imported_hscorpio
Golden Member
- Sep 1, 2004
- 1,617
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
If your statements are posted as a response to mine but don't actually address my premises, then I have little recourse but to tell you why your position is wrong by forging a different argument. I'm not sure how giving a bit of my personal history is an attack on you.Originally posted by: hscorpio
I was not attacking you. I was attacking the method in which you attempted to discredit me without addressing my statements.
Aristotle was the first to envision the idea of what we now call analytical mechanics - that the true mechanism for physical interactions is through energy rather than forces. It is true that there is a rather 'philosophical' assumption wrapped in the primary premise of variational calculus (I've even had a professor tell me that a course in variational calculus is 'good for the soul'There are plenty of examples, you should be asking yourself if there are any examples of major modern scientific fields that were not in some way contemplated by ancient philosophers. Does the term 'Natural Philosophy' ring a bell? When Aristotle contemplated everything in Physics, he was doing so in the realm of philosophy. Today those same ideas he thought about philosophically are now studied under the scientific method in their respective fields. Your confusion lies in the definitions, I hope, because I'm sure you must realize what I'm saying is correct but are just being hard headed. What I mean is that what Aristotle termed metaphysics is what we generally refer to as philosophy today since nearly every other remaining branch of Aristotelian philosophy now falls under what we term science.). However, this does not imply that Aristotle's method of analyzing scientific principles was the same as his method for pondering abstractions. In fact, he was one of the, if not THE, first to make the distinction between the questions of how and why - the questions of science and philosophy. Simply thinking of things in an abstract form does not qualify as philosophy, though it took Aristotle some time to realize the distinction.
You said I was wrong without adressing why you think I was wrong or offering any contradicting proof. Then you implied (falsely) I probably never have studied the subject while suggesting your credit hours give you credibility I lack. I suggest you let your words stand on their own merit and you back up your claims.
Aristotle made no such distinction between science and philosophy. He made philosophical distinctions, science (as we know it) did not exist. Everything he pondered was based on observation and reasoning alone and was in the philosophical realm at the time. Why a stone moves when someone pushes it was a philosophical excercise for Aristotle, for most of us it is purely scientific and knowing how tells us why.
