improvement for history 162 final project

9

ARISTOTLE CONTRIBUTIONS TO HISTORY OF SCIENCE

Name

Institution

Date

ARISTOTLE CONTRIBUTIONS TO HISTORY OF SCIENCE

Born around 384 BC, Aristotle still stands out as one of greatest scientists and philosophers back then and right now. At 17 years old, he joined the Plato’s Academy, and while there, he developed ideas that formed the basis of the works he did later, which had an important impact on history of Science. While Plat’s belief was that reality existence could only be found in ideas, thus realizable through inspiration and reflection, Aristotle believed that reality was only present in physical object, thus recognizeable via experience, as guided by five senses. In this case, he took on every problem seeking to provide an objective solution, meaning that he employed scientific approaches in many of his works. He believed that truth was much more than what Plato wrote, thus finding a keen interest in science[footnoteRef:2]. [2: Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50th Anniversary Edition, (London, LND: University of Chicago Press, 2012), 123-148. ]

According to Khunin his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, most of Aristotle’s works in science existed until 19th century while other works, with modification and advancement find their use up to date. Unfortunately, most of what is studies is his philosophy while his contributions to history of science are often neglected. As a result, his contributions in the history of science are not well recognized and respected as they ought to be. This implies most people do not understand the roots of the science they study today and its development. In effect, the focus of this paper is examining the major contributions that Aristotle made in the history of science, as a way of appreciating his work, as well as, helping understand how his works have led to making science what it is today. Specific focus is on his key contributions, which include developing an understanding of science, his contributions to cosmology, as well as, to biology/medicine.

An Understanding of Science

Aristotle works have helped in developing an understanding or definition of science. He believed logic to be a critical tool although it makes incomplete contributions to dialect and science. This is because studying logic was done while considering its role in explanation and human inquiry, thus deviating from science, which extends beyond arguments based mere deductions. According to Aristotle, science extends beyond deductions or valid syllogisms made. It is accompanied by organization of data comprised in the science domain in series of arguments that can be perceived as beyond feature premises and deductions. The arguments must be “intelligible by nature” meaning that they ought to reveal mind-independent and genuine natures of things. Aristotle further perceived science in its broad context by noting that it extends to other fields of inquiry, including metaphysics and mathematics, nit just empirical science. This implies science to him is not confined to reporting of fact, bur explaining the facts though showing connection of their priority relations. This simply means that science is used to explain what people know little about using what they know best while considering the fundamentals. For example, in knowing the reason trees tend to lose leaves during autumn, people can say that it is because of wind that blows through them[footnoteRef:3]. [3: Ibid]

However, in Aristotle’s perspective, this may not be appropriate response, as wind may equally blow during other seasons without yielding the same result. A better explanation would be the leaves shed leaves due to reduced sunlight during autumn since, which prevents chlorophyll production needed to facilitate photosynthesis, thus triggering the dormancy of the trees. Science must then present record of these statements as factual, as well as , put them in their correct. For example, the deciduous tree that does not photosynthesis lacks chlorophyll production; its failure in producing chlorophyll offers an explanation for the absence of the photosynthesis process, not vice versa. Such order/asymmetry must be employed when presenting scientific explanations in Aristotle’s scientific exposition approach. According to Aristotle, science must then not just include casual asymmetries present in nature, but the invariant and deep patterns that the nature presents. As a consequence, besides being explanatory, making demonstration by going beyond mere deductions to employing premises that show causal structured in the world to help capture necessary element, reveal most intelligible by nature and elements better known. Elements , which could not be demonstrated, could employ dialectical approach. In this case, Aristotle insights provide a basis of understanding what science is and what it entails by defining the premises of science.

Aristotle’s Contributions to Cosmology

Aristotle made great contributions to the science of development and origin of universe (cosmology). Aristotle employed his natural philosophy to build his cosmos knowledge, which people employed as the bass representation of the universe for over two millennia. Aristotle conception of cosmos was a huge spherical plenum with no end or beginning. He believed that everything that existed could only be found within the sphere, as nothing outside it, including time, place, empty space or matter, could exist. According to him, it was nonsensical to even think there was extracosmic existence, thus rejecting any chances of having other worlds beyond this one[footnoteRef:4]. [4: Michael A. Seeds and Dana Backman, Foundations of Astronomy (New York: Cengage Learning, 2015), 57-99. ]

To him, the cosmos was comprised of terrestrial and celestial region with a line made by lunar sphere’s concave surface dividing the two regions. From the world’s center to the surface of the moon concave, Aristotle believed that there were four elements, earth- water-air-fire, organized in the manner noted. Bodies in this case were made of two or more of the elements, and passed away due to the inability of the elements to combine, as well as, create new bodies compound. Aristotle believed that in the central part of the universe, earth existed surrounded for the most parts by water followed by air and then fire. Stopping of the motions of any of elements would make the elements divide themselves in the concentric regions, with the heaviest to the lightest of the element, thus making a total of four regions. Nonetheless, Aristotle believed that division of elements was impossible because naturally, the elements were designed to remain in motion whereby they would dissociate and associate with each other. He also believed that shooting stars, comets, as well as, other similar phenomena happened at the upper part of terrestrial region adjacent to the moon surface[footnoteRef:5]. [5: Ibid]

While transformation and change characterized terrestrial area, the celestial region that comprised of star and planets was characterized by minimal change. Aristotle believed that the absence of change was due to the nature of celestial, which in its context as fifth element did not have any empty spaces. The celestial region comprise of the ether , an eternal, incorruptible substances that only experienced the change of place, but no other change. The substance hence could never come into being or pass away. Considering that start and planet took over the characteristics of the celestial ether, they experienced no change, beside change of place that people could easily observe. Aristotle believed small changes as superior to larger changes, thus perceiving celestial region to be noble/superior when compared to terrestrial region where continual change was the order. Considering this characteristic of celestial region, he believed that is would be appropriate if celestial region influenced the changes occurring in terrestrial region. This idea was employed by future astrologers in justifying the prognostications they made.

It was his understanding of natural philosophy that helped him in determining cosmos physical nature, including its behavior and properties. This is because he drew his first principles, which he accepted as true with no need for explanations from the natural philosophy. In Nicomachean Ethics, he noted “ that which is proper to each thing is by nature best and most pleasant for each thin; for man, therefore, the life according to intellect is best and pleasant , since intellect more than anything else is man”[footnoteRef:6]. This is to say that he highly values reasoned discourse, thus according it highest place. For example, he believe in of and heaves as first principle. For him, if such a principle was perceived as true, what was logically derived from the principle, was also presumed to be true. With the Earth located in the central part of Universe, he had created a geocentric model of universe. He believed that the heavens kept surrounding the Earth. Later on, as proposed by Eudoxus, he added different parts to come up with 55 crystalline spheres that turned using different angle and rate to carry planets, moon and sun across sky. Considering that to him the Earth could not move, Aristotle made the assumption that other sphere key whirling westward around the Earth 24/7 to help produce night and day. This also goes for the notion that different sphere moved differently to help produce the planets, sun and moon motions against the stars’ background. He believed everything was centered on Earth. [6: Ibid. 189]

Scholars coming after Aristotle lacked the mostly lacked insistence of the scientific approach where they questions, created hypotheses and sought evidence to support Aristotle claims. In this case, for over 2,000 years Aristotle’s claim became the biblical truth with most astronomers rejecting new insights of the earth possibly moving along the axis, such as those of Aristarchus, simply because they deviated from what Aristotle suggested. Nonetheless, although Aristotle claims of the cosmos and how it was arranged were not true, the many questions and controversies arising from it are what provoked most astronomers to be more inquisitive, apply scientific approaches to test their hypotheses and Aristotle assumption to come up with the appropriate order of the universe, as we know it today. This implies that Aristotle’s false, unjustified and sometimes seemingly ridiculous claims became part of a discourse that continued to create the current scientific findings of the cosmos today[footnoteRef:7]. [7: Ibid. 189-223]

Contributions in Biology/Medicine

Probably the most remarkable contributions that Aristotle made in science was in biology and medicine, specifically by introducing taxonomy/classification of living things through which he classified over 500 specifies of fishes, mammals and birds among other animals. He classified animals by grouping animals presenting similar traits into genera, while using the term “genera” more broadly than it is employed by modern biologist. He also sought to different the species that existed within the general. Specifically, he grouped animals into two, those lacking blood and those with blood. The influences of this classification can be felt in modern-day science, where these two groups are terms as invertebrates and vertebrates. The blood animals, which are typically vertebrates by modern standards were divided into five genera, which included fishes, reptiles and amphibians (oviparous quadruped), mammals (viviparous quadrupeds), as well as, whales, which back then Aristotle could not identify as part of mammals. The animals without blood were classified as crustaceans, shelled animals including echinoderms and mollusks among others, insects such as centipede, scorpions and spiders, cephalopods, for example, octopus, as well as, ‘plant-animals’ or zoophytes, as in the case of cnidarians[footnoteRef:8]. [8: Aristotle, “The History of Animals,” Accessed August 8, 2016, http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/history_anim.1.i.html ]

More interesting was his tendency to classify living things in the context of scala naturae or ladder of life. This was done by placing living things as per complexity of function and structure that higher organism showed increased ability to move, as well as, greater vitality. In this structure, Aristotle was hierarchical, starting with plants, which were located at the bottom of hierarchy, then with what he considered less animal before putting humans at the top of creation. Progressively, as living things climbed up the ladder, they became more perfect in their form. This resonates somehow with Darwin classification, as well as, survival for the fittest theory based on the ideas that Aristotle classifies human being according to the level of potentiality/ability.

Seeds and Backm indicate that even if Aristotle’s zoology work had errors, it became the most outstanding biology synthesis at that time. People relied with the work as ultimate authority in secular world prior to rising of modern knowledge around the 16th century. The manner which he classified animals based on their parts, actions and way of life was so accurate that it was possible that he had first-hand experience, as well as, conducted dissection on them to study more. For example, accuracies can be seen in describing embryological development in a chick, social organization in bees, chambered stomachs in ruminants, and ability of shirks to give birth like mammals do[footnoteRef:9]. [9: Michael A. Seeds and Dana Backman, Foundations of Astronomy (New York: Cengage Learning, 2015), 57-99. ]

Conclusion

In brief, Aristotle’s influences on the history science may not be studied because of the errors that they had, thus nullifying their contributions in science. Nonetheless, it is apparent that his works/ideas have a great influence on the history of science. He provided the basis or premise of what he thought should comprise science, at a time when the empirical and hypotheses needed to articulate science never existed. In addition, although his assumptions were wrong, his insights on cosmology contributed to a discourse, like other philosophers at that time did, that helped in scientific inquiries of cosmology by questioning mistakes/controversies in his discussion. In this case, considering that cosmology, as other sciences have been built based on a pattern of discourses facilitating inquisitiveness and discoveries, it can be said he contributed to understanding cosmology/astronomy as is today. Importantly, he made immense contributions in biology classification and zoology that could be felt back then, throughout the history up to date meaning that his contributions were remarkable by then and current standards. In this case, it is fair that Aristotle’s contributions to history of science are widely studied, given as much importance as his philosophical contributions to help understand science and its history in depth, as well as, show appreciation to him, as he deserves.