In the century between the creation of the first large, European astronomical observatory by Tycho Brahe in the 1580s and the national observatories of France and England in the 1660–1670s, astronomers constructed ever more sets of tables, derived from various geometrical and physical models, to compute planetary positions. But how were these tables to be evaluated? What level of precision or accuracy should be expected from mathematical astronomy? In 1644, the Stetin astronomer and calendar-maker Lorenz Eichstadt published a new set (...) of tables, mostly cobbled together from earlier tables, which include a running commentary on how his tables might be expected to match ‘observed’ planetary positions. His earlier works also often display a rhetoric of ‘exactitude’ and ‘error’. Eichstadt thus offers a case study of explicit discussions of ‘precision’ in mid-seventeenth astronomy. Although some tables could generate positions to arcseconds, Eichstadt argued that a regime of five arcminutes should be enough for most table users who were, presumably, computing horoscopes. (shrink)

In 1821 the French Académie Royale des Sciences sponsored a prize competition on the causes of animal heat. Carefully designing the contest to serve several interests, the Académie (especially Cuvier and Berthollet) sought to defend Lavoisier's theory and method for studying animal heat and to restore a pre-1789 ideal of non-utilitarian scientific practice. Changing standards of precision in physical research, however, sabotaged these intentions. Even with improved experimental apparatus and techniques, the chief contestants could not quantitatively confirm Lavoisier's theory. Unpublished (...) documents reveal anonymous entrants who refused to accept the Académie's definition of the question. The 1821 competition, then, rendered Lavoisier's theory more dubious than ever in the eyes of contemporary physiological writers. (shrink)