I could think of about a hundred thousand different ways.honestrosewater said:How does Aristotle differ from modern theoretical physicists?
For instance?? He was operating under a different paradigm? Telescopes hadn't been invented yet? No stopwatches or cameras? Did he accept the four elements (fire, air, water, earth) thing?loseyourname said:I could think of about a hundred thousand different ways.
Physica (Physics) and De Caelo (On the Heavens) as far as I'm aware contain his physics related contributions. For general info probably better to read it from some compilation or so, at least for myself tough pointing out specific sections out of those. Sure they are far more imaginative what comes to the actual physics in them and influenced (very) heavily by the religious aspects, but somehow don't consider that really surprising (+ the "Platonic/Greek like scientific method"). Got to start doing physics somewhere though, and although his mechanics for one don't comply with Newton, Galileo etc at all it's still an attempt to formulate general understandings of physics.arildno said:I've read excerpts of Aristotle concerning the evolution of a chicken within the egg.
From these, it is obvious that Aristotle performed observations (by opening the egg at different times) and in this manner was an empiricist.
I haven't read any excerpts of Aristotle that can be likened to what it is said he said about physics. If anyone knows where to look in his works, please inform me.
Aristotle's science was mostly rubbish, but his writings on ethics, politics, and poetics were, and are, brilliant. I'm afraid a lot of people hear examples of his bad science and dismiss him without recognizing the value of his purely philosophical works.honestrosewater said:Great, I don't like blind devotion any more than I like blind contempt. I'm just trying to avoid, as much as possible, an inaccurate picture of him.
Well, I don't know much about his work in science; I know him from philosophy and logic (and am quite fond of him too). I started browsing through Physics today, and so far he seems to spend most of his time refuting other people's arguments. I want to search around for the best translation before reading more. If he was wrong, I'd still like to know why - it looks like there are some good lessons and arguments in there.jma2001 said:Aristotle's science was mostly rubbish, but his writings on ethics, politics, and poetics were, and are, brilliant. I'm afraid a lot of people hear examples of his bad science and dismiss him without recognizing the value of his purely philosophical works.
I would make a comparison between Aristotle and Ptolemy. Both wrote influential scientific works that have been largely discredited in modern times. Yet, Aristotle is still being read while Ptolemy is forgotten. Why? Because of the quality of his philosophical works. No one reads Aristotle for his science, they read him for his philosophy.
In the case of g, scientists have indeed gone looking for the thing that was posited not to exist.honestrosewater said:Today, if a theory predicts that something is impossible or cannot exist [...] do scientists go looking for it?