{"id":{"repo_id":"vt","oai_identifier":"oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/45615"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/vt/oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/45615","repository":{"repo_id":"vt","name":"Virginia Tech","base_url":"https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"Scientific controversy and the new astronomy: the intellectual and social contexts of the Hevelius-Hooke dispute","abstract":"During the seventeenth century, science, and especially astronomy, underwent significant changes in which the emphasis on instrumentation shifted from a more qualitative approach to precise quantitative measurement. These changes were further encouraged by the formation of scientific societies, such as the Royal Society in London and the Royal Academy of Sciences in Paris, where members worked together as a collective to validate knowledge. Because members could freely dissent within the community, a prescribed behavior for participants in disputes was proposed, although seldom followed. Furthermore, disputes were not influenced by intellectual issues alone -- social factors also guided and influenced the course of controversies. This study is an analysis of one scientific controversy in which the participants deviated from the prescribed code of behavior in scientific disputes, and, although the controversy was guided primarily by social factors, intellectual factors ultimately determined its outcome. In the Introduction, I discuss two sociological theses (Merton, Shapin and Schaffer) which are relevant to scientific controversies. In Chapter 1, I describe the changing nature of astronomy and instrumentation in the seventeenth century with special emphasis on micrometers and telescopic sights. In Chapter 2, I explore the nature of scientific controversy vis-à-vis the Royal Society, and two particular controversies which did not deviate from the expected rules of behavior. A descriptive account of the Hevelius-Hooke dispute follows in Chapter 3, and in Chapter 4, I provide concluding remarks on the dispute. Finally, in the Conclusion, I discuss the intellectual and social contexts of the Hevelius-Hooke dispute.","abstract_html":"During the seventeenth century, science, and especially astronomy, underwent significant changes in which the emphasis on instrumentation shifted from a more qualitative approach to precise quantitative measurement. These changes were further encouraged by the formation of scientific societies, such as the Royal Society in London and the Royal Academy of Sciences in Paris, where members worked together as a collective to validate knowledge. Because members could freely dissent within the community, a prescribed behavior for participants in disputes was proposed, although seldom followed. Furthermore, disputes were not influenced by intellectual issues alone -- social factors also guided and influenced the course of controversies. This study is an analysis of one scientific controversy in which the participants deviated from the prescribed code of behavior in scientific disputes, and, although the controversy was guided primarily by social factors, intellectual factors ultimately determined its outcome. In the Introduction, I discuss two sociological theses (Merton, Shapin and Schaffer) which are relevant to scientific controversies. In Chapter 1, I describe the changing nature of astronomy and instrumentation in the seventeenth century with special emphasis on micrometers and telescopic sights. In Chapter 2, I explore the nature of scientific controversy vis-à-vis the Royal Society, and two particular controversies which did not deviate from the expected rules of behavior. A descriptive account of the Hevelius-Hooke dispute follows in Chapter 3, and in Chapter 4, I provide concluding remarks on the dispute. Finally, in the Conclusion, I discuss the intellectual and social contexts of the Hevelius-Hooke dispute.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Saridakis, Voula"],"institution":"Virginia Tech","degree_name":"Master of Science","degree_level":"masters","degree_discipline":"Science and Technology Studies","degree_department":"Science and Technology Studies","school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":1993,"date_issued":"1993","date_published":"1993","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:19:21Z","subjects":[],"languages":["en"],"rights":["In Copyright"],"rights_urls":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.other","label":"Dc Identifier Other","values":["etd-11102009-020225"],"render_values":[{"text":"etd-11102009-020225","href":null,"code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/10919/45615","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.department","label":"Department","values":["Science and Technology Studies"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Saridakis, Voula"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2014-03-14T21:49:27Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2014-03-14T21:49:27Z","2009-11-10"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["1993"]},{"key":"dc:publisher","label":"Institution","values":["Virginia Tech"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Thesis"]},{"key":"dc:type.dcmitype","label":"Dc Type Dcmitype","values":["Text"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Science and Technology Studies"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["masters"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Master of Science"]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language.iso","label":"Language (ISO)","values":["en"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["In Copyright"]},{"key":"dc:rights.uri","label":"Rights URI","values":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.other","label":"Dc Identifier Other","values":["etd-11102009-020225"]},{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/10919/45615"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["During the seventeenth century, science, and especially astronomy, underwent significant changes in which the emphasis on instrumentation shifted from a more qualitative approach to precise quantitative measurement. These changes were further encouraged by the formation of scientific societies, such as the Royal Society in London and the Royal Academy of Sciences in Paris, where members worked together as a collective to validate knowledge. Because members could freely dissent within the community, a prescribed behavior for participants in disputes was proposed, although seldom followed. Furthermore, disputes were not influenced by intellectual issues alone -- social factors also guided and influenced the course of controversies. This study is an analysis of one scientific controversy in which the participants deviated from the prescribed code of behavior in scientific disputes, and, although the controversy was guided primarily by social factors, intellectual factors ultimately determined its outcome. In the Introduction, I discuss two sociological theses (Merton, Shapin and Schaffer) which are relevant to scientific controversies. In Chapter 1, I describe the changing nature of astronomy and instrumentation in the seventeenth century with special emphasis on micrometers and telescopic sights. In Chapter 2, I explore the nature of scientific controversy vis-à-vis the Royal Society, and two particular controversies which did not deviate from the expected rules of behavior. A descriptive account of the Hevelius-Hooke dispute follows in Chapter 3, and in Chapter 4, I provide concluding remarks on the dispute. Finally, in the Conclusion, I discuss the intellectual and social contexts of the Hevelius-Hooke dispute."]},{"key":"dc:description.degree","label":"Dc Description Degree","values":["Master of Science"]},{"key":"dc:format.medium","label":"Dc Format Medium","values":["BTD"]},{"key":"dc:format.mimetype","label":"Dc Format Mimetype","values":["application/pdf"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Scientific controversy and the new astronomy: the intellectual and social contexts of the Hevelius-Hooke dispute"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.department":["Science and Technology Studies"],"dc:creator":["Saridakis, Voula"],"dc:date.accessioned":["2014-03-14T21:49:27Z"],"dc:date.available":["2014-03-14T21:49:27Z","2009-11-10"],"dc:date.issued":["1993"],"dc:description.abstract":["During the seventeenth century, science, and especially astronomy, underwent significant changes in which the emphasis on instrumentation shifted from a more qualitative approach to precise quantitative measurement. These changes were further encouraged by the formation of scientific societies, such as the Royal Society in London and the Royal Academy of Sciences in Paris, where members worked together as a collective to validate knowledge. Because members could freely dissent within the community, a prescribed behavior for participants in disputes was proposed, although seldom followed. Furthermore, disputes were not influenced by intellectual issues alone -- social factors also guided and influenced the course of controversies. This study is an analysis of one scientific controversy in which the participants deviated from the prescribed code of behavior in scientific disputes, and, although the controversy was guided primarily by social factors, intellectual factors ultimately determined its outcome. In the Introduction, I discuss two sociological theses (Merton, Shapin and Schaffer) which are relevant to scientific controversies. In Chapter 1, I describe the changing nature of astronomy and instrumentation in the seventeenth century with special emphasis on micrometers and telescopic sights. In Chapter 2, I explore the nature of scientific controversy vis-à-vis the Royal Society, and two particular controversies which did not deviate from the expected rules of behavior. A descriptive account of the Hevelius-Hooke dispute follows in Chapter 3, and in Chapter 4, I provide concluding remarks on the dispute. Finally, in the Conclusion, I discuss the intellectual and social contexts of the Hevelius-Hooke dispute."],"dc:description.degree":["Master of Science"],"dc:format.medium":["BTD"],"dc:format.mimetype":["application/pdf"],"dc:identifier.other":["etd-11102009-020225"],"dc:identifier.uri":["http://hdl.handle.net/10919/45615"],"dc:language.iso":["en"],"dc:publisher":["Virginia Tech"],"dc:rights":["In Copyright"],"dc:rights.uri":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dc:title":["Scientific controversy and the new astronomy: the intellectual and social contexts of the Hevelius-Hooke dispute"],"dc:type":["Thesis"],"dc:type.dcmitype":["Text"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Science and Technology Studies"],"thesis:degree_level":["masters"],"thesis:degree_name":["Master of Science"],"thesis:institution_name":["Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:19:21Z"}