Talk:Aristotle/Archives/2017

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I removed an assertion about the scientific method

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

For orientation, the preceding paragraph ended with the quote "the sun shines on all the stars and the earth screens none of them." Then came this:

In places, Aristotle goes too far in deriving 'laws of the universe' from simple observation and over-stretched reason. Today's scientific method assumes that such thinking without sufficient facts is ineffective, and that discerning the validity of one's hypothesis requires far more rigorous experimentation than that which Aristotle used to support his laws.

This uncited opinion rings false to me. I think it's safe to say that some very substantial scientific theories are based on observations far removed from the phenomena they are investigating, particularly in cosmology and astrophysics. In these cases reason is stretched very far indeed, without being considered "ineffective". Karl Popper is sometimes called the father of the scientific method, and one theme of his writings was to promote reasoning over observation, particularly because he was opposed the notion of "induction" and variations on that theme, in which truth is obtained through measurement rather than reasoning. Have a look at Instrumentalism, especially the section "Popper's critique". What I see in the paragraph I removed is essentially the idea that science equals observation, and that reasoning must be tied closely to observation in order to remain correct. I think that's a naive, or at least debatable, view of the scientific method.

Having said all that, there might be a way to rewrite the paragraph into a valid criticism of Aristotle. Something about reliance on untested assumptions, perhaps. Card Zero (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, whether the paragraph was correct or not it was expressed as an opinion in Wikipedia's voice so it was not right for Wikipedia. What I think would have been more acceptable is a quotation from a notable commentator on Aristotle expressing such an opinion, but then if we have that opinion, we should offer a counter opinion because this is Aristotle, a person very influential, hard to understand, with many critics, but the critics do not all agree.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aristotle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050816192647/http://grid.ceth.rutgers.edu/ancient/greek/aristotle_greek/ to http://grid.ceth.rutgers.edu/ancient/greek/aristotle_greek/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)