Is there a worse philosopher than Aristotle?
>Assumes the universe works a certain way.
>Never bothers to test it.
>Takes experiments by Galileo to finally disprove him
To be honest, it says more about the people after, than him.
The fact that people just took his word on face value was the problem, not that he was wrong.
>>374475
>Never bothers to test it
It was 300BC (Actually before that, he was teaching Alexander in 340BC~) How the fuck are you meant to test shit with that kind of tech/
>>374475
THE SECOND "POINT" —"THE EARTH IS THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE"— MAY BE ACCURATE THOUGH; WE DO NOT EVEN KNOW HOW EARTH, AS SEEN FROM ABOVE AND AFAR, BEYOND THE ATMOSPHERE, APPEARS.
>>374500
ONE DOES NOT NEED CURRENT TECHNOLOGY, OR ANY TECHNOLOGY AT ALL, TO TEST IF HEAVIER OBJECTS FALL FASTER THAN LIGHTER ONES.
Gets a bad rap. Sure we realize today he was wrong about almost everything but for his time his ideas were sensible and the guy played a huge role in setting the foundation for philosophy and science.
>>374500
The first and third one on that list can be tested without technology.
>>374506
>... [ARISTOTLE] played a huge role in setting the foundation for philosophy...
NO; PHILOSOPHY ALREADY HAD A RICH TWO CENTURY FOUNDATION WHEN HE STARTED "TEACHING".
>... and science.
ARISTOTELIAN SCIENCE, NOT SCIENCE IN GENERAL.
>>374506
>the guy played a huge role in setting the foundation for philosophy and science.
>science
As OP points out, the guy was completely anti-science when "investigating" the world
All things being equal except weight (size, shape, etc) the heavier object will fall faster. It's not really rocket science guys.
>>374475
He was doing the best he could with what we had. The correct thing to do always seems obvious in hindsight. I blame the ones who blindly parroted him, not the man himself.
>>374475
>ancient greek peer review
>BEHOLD A MAN
I actually think Plato was a lot better than Aristotle. Plato's form theory, if interpreted metaphorically makes a lot of sense. Plato ultimately outlived Aristotle, while Plato would go into be an important part of Hegel, Aristotle's place in the philosophical world is mostly gone.
>>374514
Are you guys fucking jocking? So he didn't write anything about the natural observations (he defo wasn't the first one to create a systatmic investigation method in biology), didn't teach maths, bio, formal logic. The arab's definatley nick most of their ideas straight up from him. SeemsGood. Read a fucking book you dumb dumb niggas
>>374503
All things being equal except weight (size, shape, etc) the heavier object will fall faster. It's not really rocket science guy.
>>374513
That's why I said "a" role. Not that he founded philosophy by himself. And yes he was a pretty shitty scientist but it was still a step up from what was being done previously. I'm not actually defending his ideas because they've been pretty thoroughly discredited. Just that it's a bad idea to write him off as an idiot by ignoring the context.
And will you fucking turn caps lock off what the hell is your problem.
>>374534
Could I ask you to be spefic because your implying that most of his ideas have been discarded? I think that is wrong m99
>>374513
Philosophy as it exists today is definitely a post-Aristotelian phenomenon. Everyone before Plato and Aristotle were prelude.
>>374532
Seriously, like what the fuck? Practically Aristotle's whole thing was vigorous examination of empirical evidence. He was the first taxonomist, he collected hundreds of actual constitutions to investigate political science. These idiots have never read Aristotle.
>>374514
Without his emphasis on knowledge based on the senses, natural observation and formal logic science as we know it may never have existed.
This stuff doesn't come out of thin air
>>374555
>knowledge based on the senses
Like heavier objects falling faster than lighter objects?
>>374551
His worst sin was making a few really memeable mistakes that, in modern times, have sort of overtaken his actual accomplishments. Damn shame.
>>374563
All things being equal except weight (size, shape, etc) the heavier object will fall faster. It's not really rocket science.
>>374538
His physics and ethics most notably. I've read some stuff that his formal logic is antiquated but I don't know enough about it to comment.
>>374572
All things being equal except weight (size, shape, etc) the heavier object will fall faster.
>philosopher
>posts something about his physics
>>374582
Are you seriously this retarded? The heavier object falls faster because the force of gravity is proportional to mass, and therefore higher for the heavier object.
>>374503
>>374590
>force of gravity is proportional to mass
Yes. But mass is not acceleration
>>374563
I didn't say he was using the scientific method. He observed things, or thought he did and then made a chain of logical assumptions based off them.
The fact that this process is really fallible is why they developed the scientific method in the first place.
>>374597
>mass
Meant force
>>374590
>force of gravity is equivalent to the speed at which an object is pulled
Dude what
>>374586
>physics
How exactly can sitting in a chair and making shit up about the world considered physics?
>>374606
because it was over two thousand years ago and that was the best anyone had come up with at that point
Aristotle LITERALLY only had a compass and straight-edge to examine the entire world with. He made a few mistakes, it's understandable.
So for all the stupid people, imagine you have a sphere of lead, 1 foot in diameter. How fast would it fall if you threw it off the top of a tower? Would it not fall faster than a 1 foot sphere of a lighter substance? You should be able to understand this intuitively.
>>374648
>You should be able to understand this intuitively
t. Aristotle
>>374648
No one gives a shit faggot
At least criticize the man for his philosophy rather than for his science.
>>374648
I'm not sure what this shitposting is actually about. Is it meant to make Aristotle look suitibly ridiculous by pointing out a big mistake he made? There's plenty of that already, there's no point in extending it. Is it meant to mock /his/ and /lit/'s aversion to empiricism and science in general so it presents a ridiculous caricature of their actual behaviour? What's your play, man?
>>374680
> Is it meant to mock /his/ and /lit/'s aversion to empiricism and science in general so it presents a ridiculous caricature of their actual behaviour?
You mock a man smarter than yourself with false knowledge you hold as fact. Again, if you were to climb a tower, and threw two objects identical in size and shape, but differing in weight, the heavier object would fall faster. This is just common sense.
Seriously, I can not comprehend the level of stupidity in this thread. Aristotle understood the world to consist of four elements earth, fire, air, and water. Apparently, unlike you, he realized if you move through the air, the wind imparts a force against you. A falling object must pass through the air to reach the earth. Therefore, an increase in weight results in an increase in force to counter the force imparted by elemental air.
People have to understand how big deal his ideas where at the time, when the concept of -categorizing- your empirical data makes you a philosophical rockstar.
His Categories (that can be summed up as "hey senpai what if people don't study every object at the same time and if there was some way to sort objects of study) is so influence, brilliant and important for the evolution of science that it was basically heresy to defy his teachings.
All you idiots who think objects fall at the same speed should read Aristotle's Treatise on the Heavens where he covers a primitive description of air resistance.
>The warmth and light which proceed from them are caused by the friction set up in the air by their motion.
The same friction that applies to meteors applies to falling objects. That friction is proportional to the shape and size of the object, and resists the motion of the object. Therefore, an object with greater mass, and greater force, can better resist the friction of air resistance. So yes, heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones.
Aristotle:1 4chan nerds:0
>>374755
>The same friction that applies to meteors applies to falling objects
Friction is not what causes meteors to burn up or feathers to fall slow
>>374764
Air resistance or fluid resistance is a kind of friction. Educate yourself.
It's true that air resistance is not the primary cause of a meteor burning up, but Aristotle was notoriously bad at describing astral bodies.
But he was still more right than you faggots about heavy objects.
>>374680
This thread really opens my eyes to how pointless it is to argue philosophy on 4chan
>>374475
>Assumes the universe works a certain way.
gee golly i'm sure glad we got away from that one
>Never bothers to test it.
i guess that puts Descartes on the same level as aristotle
>Takes experiments by Galileo to finally disprove him
wouldn't that be a testament to the consistency of his theory with reality?
>>374882
Except all things being equal, a heavier object falls faster than a lighter one. At least that's how it works here on Earth. I don't know what planet you're from.
>>374895
>Except all things being equal, a heavier object falls faster than a lighter one. At least that's how it works here on Earth
Except it doesn't work like that under all conditions
>>374903
That's how it works on Earth. Last time I checked, Aristotle was from what planet? Galileo did experiments on what planet?
>>374914
Not saying the Greeks could have tested it, but it does show the limitations of attributing validity to Aristotle's findings
>>374475
Seriously, how could Aristotle be this stupid? Had he never seen a stone get thrown in an arch?
>>374926
wut
>>374964
That's not true. As said multiple times before, all things being equal except weight, the heavier object falls faster.
>>374926
But half the posters on /his/ are doing what they criticize Aristotle and his followers did, asserting things without empirical evidence, and simply parroting incorrect information, while trying to call him stupid because he was wrong in retrospect.
>>374990
>women have less teeth than men
desu he was pretty dumb.
>>374990
>half the posters on /his/ are doing
>asserting things without empirical evidence, and simply parroting incorrect information
This is mostly while Americans are awake
He was a genius in his time, but that doesn't mean his ideas have been superseded by superior modern explanations
>>374995
You do realize the number of countable teeth varies because of impacted wisdom teeth right?
>hurr why didnt he ask 100 women hey babe can i count your teeth
>>375011
haven't*
>>374993
You're implying a sheet of balsa wood would fall at the same rate as the equivalent size sheet of lead?
Okay so like
Who's being ironic here
>>374981
I've been watching this thread for a while like a man with morbid curiosity watching a brutal train crash, waiting to see if someone would post Newton's laws to blow you retards the fuck out but it doesn't seem like that's gonna happen so:
W = MG
W =F = MA
A = F / M
A = W / M = (MG) / M = G
A = G
Therefore regardless of weight, an object will always accelerate (fall) at the exact same rate, equal to earth's gravitational pull. Of course this ignores air resistance and overall ignores the fact that I'm responding to b8. Have fun pretending to be retarded guys.
>>375030
>Of course this ignores air resistance
>HURRR DURRRR
>IM RIGHT EXCEPT IM NOT
>>375030
Enjoy suffocating on planet airless earth.
>>375088
Both of these are wrong. Force causes change in velocity, and inertia is the base resistance to change in velocity. A stationary object is equally effected by inertia as a moving object.
>Takes experiments by Galileo to finally disprove him
To be fair Aristotle's physics were already regarded as false in 13th century Paris. But then they were reestablished as authorative by the Humanists, and Galileo first provided experimental proof of their falseness.
The problem wasn't Aristotle so much as Western worship of ancient Greeks, and the way Aristotle was blindly followed as dogma for much of the Middle Ages until the 1200s, and then again during the Renaissance.
>>375088
Galileo didn't come up with inertia though (or with anything actually). That concept was developed by Jean Buridan 300 years earlier.
>>375121
>Aristotle was blindly followed as dogma for much of the Middle Ages until the 1200s, and then again during the Renaissance.
THIS
>>375066
that is only true for slowly falling masses. Also with a higher mass it will still fall faster because it has the same air resistance but higher mass.
when you do a free body force diagram there will be a larger difference downwards
>>374475
aristotle says that the goal of life is to contemplate.
today, we are far from contemplating since all we do is try ''to understand''
Aristotle was observing friction. What other people were able to do was imagine physics without friction, then add friction back in as a separate component.
>>374475
The heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones is actually true, no matter how you autists sperg about it.
A feather will certainly descend slower than a heavy iron block just from wind resistence alone.
>>375193
A pea will fall much faster than a much heavier spread out bedsheet. Not to mention this implies that if you put a bunch of pebbles in a bag it would somehow fall faster than if you threw a handful of pebbles.
I can't believe I still have to argue like it's the Renaissance.
>le internet neckbeard from 2015 is smarter than le greek that lived BC :DDDDDDD
>>375213
a pea shaped iron ball will still fall faster than a sheet of paper if you drop both of the eifeltower.
checkmate renaissance
Heavier objects fall faster in a vacuum.
That's because the heavier object exerts its own gravitational pull. Gravity is proportional to mass, and the heavier object will also pull the object it is falling to slightly closer to itself.
The lighter object exerts less of it's own energy, and while force, mass acceleration to the object it is falling to are the same as the heavier object, the gravity of the smaller mass is weaker, and the object it falls to does not move towards the lighter object with as much force, even though the mass of the object it is falling to remains the same.
So a heavier object actually does fall faster than a lighter object even in a vacuum.
>>375255
>The lighter object exerts less of it's own energy
Fuck, I meant exerts less of it's own gravity.
>>375252
>checkmate renaissance
You're the one arguing Renaissance fallacies.
I just gave you an example of something lighter falling faster than something heavier. This disproves the theory that heavier things fall faster.
>It's okay when Newton does mistakes
>but not Aristotle!
>>375277
That whole standing on shoulders quote of Newtons though
Einstein on Newtons on Aristotle's?
>>375272
That's because of air friction is greater. You say this like Aristotle was unaware of air friction.
>>375290
Well no shit, air friction is the only reason anything ever falls faster than anything else.
>>375294
That's like citing one of Newton's laws, but saying they're false because they don't account for friction. Intellectually dishonest.
>>375255
But it requires less force to pull the lighter object towards earth than it does the heavier object.
>implying you can deny Aristotle's unparalleled genius
Nevermind the fact he had some missers, he was probably the most intelligent man to have ever walked the Earth.
>>375325
>But it requires less force to pull the lighter object towards earth than it does the heavier object.
You misunderstand. The difference comes from the amount of gravity each object has, and how much it can pull the Earth towards itself. The force exerted on the Earth by the object ( not the force the Earth exerts on the object) varies based on the mass and gravity of the object, yes the mass of the Earth is constant.
>>375307
What?
Everything falls at the same speed in the absence of friction. Friction is the only reason anything ever falls faster than something else. It's not about weight. Heavier objects do not fall faster than lighter objects. Aristotle is wrong.
This isn't fucking hard to understand.
>>374475
To be fair, he wasn't as wrong as a lot of people make out. Lighter objects typically do have a lower terminal velocity. Sure, it's a) only true in-atmosphere and b) a general rule-of-thumb rather than an absolute law, but it's not 100% laughably wrong. Newtonian physics also relies on assumptions and isn't a perfect model of reality.
Aristotle was a genius and probably the GOAT biologist. The problem was, I think, that he was too tempted to give answers when he didn't actually know what the fuck he was talking about.
Like, some fanboys ask him some shit and expect an answer, so Aristotle just makes up some shit on the spot to not disappoint them.
He lacked the character of Socrates who wasn't afraid to admit he didn't know something.
>>375346
You are ignoring the fact that every object with mass has gravity. The object's gravity works on the planet just as the planet's gravity works on the object.
Also Aristotle's natural state of rest was really describing the second law of thermodynamics.
Well, he attempted to formulate different fields of philosophy and gave his take on them as well. Basically, he tried to establish a canon of knowledge based on his thoughts, just like Plato did.
It's testament to Aristotle's ambition and brilliance that he comes under so much scrutiny even now, while people are quick to forgive the mistakes other greek philosophers made.
>>374475
So when did you personally test those three things?
>>375352
>Probably the GOAT biologist
Not Linnaeus or Darwin
>Please leave
>>375346
The point is not that Aristotle was wrong. The point is the people decrying Aristotle for being a moron are also wrong, and Aristotle didn't even have the benefit of someone to teach him proper physics.
>>375355
That's retarded, the object's gravitational pull is completely negligible and there are billions of other objects exercising similar pull at the same time.
>>375367
>muh Darwin
Fuck off Dawkins
Force vectors are straight and linear for the most part. What causes curvature in motion is changes either in the direction or the magnitude of the various force vectors acting on an object.
>>375346
>Heavier objects do not fall faster than lighter objects
Actually, if air resistance is present, they do. Initially, the resistive forces will be equal on two outwardly-identical objects. However, force = mass*acceleration, so a object with less mass and the same force experiences greater acceleration (or in this case, deceleration). Hence it accelerates more slowly, reaches a lower terminal velocity and therefore falls slower.
Thought experiment: wrap a bowling ball in paper. Form a second paper ball, same size, same shape, same type of paper, but with no bowling ball inside. Drop both off a rooftop on a windless day. The heavier object will hit the ground first. Because the hollow paper ball is so light, the air resistance has a much greater effect.
>>375372
>billions of other objects exercising similar pull at the same time.
Yes, and?
>completely negligible
It still causes a difference, even if negligible. You failed to apply the laws of gravity correctly. They are not equal, even if they are so close they might as well be. There was a gap in your thinking even when you're so quick to attempt to point out another's flaws.
>>375373
>implying Dawkins wouldn't consider himself the greatest biologist
>>375383
Air resistance = friction.
>>375373
>Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC) – Greek philosopher and polymath
Euclid (c. 325 – 265 BC) – Greek mathematician
Moses (c 1391 – 1271 BC) A key figure of Jewish / Christian history gave 10 Commandments of Old Testament
Charles Darwin (1809 - 1882) –Scientist who proposed and popularised theory of evolution.
Some random 100 most influential
http://www.biographyonline.net/people/100-most-influential.html
Still mentions Aristotle for influence in fields other than biology, I'd say that this suggests Darwin overall had a greater influence on biology.
>>375386
He doesn't
t. someone who doesn't think dawkins is a good philosopher, but he is a good biologist
>>375391
>Heavier objects do not fall faster than lighter objects
>unless air is present, then weight becomes a factor and they do
>and in pretty much any relevant scenario air resistance would be present
>which would makes Aristotle's rule valid, not universally, but still valid
Calling him wrong is like calling Newton wrong because f = ma doesn't hold up at relativistic speeds.
This thread is embarrassingly bad.
There's two kinds of people that make up most posters in it:
>1. people who get their entire knowledge of history off simple jpgs (or in this case a powerpoint slide of six bullet points)
>2. people who actually are well read but haven't been formally educated and so believe bizarre things that don't stand up to basic scrutiny (e.g. defining when philosophy started by having a poor definition of 'philosophy')
OP said some ridiculous things and nobody has even called him on it in over 100 posts.
Examples:
>Assumes the universe works a certain way.
Incorrect. His Physics was based on both observation and reason.
>Never bothers to test it.
Incorrect. He studied the natural world carefully, to the point where some of his studies on plants and animals are still cited in their field.
>Takes experiments by Galileo to finally disprove him
Technically incorrect as well (Galileo is a minor figure in science who didn't accomplish much at all, but he's a major figure in the politics of science for reasons). The implication though is that people blindly took Physics as fact, when the reality is that its claims were being considered throughout history. The reason it took so long for a better model to emerge wasn't because people just assumed Aristotle was right, but that his arguments were so rational and persuasive, and fit the data of the natural world so well, that it took that long for a better model to be developed.
Just a further point, the reason for the incorrect beliefs that OP makes is because modern political elements tried to discredit everything pre-Enlightenment as a dark age and superstition and idiocy.
>>375420
/thread
Here's the famous footage of the Apollo 15 astronaut that dropped a hammer & feather on the moon to prove Galileo's theory that in the absence of atmosphere, objects will fall at the same rate regardless of mass.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
>>375434
4chan is faggot
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C5_dOEyAfk
>>375434
What do you hope to prove with that video?
>>375420
>Incorrect. He studied the natural world carefully
Testing a theory requires experimentation. He just observed and drew conclusions from his observations, he never tested them.
>>375509
Why are you trying to apply 16th logic to a guy who was before the year zero?
>>375553
There is no year zero tripfag
>>375420
>Incorrect. He studied the natural world carefully
That doesn't mean he tested his obviously wrong hypotheses about physics.
> Technically incorrect as well
Look it up, it is a well known fact that Galileo was the first one to demonstrate mass doesn't affect fall speed
heavier objects within human perception default to heaving a faster terminal velocity than our immediate perception of light objects
>>374671
>implying that the air being pushed down by the helium balloon moving up doesn't fall as fast as the lead ball
nice try Aristotle
>>374572
How can his Ethics be outdated?
>>377117
Compare
>Killing is wrong because only the moon God can take life
To
>Killing is wrong because society would be destabilized if it became common
The subjective part of ethics can't be outdated, but the factual parts of ethics can
>>374620
No. I'm not sure if this is an elaborate troll, or you never made it out of High School physics. Speed is linked to the acceleration (change in speed), not force. The reason why heavier objects often fall faster than lighter objects is because lighter objects have more air resistance which slows them down. In a vacuum, air resistance would not exist and all objects would fall at the same speed regardless of mass.
>>377127
Neither of those standpoints are outdated. Both are adhered to today.
>>374620
>weight
It's mass, retard. Weight doesn't factor into gravity. Weight is a product of the interaction of a gravitational pull (from a very large object like the moon) with the pulled object's mass.
In a void, objects all fall at the same time. It's air resistance that stands in the way and makes the denser objects sink faster, as if air was just a very thin liquid solution.
>>374692
...Unless you're in a room where air resistance is not a thing. Then both fall at the same speed.
>>377143
Belief in a moon God is outdated
>>375255
All of this is wrong.
>>377208
Prove it
>>377226
Prove heavy things fall at the same speed as light things
>>377237
Newton already did.
All else being equal, two objects fall at the same exact speed.
If you argue against this you are retarded.
>>377257
>If you argue against this you are retarded
If you argue for the moon God you are retarded
>>377314
It's more likely than heavier objects falling faster than lighter ones :^)
>>377326
>It's more likely
Prove it
>>374475
How could this fucking man in
>300 B.C.
Know the difference between Gravity and Air Resistance? Could he fucking go to space? Fuck off OP, you can't pull people out of vaccuums. He was a man of his time and so will you
jesus fuck
>>377361
I wouldn't say the backlash is against the classic thinkers themselves, but against the people who hold the classics to the highest possible standard.
>>377366
The only people who do that are continentals who try and appeal to authority by quoting as many classical thinkers as possible (always out of context).
The real issue here is why anyone cares about them
>>377139
>hasnt read aristotle's on the heavens
>is unaware he is breathing air
>air that causes friction when an object moves through it
>>377164
>>377184
>weight is proportional to mass
>oh my god
>in the void meme
>its true except when its not
Oh yeah, Aristotle is wrong, you just have to fly to the moon first to have a celestial body without an atmosphere to drop shit on.
What fucking morons.
>>374475
Four Causes and the Prime Mover BTFO Plato's dumbass "World of Forms" theory.
>>375401
Aristotle basically founded biology, as well as half of the other of what are now areas of science. He was that influential.
>>377481
>Oh yeah, Aristotle is wrong, you just have to fly to the moon first to have a celestial body without an atmosphere to drop shit on
Galileo showed he was wrong with nothing more than balls and a ramp
>>377490
Those things aren't even related, nor are either of them relevant today
>>377670
>Aristotle basically founded biology, as well as half of the other of what are now areas of science.
Please be trolling, no one is this stupid
>>375509
Yes he did
He fucking INVENTED the scientific method you ultra cunt
>>377127
Aristotle's Ethics are hugely influential today, fuck more than any other thinker of his time his theory probably obtains.
>>377679
He literally did
>>377672
OH YEAH LETS JUST ADD IN ROTATIONAL INTERTIA NOTHING CAN GO WRONG.
Fun fact, if you do Galileo's experiments with two balls, the same size, same mass, except one is hollow like a bowling ball, and the other is solid and made of a less dense material, they will not go down the ramp at the same speed.
Second fun fact, Galileo's balls were not the same size, so not he did not prove that two objects identical in all dimensions except weights fall at the same speed.
It sure is edgy in here.
>Implying all philosophies/sciences we currently hold won't be laughed at by edgy high schoolers in 500 years.
>At least Aristotle's name will continue to be mentioned for another 1000 years while everyone in this thread's name will be forgotten in 100 years.
>At least Aristotle pursued intellectual achievement instead of criticizing others while contributing nothing.
Seriously fuck off.
>>374475
>objects fall at the same speed
>in the void
>which aristotle postulated did not exist on earth
>and which does not naturally occur on earth
>b-b-but they fall the same speed on the moon
>have to fly to the moon for this to apply to anything
>a heavier object on earth sill falls faster than a light object on the moon
>>377721
>Galileo's balls were not the same size
Yes they were
>>377747
Objects fall at the same speed on Earth too dickhead. Force due to gravity and acceleration due to gravity are two different things.
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-3/Free-Fall-and-Air-Resistance
>>377731
>At least Aristotle's name will continue to be mentioned for another 1000 years while everyone in this thread's name will be forgotten in 100 years
So will Hitler's name
The autism in this thread is absolutely off the charts. Is /his/ the new /b/?
>>377765
And yours wont
>>377481
You know that physics is about universal laws, right?
>>377680
>the scientific method
How exactly can sitting in a chair and making shit up about the world considered science? He didn't even bother to test his ideas, the CORE idea of science
>>377782
Yes he did. That was what separated his study from those before him
>>377765
And Ceaser
And Stalin
And Genghis Khan
And countless other historical figures
What point are you trying to make here??
>>377762
>That's because you've changed the planet you moron.
No, it's the
>in the void
memesters that changed the "planet"
>>377795
That just because he will be remembered doesn't mean he did anything good, in fact I would argue his net influence was a negative thing
>>377781
Physics means knowledge of nature.
>>377759
>cant even read his own article about air friction
>>377807
"Good" being completely subjective... So I guess you're right, just keep in minnd other people might find his work to be "good" and in their eyes you're wrong.
>>377807
>in fact I would argue his net influence was a negative thing
For fucking inventing/codifying science and logic for the first time?
You are dumb as pig shit if you think so.
>>377817
>just keep in minnd other people might find his work to be "good" and in their eyes you're wrong.
Well those people won't understand physics so I don't care about them
>>377826
>science
This meme again?
How exactly can sitting in a chair and making shit up about the world considered science? He didn't even bother to test his ideas, the CORE idea of science
>>377816
I read it and in fact understand it.
"all objects (regardless of their mass) free fall with the same acceleration - 9.8 m/s/s. This particular acceleration value is so important in physics that it has its own peculiar name - the acceleration of gravity - and its own peculiar symbol - g"
Air resistance is a completely different FORCE, just like tension or friction. It has NOTHING to do with the FACT that everything falls at the same rate regardless of mass. Take a fucking physics class sometime you nitwit.
>>377828
Thise people probably understand historical context. He didn't understand physics for the same reason he didn't understand binomial theorem... Because it wasn't a thing yet.
>>377847
>He didn't understand physics for the same reason he didn't understand binomial theorem... Because it wasn't a thing yet.
He didn't understand any science because he wasn't the inventor of science
>>377837
>Air resistance is a completely different FORCE, just like tension or friction. It has NOTHING to do with the FACT that everything falls at the same rate regardless of mass. Take a fucking physics class sometime you nitwit.
Yes, a guy in with a parachute falls the same speed as a guy without a parachute. Thank you modern physics! Air resistance has nothing to do with the speed at which an object falls!
>>377852
You make no claim in this comment
>>377861
Air resistance is a fucking force.
Acceleration due to gravity is not a force.
You don't understand why you're wrong because you don't even understand the words you're arguing. Poke a hole in the parachute and watch him fall at the same rate ie, remove the opposing force.
How can anyone say his ethics are outdated? Isn't Aristotle the source for Virtue Ethics?
>>377837
>everything falls at the same rate regardless of mass
But that's not true. As other anons have pointed out, if air resistance is a factor, mass *will* have an effect on the object's velocity. Ergo, Aristotle was correct, within the entirely reasonable caveat that air must be present.
>>377892
Aristotle's arguments uses descriptive or factual premises to derive conclusions about what is good. Such arguments are outdated since the discovery of the is-ought gap.
>>377892
Absolutely.
The thing is, because he was the first writer to actually sit down and codify FUCKING EVERYTHING (as well as the develop theories according to experimentation buisness), half of academia itself you can say he is the source for. In reality, a lot of what he writes may well have been commonly accepted, but when it comes to, say, treating the study of animals as a discipline, Aristotle is the originator.
You could say virtue ethics was the common-sense ethical system of ancient greece. Plato was probably the more controversial figure when it came to ethics.
>>377913
>if air resistance is a factor, mass *will* have an effect on the object's velocity
No. Pic related
>>377919
Wikipedia surfers plz go.
>>377913
Everything accelerates at the same rate.
Air resistance is an opposing force. Friction, tension, weight, normal force are all forces. The first step is understanding Newton's 2nd and 3rd LAWS. Not theories, not rules, laws. Understanding the difference between accelerations and forces helps. Stop samefagging.
>>377919
It's genuinely hilarious how wrong you are, about almost everything in this post. 10/10 if it was on purpose.
The is-ought gap isn't a problem for Aristotle at all, on any level.
>People who peruse /his/ in their leisure hours don't even know elementary physics
What a surprise.
>>377930
>The first step is understanding Newton's 2nd and 3rd LAWS. Not theories, not rules, laws.
Thinking scientific laws are more substantiated than scientific theories is a common misconception.
>>377946
It goes directly against his function argument.
>Reason is a property of man
>Therefore man ought to value reason
Aristotle falls right into the is-ought trap
>>377956
The problem is you are using your own definition of "good" and not Aristotle's.
>>377951
It really puts things in perspective. Like when you're arguing with someone and thinking "can he possibly be this stupid?". Yes. He can. He doesn't even know physics yet he will argue for Aristotle's physics
>>377960
I'm not using any definitions. Hume showed that all ethics are subjective, so trying to move from an "is" to an "ought" like Aristotle does is an outdated idea
>>377951
Law are testable/observable. Theories are not.
>>377961
That's not being stupid, that's just being ignorant. There is a difference.
Plenty of people here never studied physics or paid attention in school it seems.
>>377964
So you are willfully ignoring Aristotle's argument and just picking sentences out of it in isolation?
Aristotle doesn't say any of the things you are saying he says. Fuck, neither does Hume either.
>>377966
No no NO! This is such a common misconception. Germ theory isn't testable or observable? Come on. Read this http://science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/3380theory.html
>>377961
High school physics at that. The jokes on me as I'm probably arguing with an 8th grader who is angry he has to do a report on Aristotle.
>>377977
>Aristotle doesn't say any of the things you are saying he says.
Okay, then summarize his function argument and explain how it doesn't move from "is" to "ought" as I have shown
>>377981
Splitting hairs. This is 4chan not science syposium. I did not claim my def was absolute. Its just a simple summary, of course there are addendums and exceptions.
>>377989
Again, the bit you are missing out (presumably because you are a wikipedia surfer who maybe did one module in Philosophy), is Aristotle's definition of "the good".
If you are not interested in the terms that a philosopher is using, why even bother reading them? It sounds like you are just interested in reading them as a say to make yourself feel clever.
>>377966
What about heliocentric theory
>>377966
wtf
You mean scientific hypothesis are testable.
Scientific theories are meant to have testable hypothesis: this is their predictive power, that together with explanatory power, dictates how adequate a theory is.
As for observable, that refers to the effects, stuff that happens. The rules that govern effects, the stuff that happens, aren't observed but inferred from observations.
>>378002
>Again, the bit you are missing out, is Aristotle's definition of "the good".
Which he derives from the function argument. Which falls for the is-ought trap.
>>377989
I'm not wrong unless you prove I'm wrong...
Which logical fallacy is that?
>>378012
No, he doesn't. In fact Aristotle doesn't even give an argument for his definition of "the good", he just states it and moves on. You can see him as categorically opposed to Plato here,he's not interested in platonic ideals, or a universal good like you seem to think he was invoking.
>>378005
Observable. What is a telescope. Not sure what point is...
>>378020
Actually thats a lie, he does give a sort of pseudo argument for it by introducing the idea.
I'll give you a hint: It's the first fucking line of the Nicomachean Ethics.
>>378016
I've lost track of who's arguing what desu. This thread has gone from dumb to full autism.
>>378021
You're not very interested in the history of science are you? Fuck. Why are you even in this thread.
>>378031
In this thread because someone tried to argue that objects dont fall with the same acceleration which is complete nonsense.
>>378021
That it is a theory not a law...
>>378009
A theory is a summary/product of a hypothesis, so yes.
>>378054
I think you got hypothesis and theory switched around. Read that again.
>>378031
I have a STEM degree (Chemistry) btw. I don't follow the points you are trying to make because they are convoluted. You're just spliting hairs over subjective arguments and trying to "win" by contradiction. You're entitled to believe whatever you want, just don't expect everyone else to buy it, especially if its just plain wrong.
>>378067
That was my first reply to you in this thread.
I guess its just curious how you can be so interested in one field and not at all in others
>>378066
"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation."
>confirmed through observation and experimentation, in other words, confirmed through hypothesis.
>>378048
Not a law because it doesn't really apply to anything other than itself. You don't use heliocentric "principles" to calculate anything else or observe anything else... You're right in what you are saying but again I was just saying "in general" laws are testable/observable over and over again regardless of circumstances and theories aren't. There is definitely much more to it and I could find 6 examples off the top of my head such as you did that contradict this but the point I was making is generally valid. >>378073
>>378104
Not that anon, but are you using the colloquial meaning of theory?
Pretty sure you develop hypotheses, test said hypotheses, if after a lot of testing the hypotheses hold out then you would consider the hypothesis to be a theory
>>374475
Guys he was right about the mass but it only effect objecta on a stupidly large scale you don't fall into a black hole the at the same speed as the Earth
>>377930
1) I'm not samefagging
2) I'm a mech eng graduate, you patronising cunt
3) The fact you're arguing over meme semantics suggests you have no idea what you're talking about, nobody cares about laws vs theories vs rules
4) Drop a hollow paper ball and a bowling ball off the top of a roof. Wrap the bowling ball in paper so both have the same size, shape and surface texture. The bowling ball will hit the ground first. Mass *does* have an effect with regards to how air resistance affects velocity
>>377924
That doesn't even begin to take air resistance into account, which was the central point of my entire post, you fucking retard. Can you even read?
>>378124
No, I mean the theory is the conceptual framework on which hypothesis are grounded.
An hypothesis like "eating nails makes you live longer" can be tested empirically, but nobody will bother to test if you don't have an explanation as to why eating nails would increase lifespan. The theory would be corroborated by the hypothesis being tested with the predicted effects being observed.
>>378163
But if it was being scientifically tested you don't necessarily want an assumption about the result, wouldn't it be better to test
How does nail consumption influence longevity?
ITT: people who've taken high school physics mistakenly assume they understood it.
>>378176
>How does nail consumption influence longevity?
The explanation is what the theory offers.
>you don't necessarily want an assumption about the result, wouldn't it be better to test
You generally already have assumptions about the results, whether your assumptions are grounded in a theory or in common sense.
Now, you CAN begin a study not having any idea what you'll find. Then you'll have working hypothesis but these are just there until you actually have more data for further, more in-depth studies.
>>378192
That diagram ignores air resistance.
>>378219
Air resistance is negligible.
>>374508
How do you make free fall conditions without technology?
>>378144
Mass affects weight, a force, not an acceleration.
Mass affects air resistance, also a force, not an acceleration.
Acceleration due to gravity is the same for both objects when you remove the opposing forces.
Nice degree you got there bub.
>>378219
Because air resistance is a different fucking force
>>378225
Imagine two objects, one light and one heavier than the other one, are connected to each other by a string. Drop this system of objects from the top of a tower. If we assume heavier objects do indeed fall faster than lighter ones (and conversely, lighter objects fall slower), the string will soon pull taut as the lighter object retards the fall of the heavier object. But the system considered as a whole is heavier than the heavy object alone, and therefore should fall faster. This contradiction leads one to conclude the assumption is false.
>>377721
You touched his balls before gay boi?
>>378224
Not for Aristotle's question. Light objects will fall slower, because air resistance affects their velocity more due to their lesser mass.
>>378231
>Acceleration due to gravity is the same for both objects when you remove the opposing forces.
But Aristotle never said "acceleration due to gravity isn't equal for both objects". He claimed that heavier objects fell faster. And he was correct, because air resistance will cause a greater deceleration for lighter objects, all other factors bring equal.
You're wrong because you haven't understood Aristotle's position. Not because your physics is wrong in and of itself. But that still makes you wrong.
>>378289
I'm new to this thread.
What does air resistance have to do with mass? I thought it had to do with surface area? Like... That's why a parachute is shaped the way it is.
>>378304
>the air resistance of a motherfucking elephant is negligible
Assume both objects have the same shape
>>378245
And? Aristotle never said "oh, and I'm only talking about the force of gravity, ignore all the other stuff". He said heavier objects fall faster. And he was right, because air resistance has that effect.
>>378315
Parachutes need air resistance to work. They wouldn't slow you down if you were falling onto the Moon, for example, because there all that surface area of yours would pushing against squat.
>>378315
Air resistance, as a force, does not directly depend on mass. It depends on the shape of an object (which I'm guessing you meant by surface area) and its velocity.
Acceleration due to air resistance, however, does depend on mass, because the acceleration produced by any force depends on the object's mass.
Basically this thread is a bunch of people misunderstanding Aristotle's position. It's entirely true that, if you ignore air resistance, gravity alone produces the same acceleration regardless of mass. However, Aristotle never claimed he was ignoring air resistance. People are giving the right answer to the wrong question.
>>374475
Honestly he's pretty bad. The only reason he's probably the worse is that his philosophy is what the church followed.
I mean can we really blame him though? Those were pretty alright observations for some guy in ancient Greece. Sure now it seems silly because we know you should only follow what your experiment produces but should we really shit on him so hard?
>>378289
They fall at the same rate. Air resitance is an opposing force. Newton's 2nd law, A=sum of forces/mass. 9.81m/s^2 is the acceleration due to grav of anything you drop on Earth.
>>374648
If starting from resting then both objects would travel with an acceleration of roughly -9.81m/s^2 if you disregard factors such as air resistance etc
>>378304
Lolololol. There is "G", force due to gravity and "g" acceleration due to gravity. Open a fucking book. Nobody said anything about magic peabrain.
>>378355
>9.81m/s^2 is the acceleration due to grav of anything you drop on Earth.
But we're talking about actual acceleration, not theoretical acceleration if air resistance didn't exist.
>>378304
Knowing how stupid you sound to people who have learned high school level physics... Priceless
>>378373
But you have no idea how stupid you look to people with degrees
:^)
>>378344
But Aristotle's law isn't a good law as far as physics go. It only applies in a really insignificant portion of the universe, so it's not universal. And the effect can be better explained by more precise laws. The laws of physics are universal and fundamental.
>>378304
>Acceleration due to gravity is not a force
Gravity is a phenomenon by which objects with mass are attracted to each other.
Weight is a force produced when an object with mass is inside a gravitational field.
Acceleration due to gravity is an acceleration, i.e. a rate of change of velocity.
Acceleration isn't a force, it's the effect of a force.
