 |
|
Eli
|
|
Israel
Jul 2000
time: 07:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by yavoon 7
u should read the elegant universe then. |
Oh I read it. I still *feel* that about 80 years ago some scientist somewhere took the wrong turn.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
Bah, this seems like entirely speculative airy-fairy physics to me rather than real philosophy. |
u mean airy fairy philosophy rather than real physics?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
st_swithin
|
|
10069
Nov 2002
time: 05:29
|
|
It's a Cerebral Circle Jerk, thank you very much.
At UCLA, it's called 'Physics for Poets.'
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maniac
|
 |
Gent, Belgium
Jul 1999
time: 06:29
|
|
I have to agree with DRoseDARs. There's nothing revolutionary about this article.  While I was reading the article I thought: "I could've come up with this as well.  " But then again, my world view also contains many oriental elements.
Boris Godunov:
quote:
Western scientific method produced the greatest flourishing of technological advancement and knowledge about the world and our universe ever, and it continues to accelerate to this day. It's rather difficult to argue with those results! |
Oh please. Put things in historical perspective. It's only from 1400 on that Europe can be considered to really catch up with China and India. And it's only from 1800 on that Europe really began to overclass them. So implying the Western philosophy is superior because they made more scientific progress in the last 200 years (which is rather short when you compare it to how long human civilization already exists) is bullshit. In another 200 years the roles may be reversed and China could be dominant again, looking down on western philosophy.
Besides, comparing philosophies by their scientific results is in itself a western bias, thus invalid. After all, eastern philosophies do not strive for objectification and understanding of the fenomenal universe. Rather for understanding of its essence, its basic principles (though the word "principle" may not be so good, as it might give the impression there are universal "laws" that can be observed loose from reality, hinting at a form of dualism). And regarding the "essence" of the universe, the eastern philosophies were probably much earlier much closer to it than the west: only now physicists are gradually moving their worldview closer to the eastern one, as this article proves.
DRoseDARs:
What book and author is that the abbreviation of? 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
In fact if you read Aristotle you would see that he is quite meticulous about observation, he invented the science of biology and has accounts of all the various sorts of animals and attempts to provide classifications for them. |
It depends on how you define "biology" and "science."
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
I'll say this again: you cannot accuse Aristotle and other ancient thinkers of being stupid simply because they differed with contemporary science. None of these guys had access to the technology that has been available since the renaissance. Do you think that Aristotle wouldn't have loved to have had a microscope? These guys didn't have the ability to make such observations, so they were forced to rely on reason |
So Spontaneous Generation seemed reasonable to you?
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Frankly the scientific revolution of Galileo's time represented a kind of dumbing down of natural philosophy (science) and eventually led to the sceptical problems that beset empiricist theories |
Wouldn't you classify Aristotle to be an empiricist, given the way you asserted him giving primacy to observations?
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
For someone like Aristotle, who was trying to fit absolutely everything into one grand unified theory, such slipshod practice would have been unthinkable. |
Given that the Greek "theory" of the four elements is inherently flawed, he didn't have much of a leg. Furthermore, Aristotle isn't really well known for gathering experimental evidence of anything at all.
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
But then again, that was the method that his dearth of instruments forced on him - and frankly it made it harder for him. |
On the other hand, the lack of instruments also meant not a whole lot of observations can be make, simplifying his work.
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Slagging him off as stupid while being in complete or near complete ignorance of his work is just unfair and totally out of order. There has probably never existed another individual who was as smart as Aristotle - he often manages to say more in a page than most thinkers do in a book. |
Gee, did I sense idol worshipping here?
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
He was the first person to think systematically about science and its methods, logic, aesthetic theory and countless other things. Don't be uncharitable. |
Again, as I said, depends on how you define "science" and other things.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
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?" 
quote:
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.
quote:
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?
quote:
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!
quote:
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?
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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
|
|
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
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.
quote:
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).
quote:
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).
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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".
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-08-2003 13:31
Proof: There is a journal "Science and life" (Nauka i zhizn'), and there is a journal "Chemistry and life" (Khimiya i zhizn'). Consequently, chemistry is not a science.
|
|