![]() |
|
![]() | ||
|
Subject:
Conversation with Aristotle
Category: Science Asked by: monroe22-ga List Price: $15.00 |
Posted:
07 Apr 2004 21:09 PDT
Expires: 07 May 2004 21:09 PDT Question ID: 326981 |
If you could travel backwards in time to converse with Aristotle, and assuming 1)you are fluent in the Greek language of his time, and 2) have convinced him you are not insane and are a time traveler from the future, and 3)have a commanding knowledge of current scientific principles, how would you disprove his concepts of (pick one) Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry, Technology in a manner intelligible to him? Remember, he was a master logician. |
![]() | ||
|
Subject:
Re: Conversation with Aristotle
Answered By: tutuzdad-ga on 08 Apr 2004 20:50 PDT Rated: ![]() |
Dear monroe22-ga; Thank you for allowing me an opportunity to answer your interesting question. One of Aristotle?s theories was that the universe was geocentric (Earth centered) rather than heliocentric (Sun centered). Using his Dutch spyglass, which would have been capable on a clear night given the right season, I would show him the visible moons revolving around Jupiter. This simple demonstration would disprove his theory that the Earth is the center of the universe and everything in space revolved around ?it? rather than the Sun. (FYI ? Copernicus and Galileo were later to use this same evidence as a means of disproving this very theory). SPACE AND COSMOLOGY http://www.k12.hi.us/~egami224/spaceandcosmology/thecopernicanrevolution.htm Aristotle also theorized that things fell at different rates of speed depending upon the objects? weight. I would simply drop and egg and a melon from a high tower and disprove this theory. If he remained skeptical, I would then use a cannonball and invite him to select any other items of his liking that had no significant wind resistance and I would perform the experiment for him again. Following this, I would offer him the natural example (perhaps something he could more easily relate to) that, during a storm, large hailstones and small hailstones strike the ground at the same time because of this same principle. The reason for this phenomenon would not actually be understood for another hundred years so I would not try to explain ?why? it is so, but focus primarily on the fact that ?his? theory was incorrect, as you requested ? I wouldn?t tell him that YOU put me up to it though. (This is yet another theory of Aristotle?s that was eventually disproved by Galileo and others). EXPERIMENTS http://www.rlasd.k12.pa.us/HighSchool/senior/departments/science/Physics%20II%20Web%20Projects/MKASSMAM%20Web%20Site/Experiments.html Aristotle also theorized that earthly objects in motion will only remain in motion as long as a force is exerted upon them. We know now of course (thanks to, you guessed it?Galileo) that just the opposite is true; objects upon which a force is exerted remain in motion until something stops them. To show him an example, I would place a cannonball on a smooth inclined surface and place a board in front of it so that it could not move. I would them have him life the board away which in turn would start the ball rolling. I would theorize that if the smooth inclined surface were infinite, the ball would roll for an eternity even though no physical force had been exerted upon it in at the beginning of it journey and no additional force had been exerted upon it along the way ? even for several centuries! THE FIRST PHYSICIST http://www.people.vcu.edu/~rgowdy/astro/mod/005/t1/xmp.html Finally, I would impart upon him that science and philosophy are not always complimentary schools of thought. Aristotle relied heavily upon a methodology he called ?syllogism?. The basic premise here was that if A, for example, belongs to all B, and B belongs to all C, then A belongs to all C. Here is a better example: Everything that lives, moves (primary premise - true) No mountain moves (secondary premise - true) No mountain lives (conclusion - true) In this case of course the conclusion is true, but I would suggest that the conclusion is only as reliable as the premises therefore his "logic" equation is not infallible, as seen in this syllogism, which happens to be similar to one of Aristotle?s own and which was later disproved: A cannonball is heavier than an egg (primary premise - true) Heavy objects fall faster than lighter object (secondary premise ? false assumption) Cannonballs fall at greater speeds than eggs (Conclusion ? flawed) Having shown this I would point out that Aristotle?s very definition of ?syllogism?, a ?discourse in which, certain things being stated, something other than what is stated follows of necessity from their being so? is, in itself, false. ARISTOTLE SYLLOGISM http://www.faragher.freeserve.co.uk/aristdef.htm Below you will find that I have carefully defined my search strategy for you in the event that you need to search for more information. By following the same type of searches that I did you may be able to enhance the research I have provided even further. I hope you find that that my research exceeds your expectations. If you have any questions about my research please post a clarification request prior to rating the answer. Otherwise, I welcome your rating and your final comments and I look forward to working with you again in the near future. Thank you for bringing your question to us. Best regards; Tutuzdad ? Google Answers Researcher INFORMATION SOURCES Defined above SEARCH STRATEGY SEARCH ENGINES USED: Google ://www.google.com SEARCH TERMS USED: Aristotle was wrong Disproved Aristotle | |
|
monroe22-ga
rated this answer:![]() tutuzdad: As always, you are meticulous and thorough. |
![]() | ||
|
Subject:
Re: Conversation with Aristotle
From: pinkfreud-ga on 08 Apr 2004 12:39 PDT |
If I've already convinced Aristotle that I am a time traveler from the future, presumably I could show him the device in which I traveled through time. I suspect that, upon examining my time machine, Aristotle would be willing to concede that his knowledge of technology was "behind the times," so to speak. |
Subject:
Re: Conversation with Aristotle
From: tutuzdad-ga on 08 Apr 2004 12:49 PDT |
I'd teach him how to use my calculator, telecope and microscope and within minutes he'd disprove his theories by himself allowing me more time to bask in the pollution-free Mediterranean. tutuzdad-ga |
Subject:
Re: Conversation with Aristotle
From: monroe22-ga on 08 Apr 2004 19:12 PDT |
Comments from pinkfreud and tutuzdad are praise indeed. Perhaps I should have added: No artifacts from the future are permitted. You are there, facing Aristotle, clothed in simple Greek garb. Convince him. |
Subject:
Re: Conversation with Aristotle
From: racecar-ga on 09 Apr 2004 11:59 PDT |
I don't think you are allowed to use a telescope in answering this question, because Aristotle lived in the 300's BC. The first lenses of sufficient quality for use in a telescope were not made for another 1500 years or so, and the telescope was only invented in the early 17th century--almost 2000 years after Aristotle. The idea that objects in motion stay in motion unless a force acts is due to Newton, not Galileo. If you release a cannonball on an inline, a force does act on it--the force of gravity. As long as the surface is sloped, gravity continues to act on the ball, and if the surface flattens, the ball will eventually stop due to friction. I think Aristotle would have pointed this out. I think the surest way of convincing Aristotle that his ideas about astronomy and physics were wrong would be to explain Newtonian physics to him (F=ma and gravitation) and describe how these laws govern the motion of falling bodies, pendulums, the earth, the moon, etc. If he didn't believe you right off the bat, you could ask him to find a counterexample. Or you could challenge him to a contest in which you both make predictions ahead of time about things like how fast a given pendulum will oscillate, or how long various objects will take to fall from various heights (you could measure the times by counting the swings of your pendulum). You will win every time. |
Subject:
Re: Conversation with Aristotle
From: tutuzdad-ga on 09 Apr 2004 18:04 PDT |
You are mistaken. Aristotle did indeed have a crude telescope; one of many that he would fashion himself during his lifetime. Secondly, you also inaccuratley state the contributions made Galileo. Galileo Galilei and Copernicus both were the first to disprove Aristotle's theories, each in their own way. They did not attempt to explain WHY things fell the way they did, only that Aristotle was wrong about it. Newton came along much later with hhis theories as to WHAT gravity was and WHY gravity works the way it does. So, having said that, Galileo most certainly did exactly as I explained. Newton's work had no bearing on Aristotle's theories whatsoever nor was it designed to dispute them - because this had already, long since been done...by Galileo. :) tutuzdad-ga |
Subject:
Re: Conversation with Aristotle
From: helpfulperson-ga on 13 Apr 2004 11:37 PDT |
tutuzdad-ga I must question your statement that Aristotle had a telescope. All optical history seems to contradict this. Please quote your reference. |
Subject:
Re: Conversation with Aristotle
From: racecar-ga on 13 Apr 2004 12:37 PDT |
Being wrong is forgivable. Refusing to admit it, less so. Yes, Galileo disproved Aristotle's ideas about falling bodies. But no, I'm sorry, Galileo never said that "objects upon which a force is exerted remain in motion until something stops them." That idea is due to Newton. |
Subject:
Re: Conversation with Aristotle
From: tutuzdad-ga on 13 Apr 2004 14:35 PDT |
helpfulperson-ga You are indeed right, and I humbly stand corrected. I reviewed my research and realized that I had mistakenly referred to information I was reading about Galileo's "dutch lens" and the early telecopes fashioned by HIM and not Aristotle. This was in fact an error on my part. In my defense however, the customer asked for ONE example and I provided him with FOUR. The first was a admittedly error on my part but I have no doubt about the integrity of the other three. Thanks for the peer review. It keeps us on our toes. --------------------------------------------- racecar-ga According to my sources, you are still mistaken in spite of what you may have heard. First, I did not attribute the statement to Galileo as a quote, merely as a parphrasing of his overall statement. Secondly, Galileo's concepts are widely taught and available in a variety of forms. Example: "So, one must center one's physics reasoning on these thoughts: An object's velocity will not change all on its own. Pushes, or pulls, are necessary to change an object's velocity. Therefore: Pushes, or pulls, are not necessary to keep an object moving. An object will keep moving all on its own. Again, the property of matter that is responsible for this nature is called inertia. Galileo is traditionally credited with being the first scientist to formalize this concept." GALILEO INERTIA http://id.mind.net/~zona/mstm/physics/mechanics/forces/galileo/galileoInertia.html "Galileo's experiments led him to conclude that once something is set in motion it will remain in motion unless something stops it. This contradicted earlier ideas that said only rest was a natural state." ASTRONOMY TIMELINE http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/arny/student/timeline2.mhtml "Based on the work of Galileo and a French philosopher René Descartes, Isaac Newton published his first law of motion in 1687. According to Newton?s first law: Every body continues I its state of rest or of uniform motion in a straight line unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it." NEWTON http://dutch.phys.strath.ac.uk/CommPhys2003Exam/David_Heath/The%20Laws/newton%20first.htm Issac Newton may have published it first, but even HE credited Galileo for the original concept. regards; tutuzdad-ga |
Subject:
Re: Conversation with Aristotle
From: racecar-ga on 14 Apr 2004 11:01 PDT |
Thanks for making the extra effort and resolving the disputes. |
Subject:
Re: Conversation with Aristotle
From: dscotton-ga on 14 Apr 2004 16:41 PDT |
In your second example, you stated that no forces had been applied to the ball. Actually, the force of gravity is being applied to the ball, that's why it started to move. You still need to demonstrate somehow what would happen if no force were being applied. |
Subject:
Re: Conversation with Aristotle
From: carver_1-ga on 20 Jun 2004 19:49 PDT |
You should try reincarnation. Some say it works. |
Subject:
Re: Conversation with Aristotle
From: monroe22-ga on 21 Jun 2004 10:38 PDT |
carver_1-ga: Does reincarnation operate retroactively? monroe22 |
If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by emailing us at answers-support@google.com with the question ID listed above. Thank you. |
Search Google Answers for |
Google Home - Answers FAQ - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy |