Kiwi solves Zeno's paradox and argues against Hawking

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

It depends on how you define "biology" and "science."

Oh give me a break. Who cares what words you use, call it whatever you like.

How about "the systematic study of living organisms and their causes" and "the systematic study of the natures of things and their causes".

Broad enough?

That's what Aristotle was doing.

Next question.

So Spontaneous Generation seemed reasonable to you?

What are you talking about? IIRC Aristotle thinks that the universe has existed forever. The relation between the universe and its arche or causal principle is not a relation susceptible to temporal predicates.

The point is that when you don't have experimental apparatus, you are thrown back onto rational speculation. When you have a lot of experimental data and get good practical results out of it, attempting to unify the whole of science into a rationally coherent whole gets put on the back burner.

Wouldn't you classify Aristotle to be an empiricist, given the way you asserted him giving primacy to observations?

Not if you mean by "empiricist" someone like Hume. Aristotle thought that things apprehended by the sense would reveal their natures and causes when subjected to apprehension by the mind. These include IIRC coming to know such things as potencies, causes and species/genus relations.

Later empiricists like Hume think that causal relations and potencies (like inflammability) are the result of the operation of human nature on direct experiences. For Hume experiences do not reveal real causes in the natures of things, they are data on which we naturally impose causal hypotheses.

Aristotle's theory of perception and thinking (in De Anima) is quite different from Hume's, so calling them both empiricists is misleading.

Given that the Greek "theory" of the four elements is inherently flawed, he didn't have much of a leg.

So he focused on more abstract issues such as the nature of substance. Given that I once read a philosophical paper by a scientist who claimed that things were in fact collections of properties, I think Aristotle deserves some respect, since he pointed out what was wrong with that 2500 years ago.

Furthermore, Aristotle isn't really well known for gathering experimental evidence of anything at all.

That's because ignorant science professors continue to claim this without having read any of his work. He spent ages observing and classifying marine creatures, for example. In fact, using ta phainomena "the things that appear to be" is the basis of his method.

On the other hand, the lack of instruments also meant not a whole lot of observations can be make, simplifying his work.

Nope, complicating it. You go read the Metaphysics and make some sense of it. I'd rather do university physics than try to sort out those problems.

Gee, did I sense idol worshipping here?

Not really. He's not an idol of mine. But if you read all his (surviving) works and realise that these came from one person who had none of the resources we had and had to think most of it up for himself, it's hard not to be impressed at the quality of his intellect.

Again, as I said, depends on how you define "science" and other things.

That's just silly. In a thousand years when people are looking back on the crazy things we believed, do you think they'll call what we did, "science".

It's just a lazy prejudice to regard ancient people as somehow "daft".

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Agathon
Oh give me a break. Who cares what words you use, call it whatever you like.

Really? Could I use, um, "homophobia?"

Originally posted by Agathon
How about "the systematic study of living organisms and their causes" and "the systematic study of the natures of things and their causes".

Broad enough?

That's what Aristotle was doing.

The thing is a lot of people had studied living organisms and nature way before Aristotle, so I was skeptical when you asserted that he "invented" biology.

Originally posted by Agathon
The point is that when you don't have experimental apparatus, you are thrown back onto rational speculation. When you have a lot of experimental data and get good practical results out of it, attempting to unify the whole of science into a rationally coherent whole gets put on the back burner.

What I was trying to point out that some "rational speculations" weren't, Spontaneous Generation was just an example. Is it more reasonable to think life could be created on the spot spontaneously or to imagine organisms too small to be seen by the naked eye?

Originally posted by Agathon
So he focused on more abstract issues such as the nature of substance. Given that I once read a philosophical paper by a scientist who claimed that things were in fact collections of properties, I think Aristotle deserves some respect, since he pointed out what was wrong with that 2500 years ago.

Yeah well, you know that when it comes to philosophy, there's no right and wrong. Have you seen some of the philosophical interpretation of Quantum Physics? Some of these people are seriously wacky!

Originally posted by Agathon
That's because ignorant science professors continue to claim this without having read any of his work. He spent ages observing and classifying marine creatures, for example. In fact, using ta phainomena "the things that appear to be" is the basis of his method.

Why would he said falling objects naturally land on earth because earth (the element) attracted each other? Or is this exactly what you asserted he didn't say?

Originally posted by Agathon
Nope, complicating it. You go read the Metaphysics and make some sense of it. I'd rather do university physics than try to sort out those problems.

Metaphysics is not about science though, or at least science as we know it.

Originally posted by Agathon
That's just silly. In a thousand years when people are looking back on the crazy things we believed, do you think they'll call what we did, "science".

You should realise science is not what we believe, but a process of how we go about finding things out about nature.

Originally posted by Agathon
It's just a lazy prejudice to regard ancient people as somehow "daft".

I wouldn't say they were daft, it's just that they had less of a body of knowledge accumulated, and fewer tools to use.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Really? Could I use, um, "homophobia?"

If you could get everyone else to use it, then yes. The meaning of a word is just it's use.

The thing is a lot of people had studied living organisms and nature way before Aristotle, so I was skeptical when you asserted that he "invented" biology.

No one did it systematically the way he did with a definite and well thought out method of investigation (detailed in the Post. Analytics).

What I was trying to point out that some "rational speculations" weren't, Spontaneous Generation was just an example. Is it more reasonable to think life could be created on the spot spontaneously or to imagine organisms too small to be seen by the naked eye?

Saying that Aristotle thinks that life comes out of nothing is inaccurate. The Aristotelian system gives causal accounts of all entities and events excepting the arche of all which is the ultimate explanatory entity. You don't mean to say that life did not have ultimate causes, do you?

He just doesn't believe in Darwinian evolution because he holds a teleological theory (a not unreasonable thing to do given the likelihood principle and a lack of a compelling alternative - of course we can't do that because we do have an alternative).

Yeah well, you know that when it comes to philosophy, there's no right and wrong. Have you seen some of the philosophical interpretation of Quantum Physics? Some of these people are seriously wacky!

If you ask me, Quantum physics is rather wacky. I hope you aren't referring to those French "philosophers" - we in the English speaking philosophy world don't take that guff seriously.

Why would he said falling objects naturally land on earth because earth (the element) attracted each other? Or is this exactly what you asserted he didn't say?

Actually earth is naturally inclined to the centre of the universe IIRC. He couldn't believe that everything was, since fire appeared to be a counterexample. Nowhere I have read does he assert that something dropped from a moving object moves straight down. Indeed, it's hard to see why he would, since his theory can accommodate observed paths of motion easily through the existence of accidental motion (i.e what happens to you when you are in a car).

I think this is a case of a hangover from early modern science wanting to discredit Aristotle as much as they could. It's a shame that people could be so silly.

Metaphysics is not about science though, or at least science as we know it.

It's about the foundations of our world view. Attempting to work out what the status of mathematical propositions is and whether they refer to anything real, or are merely mental constructions, is a kind of metaphysics. So is attempting to provide a real definition of "cause".

You should realise science is not what we believe, but a process of how we go about finding things out about nature.

The word is used both ways.

I wouldn't say they were daft, it's just that they had less of a body of knowledge accumulated, and fewer tools to use.

Exactly - which is what makes Aristotle's torrential output all the more amazing. But this lack also spurred them on to think about the basic entities of their theories much more critically (from the point of view of coherence) and their solid attachment to realism is refreshing.