It seems like it’s more-so the ancient cyclical theory of the universe that hindered scientific progress then than the “organismic” worldview? I mean you could have an organismic worldview where there universe-system keeps progressing!
I think philosophy can play a role in clarifying scientific understanding or helping us better understand the true nature of reality. Science is often limited to mathematical models that don’t tell us the true nature of things. That said, I think scientists can continue doing science without any need to read philosophy - but if you’re truly interested in understanding Reality itself, and not just making prediction models based on it, that’s where philosophy comes in.
Yes, that is why I became so interested in dogmatic theology. I wanted to know how the Church reasoned through revelation (and make sure I didn't make errors.)
Let me propose a very simple resolution to this conundrum: Aristotle was not wrong about physics.
You can test this in any department whatsoever, and you will find that Aristotle is correct and that his detractors, Jaki among them, have committed some rather imbecilic errors in reasoning. Take, for example, the famous case of the hammer and the coin quoted above, or the cannonballs of different masses, supposedly disproved by Galileo.
Even on a modern, Western worldview, Aristotle is vindicated here. The Newtonian gravitational force is proportional to the product of the two masses in the system under consideration, not to the mass of one of the objects. In this sense, it is simply not the case that "the coin and the hammer have very different masses." In fact, the coin-Earth system and the hammer-Earth system have virtually identical masses, within about 1 in 10^24 kilograms, so of course they would appear to fall at the same speed. However, if you were capable of measuring the exact gravitational force experienced between the two smaller masses in each system, you would find that they do differ by a very tiny amount which is proportional to the difference between the mass of the hammer and the coin.
And even this minimal difference can be expanded, and made readily apparent to the unaided senses, if you replace the air, which these objects would normally fall through, with a denser and more viscous medium. Galileo would have pronounced Aristotle entirely correct had he dropped his cannonballs into a vat of petroleum jelly instead of flinging them off the Tower of Pisa.
"And yet it moves" thus comes in for a whole different kind of suspicion, which interested readers might want to ponder for themselves.
I don't see how that vindicates Aristotle. Free fall is concerned with the acceleration due to gravity (g). The mass of the falling object cancels out when using Newton's second law of motion and Newton's law of universal gravitation to calculate g. Petroleum jelly provides resistance just as air does (but more so) so more massive objects reach a higher terminal velocity. Aristotle was referring to free fall, however.
It seems like it’s more-so the ancient cyclical theory of the universe that hindered scientific progress then than the “organismic” worldview? I mean you could have an organismic worldview where there universe-system keeps progressing!
I think philosophy can play a role in clarifying scientific understanding or helping us better understand the true nature of reality. Science is often limited to mathematical models that don’t tell us the true nature of things. That said, I think scientists can continue doing science without any need to read philosophy - but if you’re truly interested in understanding Reality itself, and not just making prediction models based on it, that’s where philosophy comes in.
"Theology is also informed by divine revelation, that which human reason alone would never discover but that God revealed to us. "
Reason n. 1, the power of faculty of understanding and forming conclusions.
'Human reason alone might never discover divine revelation but would certainly act upon it, coming to a variety of conclusions.
Yes, that is why I became so interested in dogmatic theology. I wanted to know how the Church reasoned through revelation (and make sure I didn't make errors.)
Let me propose a very simple resolution to this conundrum: Aristotle was not wrong about physics.
You can test this in any department whatsoever, and you will find that Aristotle is correct and that his detractors, Jaki among them, have committed some rather imbecilic errors in reasoning. Take, for example, the famous case of the hammer and the coin quoted above, or the cannonballs of different masses, supposedly disproved by Galileo.
Even on a modern, Western worldview, Aristotle is vindicated here. The Newtonian gravitational force is proportional to the product of the two masses in the system under consideration, not to the mass of one of the objects. In this sense, it is simply not the case that "the coin and the hammer have very different masses." In fact, the coin-Earth system and the hammer-Earth system have virtually identical masses, within about 1 in 10^24 kilograms, so of course they would appear to fall at the same speed. However, if you were capable of measuring the exact gravitational force experienced between the two smaller masses in each system, you would find that they do differ by a very tiny amount which is proportional to the difference between the mass of the hammer and the coin.
And even this minimal difference can be expanded, and made readily apparent to the unaided senses, if you replace the air, which these objects would normally fall through, with a denser and more viscous medium. Galileo would have pronounced Aristotle entirely correct had he dropped his cannonballs into a vat of petroleum jelly instead of flinging them off the Tower of Pisa.
"And yet it moves" thus comes in for a whole different kind of suspicion, which interested readers might want to ponder for themselves.
I don't see how that vindicates Aristotle. Free fall is concerned with the acceleration due to gravity (g). The mass of the falling object cancels out when using Newton's second law of motion and Newton's law of universal gravitation to calculate g. Petroleum jelly provides resistance just as air does (but more so) so more massive objects reach a higher terminal velocity. Aristotle was referring to free fall, however.