Science Advancing Philosophy:

Nice summary for understanding the nature of science. Thanks for the comments you've made in this thread.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thanks Russ. Very informative post.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Instead of repeating uninformed myths about Aristotle, people should read what he actually wrote.

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/parts_animals.4.iv.html

Pay particular attention to the last sentence in Book IV, Part 6.

"The whole number of legs, including those used in leaping, is six in all these insects."

Aristotle does note that flies will often stand on four legs, while they use their anterior pair of legs to clean and groom their eyes, mouths and antennae. Anyone who has actually watched flies will have seen this behavior for themselves.

Aristotle is generally recognized by the history of science as one of the founders of the science of biology. (And of science writing generally, since his scientific works read more like modern scientific texts than Homer or Hesiod.) Given when he lived, he has to be considered a true giant of the history of science, a scientist in every sense of the word. While his understanding of physiology and biochemistry was limited (inevitable given that he was writing in the 4th century BCE) and he made some mistakes concerning anatomy (the number of insect legs not among them), it's obvious that his work was based on minute observation and dissection of actual specimens. Some of his observations weren't improved upon until modern times.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So the story I heard on the fly was apocryphal (the gravity one is not). Oh well. Congrats on your win. Doesn't change the main point, though.

That really is your deal here I guess: to get some win - any win - no matter how small or side-stream to the topic being discussed.

 

You were insisting that Aristotle just spun his biological ideas out of his imagination and never stooped to examine biological organisms (like flies). My point is that even a superficial reading of Aristotle's On the Parts of Animals and his other biological texts (which together are about 1/4 of his entire corpus) reveal that he had to have made many close observations and actual anatomical dissections. That's why Aristotle is generally considered to be the father of biology. (Just as he's the father of formal logic and many other subjects.

So far from showing that a vast gulf separates philosophy and science, the biological work of Aristotle illustrates how science originated in natural philosophy, which was my point.

 

Here's Book 6 of Aristotle's History of Animals, where he discusses the fetal development of birds inside eggs. He was obviously breaking open fertilized eggs at different points in time and looking inside. He even mentions dissecting some of the fetuses, to assess their development.

Then the discussion broadens out, turning towards comparative reproductive biology in different kinds of animals from fish and eels to sheep and dogs. (He knows that dolphins give birth to live young.) Aristotle has obviously made many observations of his own, and is also relying on what people like fishermen and animal herders have told him.

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/history_anim.6.vi.html

In Book 5, he discusses the reproductive biology of invertebrates such as insects and molluscs (he says squids copulate face-to-face, intertwining their tentacles). Book 5 ends with bird copulation (Book 6 picks up the story with bird eggs).

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/history_anim.5.v.html

And Book 7 turns its attention to human reproductive biology. Aristotle obviously believes that human beings are animals, biologically speaking.