A History and Experimental Analysis of the Moon Illusion

Shaun Nanavati

Abstract


The moon illusion is one of the most ancient and persistent questions of natural philosophy. The investigation of this phenomenon has played a crucial role in the genesis and ongoing development of the field of perception, being a major point of consideration for Ptolemy, Alhazen (Ibn al-Haytham), Leonardo da Vinci, Descartes and George Berkeley. Relatively recent empirical studies have focused on explanations of the illusion created by contrast with the horizon (Ponzo illusion). However, a careful review reveals that the far more dramatic appearance of the moon illusion still remains unsolved. This paper takes a historical view of the explanations over three major paradigms: the classical, the experimental, and the modern perceptual theories. The natural tension between mathematics and observation is also a sub-plot.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Alhazen (Ibn-Haytham), A. (1989). The Optics of Ibn al- Haytham (2 vols.) (A.I. Sabra, Trans.). London: Warburg Institute, University of London. (Original work published 1021)

American Museum of Natural History (n.d.). Codex Leicester. Retrieved December 1, 2008, from http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/codex/2A2r.html

Aristotle (1962). Meterologica (H. D. P. Lee, Trans.). London: Heineman. (Original work published 322 BC)

Berkeley, G. (1993). An essay toward a new theory of vision. In M. Ayers (Ed.), Philosophical works (including the works on vision). London: JM Dent. (Original work published 1709)

Berkeley, G. (1993). The theory of vision vindicated and explained. In M. Ayers (Ed.), Philosophical Works (Including the Works on Vision). London: JM Dent. (Original work published 1733)

Berman, D. (1985). Berkeley and the moon illusions. Revue Internationale de la Philosophie, 154, 215-222.

Boring, E. and Holway, A. F. (1940a). The moon illusion and the angle of regard. American Journal of Psychology, 53, 109-116.

Boring, E. and Holway, A. F. (1940b). The apparent size of the moon as a function of the angle of regard: Further experiments. American Journal of Psychology, 53, 537-553.

Boring, E. and Holway, A. F. (1940c). The dependence of apparent visual size upon illumination. American Journal of Psychology, 53, 587-589.

Boring, E. G. (1942). Sensation and Perception in the history of experimental psychology. New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts.

Boring, E. G. (1943). The moon illusion. American Journal of Physics 11: 55-60.

Clagett, M. (1988). Greek Science in Antiquity. Princeton, NJ: The Scholar’s Bookshelf.

Dali, S. (1977). Dali’s Hand Drawing Back the Golden Fleece In the Form of a Cloud to Show Gala the Dawn, Completely Nude, Very, Very Far Away Behind the Sun, Two Stereoscopic Panels, Oil on Canvas. Figueras: Dali Foundation.

Descartes, R. (1985). Optics. (Cottingham, J., Stoothoff, R., and Murdoch, D. ,Trans.). The Philosophical Writings of Descartes (vol. I). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Egan, F. (1998). The moon illusion. Philosophy of Science, 65: 604-623.

Elkins, J. (1988). Did Leonardo develop a theory of curvilinear perspective? Together with some remarks on the ‘angle’ and ‘distance’ axioms. Journal of the War- burg and Courtauld Institutes, 5: 190-196.

Enright, J.T. (1989). The eye, the brain, and the size of the moon: toward a unified oculomotor hypothesis for the moon illusion. In Hershenson (Ed.), The Moon Illusion. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Franchini, R. (1969). Vico, historical methodology, and the future of philosophy. In Tagliacozzo (Ed.), Giambattista Vico: An International Symposium. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

Haber, R., & Levin, C. (1989). The lunacy of moon watching: some preconditions on explanations of the moon illusion. In Hershenson (Ed.), The Moon Illusion. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hartmann, G. (1935). Gestalt Psychology: A Survey of Facts and Principles. The Ronald Press Company: New York.

Helmholtz, H. (1877). Selected Writings of Hermann von Helmholtz. (Kahl, R., Ed.). Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press..

Hershenson, M. (Ed.) The Moon Illusion. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Holton, G. (1978). Thematic origins of scientific thought: Kepler to Einstein. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

James, W. (1890). The Principles of Psychology (2 Vols.) New York: Dover.

Kaufmann, L. (1961). An investigation into the moon illusion. (Doctoral dissertation, New School for Social Research).

Kaufmann, L. & Rock, I. (1962a). The moon illusion I. Science 136: 953-961.

Kaufman, L. & Rock, I. (1962b). The moon illusion II. Science 136: 1023-1031.

Kaufmann, L. & Rock, I. (1989). The moon illusion thirty years later. In Hershenson (Ed.), The Moon Illusion. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kemp, M. (1977). Leonardo and the visual pyramid. Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 40: 128-149.

Kinsbourne, M. (2008). Personal conversation.

Koffka, K. (1935). Principles of Gestalt Psychology. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.

Kohler, W. (1967). Gestalt psychology. Psychological Research, 31, 18-30.

Kuhn, T. (1969). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Laudan, R. (1980). The recent revolution in geology and Kuhn’s theory of scientific change. In G. Gutting (Ed.), Paradigms and Revolutions: Applications and Appraisals of Thomas Kuhn’s philosophy of science. South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Lindberg, D. (1967). Alhazen’s theory of vision and its reception in the west. Isis, 58(3): 321-341.

Lindberg, D. (1976). Theories of vision from Al-Kindi to Kepler. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lindberg, D. (1978). The intromission-extramission controversy in Islamic visual theory: Alkindi versus Avicenna. In Turnbull (Ed.), Studies in Perception. Cincinatti, OH: Ohio State University Press.

McCready, D. (1985a). On size, distance, and visual angle perception. Perception and Psychophysics, 37, 323-334.

McCready, D. (1985b). Moon illusions redescribed. Perception and Psychophysics, 39, 64-72.

Pedretti, C. (1963). Leonardo on curvilinear perspective. Bibliotheque d’humanisme et Renaissance, xxv: 69-87.

Pedretti, C. (Ed.), (1977). The literary works of Leonardo daVinci. compiled and edited from the original manuscripts by Jean Paul Richter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Plug, C. (1989a). Annotated bibliography. In Hershenson (Ed.), The Moon Illusion. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Plug, C. (1989b). Historical review. In Hershenson (Ed.), The Moon Illusion. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ponty, M. M. (1968). The phenomenology of perception (C.Smith, Trans.). New York: Routledge.

Richter, Jean Paul (Ed.) (1970). The notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci Vol. II. New York: Dover.

Ross, H. and Plug, C. (2002). The mystery of the moon illusion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sabra, A.I. (1966). Ibn al-Haytham’s criticisms of Ptolemy’s optics. Journal of the History of Philosophy 4: 145-149.

Sabra, A.I. (1978). Sensation and inference in Alhazen’s theory of visual perception. In Machamer, P. and Turnbull, R. (Eds.), Studies In Perception. Columbus: Ohio State University.

Sabra, A.I. (1987). Psychology versus mathematics: Ptolemy and Alhazen on the moon illusion. In Grant, E. and Murdoch, J. (Eds.), Mathematics and its Application to Science and Natural Philosophy in the Middle Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sabra, A.I. (1981). Theories of light: From Descartes to Newton. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Saliba, G. (1999). Rethinking the roots of modern science: Arabic manuscripts in European libraries. Washington, D.C.: Center for Contemporary Arabic Studies.

Sherrington, C. S. (1918). Observations on the sensual role of the proprioceptive nerve-supply of the extrinsic ocular muscles. Brain, 41, 332-243.

Schwartz, G. & Bishop, P. (1958). The Origins of Science. New York: Basic Books.

Thorndike, L. (1923). A History of Magic and Experimental Science. New York: Columbia University Press.

Tulving, E., Heineman, E. G., and Nachmias, J. (1959). The effect of oculomotor adjustments on apparent size. American Journal of Psychology, 72: 32-46.

Weintraub, D.J. and Gardner (1970). Emmert’s laws: Size constancy versus optical geometry. American Journal of Psychology 83: 40-57.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2017 The New School Psychology Bulletin

© The New School Psychology Bulletin | editors@nspb.net