Google Answers Logo
View Question
 
Q: Conversation with Aristotle ( Answered 5 out of 5 stars,   12 Comments )
Question  
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.
Answer  
Subject: Re: Conversation with Aristotle
Answered By: tutuzdad-ga on 08 Apr 2004 20:50 PDT
Rated:5 out of 5 stars
 
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

Clarification of Answer by tutuzdad-ga on 13 Apr 2004 16:35 PDT
Dear Monroe22-ga

An astute commentor pointed out an error in my first example. That is
that it was Galileo, not Aristotle, who designed the famed dutch lens
telescope. I mistakenly took data I was reading about Galileo and
incorrectly attributed that to Aristotle. I appologize for the error.

I stand by my other examples however as accurate.

Regards;
tutuzdad-ga
monroe22-ga rated this answer:5 out of 5 stars
tutuzdad: As always, you are meticulous and thorough.

Comments  
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

Important Disclaimer: Answers and comments provided on Google Answers are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Google does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. Please read carefully the Google Answers Terms of Service.

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 Answers  


Google Home - Answers FAQ - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy