The divine circles were administered by an arrangement of movers responsible for the movement of the meandering stars. Each of these meandering stars was thought to have an “unaffected engine,” the element that influences it to travel across the sky. For most Greeks, this mover could be interpreted as the god over any element in the sky. In recent decades there has been debate as to whether the Copernican hypothesis in its unique (pre-Kepler) framework was actually better in terms of prescient power than the Ptolemaic framework. Before the 1960s, the consensus was that Copernicus was undoubtedly better than Ptolemy. Only three years after the fact, Kuhn's assessment had completely changed. If, as Kuhn proposed, Copernicus was no better than Ptolemy in terms of prescient power, why then, scholars of science have asked, was Copernicus recognized by stargazers and Ptolemy rejected? For fifty years the appropriate response given by historical scholars was that the Copernican hypothesis was more refined and more mentally satisfying than Ptolemy's. (Philosophy of science and historical anthology. Page 70-72) Plato's cosmology therefore incorporates the formation of the universe by a perfect skilled worker through numerical methods