Answer one of the following prompts in a 2-page paper (aim for about 600 words). Your
submission should be double-spaced, using a standard 12 point font (e.g., Times, Arial)
and normal margins (your word processing applicationàdefaults are fine).
Focus on constructing clear, concise, informative paragraphs with strong explanatory
links between your points. Your intro paragraph can be very brief, but make sure it
includes a thesis statement (a statement of your overall contention / the claim that
everything else in your paper is ultimately there to support). Use of the first person–e.g.,
n this paper I will argue that etc.–is fine. Make sure you address all parts of the
prompt and avoid unnecessary discussion.
Prompts
1. Imagine that you are an astronomer from Ptolemyàtime and compose a letter in
which you attempt to persuade a colleague either that the earth is stationary or that the
evidence is inconclusive and that it is reasonable to remain open to the possibility of a
moving earth. Whichever you choose to defend, be sure to discuss the arguments (from
Ptolemy or Aristotle) that strike you as the most persuasive.
Note: For this prompt, you do not need to begin your paper with an introductory
paragraph as described in the general instructions above and the word limit is more
flexible. You may write in a more conversational manner, but be sure not to sacrifice
argumentative rigor!
2. Critically assess the following claim: ïmmitment to uniform circular motion was
purely philosophical and held ancient astronomy back–the science would have made
more progress and would generally have been better off without it. an you draw any
general lessons for science from your assessment of this claim?
3. Plato is reputed to have challenged Early Greek astronomers to account for apparent
irregularities in planetary motion by appealing only to uniform circular motions. PlatoÊcharge can be viewed as an instance of a more general strategy for understanding
nature, i.e., the attempt to find order in apparent disorder, regularity ¥hind/r
¥neath!pparent irregularity. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of approaching
the study of nature in this way. What does your discussion suggest about the
comparative roles of empirical and philosophical/conceptual beliefs in science?
4. Philosophers and historians of science debate whether Ptolemy was a realist or an
instrumentalist about his theories of the universe. Setting aside the question of what
Ptolemyàactual attitudes were towards his theory, which attitude do you think would
have been more rational for ancient astronomers to take towards Ptolemyàtheory-instrumentalist or realist? Defend your answer.

Purchase answer to see full
attachment