what the Greeks later called Saros cycles. There are about 40 of these cycles in operation at any one time, and they are still used today and appear on the NASA website.

The Babylonian achievements were the greatest in the pre-Hellenistic world, and the Greeks naturally became avid students of their astronomy. They themselves made further advances, the greatest being a discovery about the length of a year. Hipparchos of Rhodes, who lived in the second century BC, showed that the period measured by the sun's progress around the zodiac, which is the same as the earth's orbit around the sun, is different from the length of the seasonal year. The small but significant difference, about 20 minutes a year, is called the "precession of the equinoxes", and is due to the fact that as the earth rotates, its axis precesses like a top. It is vital for accurate astronomical predictions, and a full precession, which takes about 26,000 years, is an important ingredient in the Milankovitch cycles that influence climate change.

Hipparchos was clearly a first-rate observational astronomer and seems to have been a geometer of the first rank. A result on quadrilaterals whose corners lie on a circle, known as Ptolemy's Theorem, is almost certainly due to him, and he led the development of what we now call trigonometry. Unfortunately we know of his work almost exclusively through the Almagest, and although Ptolemy refers to him with the respect due to a very distinguished contemporary, their work was separated by nearly three centuries.

During the intervening period the precession of the equinoxes meant that some of Hipparchos's observations needed updating, and a major complaint against Ptolemy was that he may have used and miscorrected them for precession, rather than make new observations of his own. Certainly he made an error in the length of the seasonal year, and Tycho Brahe pointed out a consistent error in the longitude of stars given in Ptolemy's catalogue. More than a century later, the renowned French astronomer Delambre made pointed criticisms of Ptolemy's work, saying that although the errors might have come in a complicated way from original data by Hipparchos, "One could explain everything in a less favourable but all the simpler manner by denying Ptolemy the observation of the stars and equinoxes, and by claiming that he assimilated everything from Hipparchos, using the minimal value of the latter for the precession motion."

The most pungent criticism came in the 20th century from Robert Russell Newton, who in 1977 published The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy, in which he states: "[Ptolemy] developed certain astronomical theories and discovered that they were not consistent with observation. Instead of abandoning the theories, he deliberately fabricated observations from [them]." Certainly the work of Tycho Brahe and Delambre shows that the errors were not random, though Newton's claim of a crime may be unfairly using modern notions of scientific fidelity to judge the ancient world. Newton's trenchant criticisms, implying that Ptolemy's errors had a terrible effect on scientific progress, have caused some scholars to row back in his defence, but the main point must be that in true scientific inquiry the observations come first, the theory later.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Dr Alexander Jablánczy MD
March 14th, 2014
10:03 AM
While quite thorough and entertaining and clever in the sense that most people would yawn at the title Ptolemaios the Great no not another article about an ancient best forgotten worthy attacking him as overrated immediately gets one's goat up how dare they attack Ptolemy? But the reason for the attack is specious and is based on a misunderstanding and misuse much too current of the shibboleth vogue word and concept science. No I am afraid science is not observation followed by theory but simply rational system of thought of natural philosophy as it used to be called. That is just an empiricist utilitarian positivist ideology forced unto material reality. That concept doesn't understand that science has nothing to do with whether it is true or not but that it is rational understandable repeatable provable disprovable and permits prediction based on its premises. A system of science may be completely wrong as it has been innumerable times but it is a system which engenders future truth which may yet be disproven again. Velikovskys crazy ideas were laughed at now we hear of migrating planets changing places and colliding and reforming. His time scale was absurdly short but his main notion stands. Or Wegener was laughed at as a phantast today plate tectonics and drifting continents are orthodoxy. Lamarck was ridiculed for his heritability of acquired characteristics now epigenetics is the rage and explains at least this half of Darwins theory better. Neither of them knew of Mendel of course. DNA is supposed to be two stranded helix now we have a quartet of DNA held together by guanine ten years ago only in cancer cells now in normal cells. Ouch. We had only mRNA tRNA rRNA forty year ago now all of a sudden we have iRNA and tens of thousands of RNAs with which we don't know what to do with yet. They carry epigenetic info. In astronomy to return to Ptolemy now all stars are doublets or quadruplets or binary and all have planets to boot. The idea of black holes or dark matter were just ideas two hundred years ago now at least the black hole seems to have been observed. So theory first proof later. Forty years ago apoptosis wasn't even a concept although it was discovered a hundred years ago today cellular biology differentiation is unthinkable without it. Actually Publius Ovidius Naso already had it down pat in his Metamorphoseon libri which I foolishly thought to be so much poetic nonsense in my latinate days. Evolution seems to be the organizing principle of the universe from stellar to planetary to biotic to human evolution. As Dobzhansky said without evolution nothing makes any sense with it it all falls into place. Mendeleyev didn't know what he created in the greatest of all chemical at least ideas the Periodic Table, he thought it was just an ordering of elements and allowed prediction of yet to be discovered ones which is a great achievement but the most significant issue was that the universe is knowable orderable rational. It makes sense. Not random meaningless haphazard. If it were H would be 1.132 He 7 1/2 and O 392.34. Etc. It isn't. And electron orbitals wouldn't be 2- 8 -18 - etc. On issue which arises from all this is to understand not just what science is and isn't but also that there is a vast difference between science and applied science such as say medicine agronomy forestry and even more what shall we call it applied applied science no that's a pleonasm socially applied science such as nutrition dietetics harvesting ie the use of applied science. So necessarily we have such arguments about ecology diets agricultural and forestry or fisheries practices as these are thrice removed form reality or truth. Prediction of eclipses would be applied science but interference with planetesimal impacts socially applied science. Hence the disagreement. A different level of provability. So if Ptolemaios cheated he cheated on one level to reach apposition at another. As our theories turn to mush in ten or forty or a hundred years a run of a millenium and a half ain't so bad.

michael morgan
February 21st, 2014
11:02 PM
It doesn't seems fair to call him over-rated when most people today wouldn't have heard of Ptolemy, least of all from their teachers in school. How can one be overrated who is never talked about I wonder? Also, I don't wish to seem churlish but surely your argument suffers an inconsistency inasmuch as you concede that his influence lasted over a millennium and a half! By that lofty standard there wouldn't be anyone alive today as leaders in their chosen fields that isn't overrated!

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.