When you say «Copernicanism», are you referring to
the heliocentric model of the solar system — which David's post discussed — or are you referring more broadly to the assumption that we aren't in an especially privileged position in the universe?
Since the post you're replying to distinguished between «Copernicus»
heliocentric model of the solar system» and «the assumption that we aren't in an especially privileged position in the universe» — i.e. the «Copernican principle» — I'm not really sure why you ask that.
What if they viewed
the heliocentric model of the solar system merely as an abstract mathematical tool to track planets and stars with great precision, not as a literal description of the way things are?
Climate science is no more a religion than is belief in
the heliocentric model of our solar system.
Not exact matches
It is the nature
of science by building on established
models (i.e. the
solar system is
heliocentric) to seek to affirm, extend, and make new discoveries.
This article tracks the historic development
of the
heliocentric model and how that relates to understanding the formation
of our own
Solar System.
So, it took awhile to get from the idea
of a non-geocentric universe to the more modern
heliocentric solar system and to get a theory that gave more accurate answers than the Ptolemy's
models.
Copernicus»
heliocentric model from 1543 suggested that the Planets
of our
solar system form a kind
of mutually ordered and quasi-synchronized
system.