Aristotle

The Ancient CTRL+ALT+DEL of Science?

C. N. Vujanovic

FROM TIME IMMEMORIAL SOCIETY HAS BEEN PLAGUED WITH SETBACKS. From the Black Death, to the loss of the largest wealth of knowledge in the Library of Alexandria, humanity has been reset to square one several times now. 

One relatively popular example is that Aristotle held back science 2000 years. The online articles are endless, with even public intellectuals such as Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry saying that Aristotle’s version of science “was a major setback for all of human civilisation”. One Nobel-Prize winning physicist (Steven Weinberg) similarly views Aristotle’s impact on science as damaging, as if Aristotle said something, it had to be right. 

For thousands of years after his death (384 BCE), he greatly influenced philosophy and science. In Peter Adamson’s words, throughout the early centuries CE, “all of what we would call science … is done mostly as an engagement with Aristotle”. 

So what did Aristotle contribute to civilisation, and was his work a backspace on society’s progress? There are two main ways he contributed to the development of civilisation:

WRITING STYLE

In contrast to the way his predecessors wrote in dialogue or poetry, he wrote treatises (systematic explanations of a defined topic). 

Moreover, his existing works are similar to textbooks, meaning they provide a clear and concise summary of any specific topic. His works are organised and segmented, which was a breakthrough for his time, providing an orderly account of numerous topics.

LOGIC

His works on logic were so foundation and comprehensive that Kant (a well-known German philosopher) believed he had discovered everything there was to know about logic.

Crucial to his impact on science was explaining exactly what we need to know to have scientific knowledge. He writes that we need to know “the cause (of) why (x) is, that (x) is the cause of this, and that this cannot be otherwise.” 

In other words, he developed a notion that is second nature to us. That to know something scientifically it must be demonstrated. While this proposition seems basic, it led to him rejecting the idea of Atomism (the idea that the world is made of small particles).

Critics latch onto this as proof he held back science. However, when considering the lack of electron microscopes in ancient Greece, his stance seems justified. He solely rejected the logical reasoning that his contemporaries used to argue that everything is made of atoms. I don’t think we can blame him for this. 

So given a fuller understanding of Aristotle, it appears that he was just logically consistent. In fact, he is often considered by modern academic philosophers to have planted the seeds of empiricism because of his prioritisation of empeiria (that the way to gain knowledge is through experience).

One famous example of his scientific work is that he spent hours and hours of his life, dissecting fish to understand what gave animals life among other things.

It then seems clear that  we need to detach ourselves from the notion that Aristotle entrapped people into blind faith. Peter Adamson puts it this way: “He was always an opportunity for people to present their own philosophy as a quiet correction to or expansion on or engagement with Aristotle.” Because of Aristotle, we see people taking many different views expressed in commentaries, meaning that, no, Aristotle didn’t hold back science but enabled it. 

He created space for debating and disagreement, not dogma.