Aristotolean physics and technology before Baconian Revolution

[GuyOnInternet]

It is understandable that Aristotlean physics was less advanced than the physics of Galileo and Newton. There is still one thing in particular that seems confusing though. Aristotle believed that if something was 3 times as heavy, it would fall 3 times as fast. It is often pointed out that air resistance was not factored in and this explains the confusion. However, couldn't a simple experiment of dropping rocks of different sizes, say approximately 10 pounds and 100 pounds, have proven that the 100 pound stone does not fall 10 times as fast as the 10 pound stone? Why did it take 1,200 years?

Also, without the Baconian Revolution and the physics of Newton in particular, could planes, cars, rockets travelling to the moon etc. have been constructed using Aristotle's physics as a foundation even though it may have taken longer? Could the Industrial Revolution have taken place without the Baconian Revolution or was Aristotolean physics not adequate to serve as a foundation for that type of an explosion in technology?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

It is understandable that Aristotlean physics was less advanced than the physics of Galileo and Newton. There is still one thing in particular that seems confusing though. Aristotle believed that if something was 3 times as heavy, it would fall 3 times as fast. It is often pointed out that air resistance was not factored in and this explains the confusion. However, couldn't a simple experiment of dropping rocks of different sizes, say approximately 10 pounds and 100 pounds, have proved that the 100 pound stone does not fall 10 times as fast as the 10 pound stone? Why did it take 1,200 years?

Also, without the Baconian Revolution and the physics of Newton in particular, could planes, cars, rockets travelling to the moon etc. have been constructed using Aristotle's physics as a foundation even though it may have taken longer? Could the Industrial Revolution have taken place without the Baconian Revolution or was Aristotolean physics not adequate to serve as a foundation for that type of an explosion in technology?

Restricted by Birth, Not by Worth

As Thomas Kuhn pointed out, Aristotle's physics was based on the paradigm of everything seeking its pre-ordained place. This was because Aristotle inherited his own power and all education was restricted to his caste, which blocked science until Bacon. The philosophy of Nature just became mind-candy, a pleasant amusement of speculation for the leisure class's useless nerds. Subconsciously. the "heiristocrats" knew that any inventive economic progress would threaten their stranglehold on wealth.

In fact, Aristotle started out his Metaphysics by claiming that everything useful had already been invented, so the only thing left to think about was the purpose of physical phenomena (teleology).

Aristotle, with his descriptive and classification genius, could have established a foundation for progress, but he wanted to stop with its static, stalled, and stagnant status. Blindly. as to a religious Messiah, his leisure-class students followed along that dead-end path for two thousand years.

 

[two_iron]

Aren't there still "flat earth" clubs running around on the internet?

Never underestimate the ignorance of the "science" of any particular era. They'll be laughing at us in 1000 years for following a runted hobbit with his fake vaccine.

BTW, I didn't.

 

[ReinyDays]

Restricted by Birth, Not by Worth

As Thomas Kuhn pointed out, Aristotle's physics was based on the paradigm of everything seeking its pre-ordained place. This was because Aristotle inherited his own power and all education was restricted to his caste, which blocked science until Bacon. The philosophy of Nature just became mind-candy, a pleasant amusement of speculation for the leisure class's useless nerds. Subconsciously. the "heiristocrats" knew that any inventive economic progress would threaten their stranglehold on wealth.

In fact, Aristotle started out his Metaphysics by claiming that everything useful had already been invented, so the only thing left to think about was the purpose of physical phenomena (teleology).

Aristotle, with his descriptive and classification genius, could have established a foundation for progress, but he wanted to stop with its static, stalled, and stagnant status. Blindly. as to a religious Messiah, his leisure-class students followed along that dead-end path for two thousand years.

Great answer, thank you for taking the time to type this in ... I feel awful about myself now that I'm going to go ahead and type in my sarcastic answer ...

No ... if Newton or Galileo were never born ... we would still be brewing beer ... James Watt would still have built that first steam engine in 1785 at the Whitbread Brewery ... and Whitbread beer would still have been the best selling beer in the world within few years ...

Who's smarter, Aristotle or Samuel Whitbread ... or should I ask, "who's RICHER" ... or I'm I just being an American again ...

 

[GuyOnInternet]

As Thomas Kuhn pointed out, Aristotle's physics was based on the paradigm of everything seeking its pre-ordained place. This was because Aristotle inherited his own power and all education was restricted to his caste, which blocked science until Bacon. The philosophy of Nature just became mind-candy, a pleasant amusement of speculation for the leisure class's useless nerds. Subconsciously. the "heiristocrats" knew that any inventive economic progress would threaten their stranglehold on wealth.

In fact, Aristotle started out his Metaphysics by claiming that everything useful had already been invented, so the only thing left to think about was the purpose of physical phenomena (teleology).

Aristotle, with his descriptive and classification genius, could have established a foundation for progress, but he wanted to stop with its static, stalled, and stagnant status. Blindly. as to a religious Messiah, his leisure-class students followed along that dead-end path for two thousand years.

So Thomas Kuhn made an excuse for the complete failure of Aristotolean physics. Aristotle gave reasons, not evidence. He "explained" that an object that is 20 times as heavy will fall 20 times as fast. Why did he not simply take a medium sized rock and a big rock and drop them off a cliff? He thought he didn't need to because he had logically deduced everything. Engineers and technicians are not interested in useless junk science, which is what the result of Aristotolean physics was. By the way, Aristotle did not get his physics from the Bible. There is nothing in the bible that says that big rocks fall faster than medium sized ones. People were valuing story-telling over raw data.

After the Baconian Revolution, the disputatious "scholars" were relegated to the humanities where there are conveniently for them no empirical tests of their claims and they can argue about them.