Adding epicycles

{{bronze}}
[[File:Cassini apparent.jpg|thumb|right|165px|[[Occam's_razor|Overly complex]], you say? [[Shoehorning|BUT IT FITS]]!]]
{{logicnav}}
'''Adding epicycles''' is an expression denoting [[ad hoc]] attempts to make a [[theory]] conform to observations by making said theory [[Occam's_razor|needlessly or absurdly complicated]].

==Origins==
The expression comes from a technique used by [[astronomer]]s from antiquity to the early modern period (generally working with the [[Geocentrism|Ptolemaic system]]) to explain observations that [[planet]]s would often reverse direction in the sky. These observations made sense in a [[Heliocentrism|Sun-centered]] view of the [[solar system]], but not an [[Earth]]-centered one (heliocentric systems had greater observational problems of their own at the time, which prevented their general acceptance in antiquity).

To explain this, the Greek Astronomer {{wpl|Hipparchus}} proposed that planets didn't directly orbit the Earth in circles; instead, they orbited a point in space which itself orbited the Earth. The later Roman/Greek astronomer [[Claudius Ptolemy]] expanded on this system by proposing that the Earth wasn't at the exact center of the primary circle, but was instead displaced slightly from it (with a point called an "equant" the same distance from the center, opposite the Earth).

===What didn't happen===
A common myth (which is the origin of the expression) proposes that geocentric astronomers added epicycles to epicycles to explain the failure of the Ptolemaic system to hold up to better observations.<ref>[https://archive.is/8JaDG Copernicus’s Heliocentric Theory]. Archived from muskrat.middlebury.edu.</ref> This is in spite of the fact that no such "better observations" exist (or are attested at all) in the historical record prior to the publication of the ''Rudolphine Tables'' in 1627 (based on [[Tycho Brahe]]'s observational data from the late 16<sup>th</sup> century).

The myth appears to have come from an apocryphal story about Alfonso the Great (the Castilian King who sponsored the creation of the ''Alfonsine Tables'', which would become the primary reference text for astronomers for centuries following its publication) observing his Court Astronomer's work.<ref>Gingerich, Owen. ''The book nobody read: chasing the revolutions of Nicolaus Copernicus.'' Bloomsbury Publishing USA, 2004, pp. 56-60</ref>

===What actually happened===
The only known historical instance of epicycles being added to epicycles occurs in the work of [[Copernicus]], whose eponymous solar system model has the Moon moving along a double epicycle in ''De Revolutionibus''.<ref>[http://users.clas.ufl.edu/ufhatch/HIS-SCI-STUDY-GUIDE/0056_copernLunarTheory.html Copernucus' Lunar Theory]. ufl.edu, 1999.</ref><ref>Giorgio de Santillana, 1955. ''The Crime of Galileo'' pp. 23. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.</ref> He succeeded, however, in eliminating the equant mentioned above, which had long been a subject of derision among astronomers.

It has been proven mathematically possible to approximate any shape using {{wpl|Fourier Analysis||,}} meaning it could theoretically be used to match ''any'' observations.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVuU2YCwHjw Ptolemy and Homer (Simpson)], Santiago Ginnobili, YouTube, 2009, uses Fourier Analysis to trace out an "orbit" that generates a [[The Simpsons|Homer Simpson]] figure.</ref> Adding epicycles is the fastest way to make sure that [[Occam's razor]] renders your theory implausible.

==Modern epicycles==
Of course, most people today don't actually believe in the geocentric model, but that doesn't mean people don't use equally silly tactics to defend [[pseudoscientific]] positions. Here are a few examples:
*[[Young Earth creationism|Young Earth creationists]] may claim that observations from [[carbon dating]] or similar methods don't actually prove the age of anything because rates of [[radioactive decay]] could change, something that has never been observed, despite a significant amount of effort put into changing the rates of radioactive decay.
*No "[[Subtle energy|energies]]" associated with [[Qi]] or [[Reiki]] have ever been detected. It turns out the energies are just too "subtle" to be noticed by some of the most sensitive scientific instruments ever created.
*Any scientist could tell you that the concentration of any chemical in a [[Homeopathy|homeopathic]] remedy is far too small to have any effect. Defenders will claim that [[Water memory|water has "memory"]].
*[[Moon landing hoax]] proponents hypothesizing [[NASA]]'s clandestine development and use of all sorts of exotic cinematographic technology, in order to ''be able to'' pull off the faking — in a time when TV was struggling to be in color.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20130125085255/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGXTF6bs1IU moon hoax not]. Archived from YouTube, 25 January 2013.</ref>
*Of course, the ever popular [[Goddidit|God]]/[[Falldidit|fall]]/[[Satandidit|Satan]]/[[Aliensdidit|aliens]] did it.

==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}

[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Fallacies]]
[[Category:Pseudoscience]]

Categories: Astronomy, Fallacies, Pseudoscience