Why is Aristotle important to astronomy?

[jamesstella (James stella)]

Hey guys

So I already know he discovered the earth is spherical, but what other discoveries did he make that impacted astronomy?

Also, one thing i found online said he "discovered there were two parts of the universe."
1) is this true?
2) if so, what does that even mean?

Thank you very much guys!

[ArcaneMagik (Craig)]

I guess the only thing important he did was ask questions about the nature of the universe. Most of his answers came about from reasoning rather than observation and experimentation, and thus a lot turned out to be wrong.

He did use the observation of the lunar eclipses as proof of Earth's spherical space. He also attempted to model the universe in a geocentric model that continued for ages.

[Waxing_Gibbous (Peter)]

He is not.
In fact he was/is a positive detrement to science.
Almost everything he posited was rubbish. It's all speculation and no observation.
He and, his mentor Plato, probably set scientific discovery back 1000 years with their emphasis on the metaphysical and spiritual.
Naturally this was swallowed-up by the great, drooling masses of the time as it was easier to believe than to explore.
Praise-be Newton, Kopernicus, et al, put an end to his foolishness.

[bartman (Bart)]

Welcome to IceInSpace James!

Good Question. never thought (knew) about his involvement.....

Originally Posted by Waxing_Gibbous

He and, his mentor Plato, probably set scientific discovery back 1000 years with their emphasis on the metaphysical and spiritual.
Naturally this was swallowed-up by the great, drooling masses of the time as it was easier to believe than to explore.
Praise-be Newton, Kopernicus, et al, put an end to his foolishness.

That is worthy of a look up in wikipedia.
Thanks Peter!
Bartman

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Waxing_Gibbous

He is not.
In fact he was/is a positive detrement to science.
Almost everything he posited was rubbish. It's all speculation and no observation.

Here is a hint, the word phenomenon is based on the Greek word for observation.

Regards

Steven

[Waxing_Gibbous (Peter)]

Aristotle also held that the heart was the seat of intelligence, that the Earth was the centre of the universe, was an apologist for slavery and that man should think about the heavens, but not bother actually observing them.
He was bone-head.
The 5th century equivelent of Bagwan Rashneesh.

[bartman (Bart)]

Originally Posted by Waxing_Gibbous

The 5th century equivelent of Bagwan Rashneesh.

Ummmm 5th century? Aristotle was born around 384 BC......

Bartman

[Waxing_Gibbous (Peter)]

Sorry. Typo. Meant to add 'B.C.'.

Compare and contrast also, Aristotle to a contemporary, Democritus who:
Taught that perception is a mechanistic process (thinking and feeling were attributes of matter and not a divine gift.
That there was, in fact, space between atoms.
The sun, not the earth, was the centre of the solar system.
That the milky way was composed of discrete stars.
etc.

Yet poor old Democritus remains largely un-sung. Aristotle and Plato had had a huge public following in exactly the same way someone like that TV guy who talks to dead people or Oral Roberts does today.
It might be B.S., but it was well targeted and well-honed B.S., and Athenians lapped it up.

[sjastro]

I think an important point is being missed here.

The ancient Greeks through the likes of Aristotle were the first to use observation to explain their surroundings.
The issue is not whether Aristotle was right or wrong but rather the mode of thinking developed was a radical departure from other contemporary civilizations which relied on superstition and the supernatural to provide the answers.

From that perspective we should be deeply indebted to Aristotle.

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Waxing_Gibbous

Naturally this was swallowed-up by the great, drooling masses of the time as it was easier to believe than to explore.

Peter;
Whilst I can generally warm to where you're coming from, ie: believing something, as opposed to actually 'finding out', through personal exploration is always less beneficial and probably less meritorious … no worries about that … but …

Originally Posted by Waxing_Gibbous

He was bone-head.

!!!????

Cheers

[Waxing_Gibbous (Peter)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Peter;
Whilst I can generally warm to where you're coming from, ie: believing something, as opposed to actually 'finding out', through personal exploration is always less beneficial and probably less meritorious … no worries about that … but …
!!!????

Cheers

Craig - I meant that purjoritively not literally!

And, fair-enough, his philosophical methodology is sound, that is, it lead to a clearer understanding of philosophical issues, but he in no way advanced science as discrete study.

Most, if not all of his 'scientific' reasoning methodologies are plagerised from the far more observationally and experimentally oriented Democritus, Hippocrates, Anaxagoras and of course Pyhtagoras.

His view of the material ('real') world was that it was dirty and base and men needed to transcend it in order to achieve enlightenment (I'm seiously simplifying here). This is the principal reason his teachings were so readily adopted by the early Christian church and later Islam.

I confess, I'm no expert on Aristotle and my general aversion to he (and Plato and the other metaphysicists) arises from a couple of philosophy courses I took some 30 years ago at Uni.

I remeber being quite apalled at how wrong they (Platonists) were about everything 'material. and how feeble their general philosophy was.
Granted, Plto's logic is important but he never went anywhere with it!

Perhaps at the time is was revolutionary and did much for the more learned classes emerging from the twighlight of superstition, but to my mind he was of little use and much damage to the field of Science.

I'll shut up now.

[CraigS]

Thanks for elaborating, Peter.

I kind of dread these historically 'retrospective judgment' type threads, as I find that they end up re-iterating and amplifying experiences more typical of our own lifetimes, rather than realising those from the past.

Very thought provoking comments though.

I, for one, am quite passionate about the importance of rational thought in today's society, and this has its roots firmly embedded in formal scientific logic. Aristotle is commonly attributed by scientific legends such as Kant, as almost the sole progenitor of deductive inference .. a critical aspect which enables us to distill reality from fantasy. He is also credited as being the originator of most analytical methods, (like Set Theory), by which science distills solutions for problems in nature.

I think if one has more of a focus on the criticality of processes in the Sciences, as distinct from concerns about whether science is right or wrong, or telling truth (Ontology), then one more fully appreciates the impact Aristotle's work had in the field of Epistemology (knowledge acquistion).

Also, perhaps the more negative aspects you mention flowing on from Aristotle's work may have resulted from the misunderstandings of his work by the pseudo-scientists of the intervening era between his and our own … which, perhaps in a slightly indirect way, may also be a very pertinent lesson for us in modern times.

Cheers

[NorthernLight (Max)]

1. Aristotle lived long after Democrit, Phytagoras and Anaxagoras
2. Known by his teacher Plato as "the reader", he was the first to establish the lonesome studying of texts and publications by others
3. Aristotle broke with Plato´s view of the world as a mere reflection of eternal entities residing in a removed sphere or dimension (a thought offered again in the 20th century as the holographic universe, which is intrinsically two dimensional and extends into the 3rd dimension only by projection)
4. It is not His fault that he has been abused through the centuries by the katholic church
5. the fact that Plato´s Politeia (the state) is the blueprint for a dictatorship as proposed by the katholic church as well as the nazies does not make Aristotle, his scholar (who did not become leader of the academy after Platos death by Platos own command) a favourer of autocracian political systems
6. he had his big blunders: like the idea that the brain is a mere blood cooler (which it actually is, as humans loose most of their body temperature through the head) and that slavery is alright. However, he was born into it and lived with it about 2000 years before the great French revolution, a singularity that shifted the perception of slavery for the masters AND the slaves. It musn´t be forgot that slaves in ancient Athens were occasionly very powerful masters of the house of some aristocrat and teachers to their children. (even the old testament speaks about the freed slaves of egypt that lament in the desert about how good they had it in slavery, with meet all the time whilst in their new freedom they only had believe and some mana)
7. Aristotle invented the logic we still apply today. Plato´s dialectic is not conclusive but Aristoles Syllogism is:
I. if all humans are mortal
II. and Sokartes is a human
II. then Sokartes is mortal
8. a crater on our moon is called is Aristoteles (german pronouciation)
9. the book " Nikomachian Ethic" describes as first in this world the relationship between people amongst each other in terms of common moral; his theories about the drama/tragody (and perhaps even about the comedy, if you are with U. Ecco) enlight the reader about mechanisms of peotry working on the human -how it impresses our consciousness (or soul for want of better word)
10. he was the one that started working methodological, step after step, prove and disprove. He brought in the difference between a logical proof (a priori) and a proof upon reality (a posteriori). Even though he may not have been an astronomer like Hipparchos, he laid the foundations for a science that doesn´t want to prove what is being known already but probe what can be known about an observable system.

That some of his theories didn´t hold through the centuries is no reason to bash him. After all, Newton´s theory of gravivty is entirely true in the light of Einsteins General Relativity and I am sure that during this century we will see a new theory emerging that unites Quantum Mechanics and Gravity and thus render General Realtivity to an ancient believe.
The story keeps continuing. The pre-Socraterian Philosophers seem to be the ones who were on the right track. And it looks like a shame they got suppressed for so many centuries. Advances in theoretical cosmolgy, however, sometimes seem to suggest that those metaphysicians a´la Plato weren´t too far off either....

Thruth is a human invention that most probably has no correlation with the rest of the cosmos.

[bartman (Bart)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

I think an important point is being missed here.
The ancient Greeks through the likes of Aristotle were the first to use observation to explain their surroundings.
The issue is not whether Aristotle was right or wrong but rather the mode of thinking developed was a radical departure from other contemporary civilizations which relied on superstition and the supernatural to provide the answers.
From that perspective we should be deeply indebted to Aristotle.
Regards
Steven

Steven, you could not have said it any better...I agree, in my thoughts.(hehehe there's that disclaimer! and I used Thoughts instead of Belief)
@CraigS...-you are rubbing of on me Craig.
I'm really enjoying this thread cause Craig, CraigS, Steven, Peter and Max all make good points about Aristotle on a myriad of points. Some good, some bad.
A lot to digest, but I'm still at an the infancy stage of any xxxxsics subjects.
Hope that makes sense......I do appreciate the information.....
and I hope James ( who started this thread) also appreciates all of your comments...?????...
Cheers
Bartman

[gregbradley]

Well said by several.

The amazing thing about these Greek Philosophers was to question existence, try to understand it, try to work out ways of thinking that would resolve problems, try to form a workable method of logic.

Whether their own beliefs turned out right or wrong has the advantage of hindsight which can make most thinkers seem silly. But the mere fact of encouraging people to view existence and advance mans knowledge is a very valuable contribution.

Greg.