Connection between free will and a known future?

[tonyrey]

Roscoe thinks they all have been proven false, thus not only falsifiable, but falsified. Take this one up with him.

“all” is the key word! Genuine scientists and philosophers are more discerning.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

“all” is the key word! Genuine scientists and philosophers are more discerning.

I wouldn’t speak in such sweeping generalities as Aristotle would.

The basic problem I think we are having is how we are defining science. I don’t consider what Aristotle was doing science as we know it today, more a pre-science. So asking how scientists fit an Aristotelian model is a false dilemma.

livescience.com/20896-science-scientific-method.html

• Ask questions about the observations and gather information.
• Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what’s been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.
• Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.
• Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.
• Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory.

Aristotle stopped at step two. It’s not science, it’s philosophy. Most of the conclusions he reached were not tested. When they were, they were found to be false. Ex. Dynamic Motion Theory.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelian_physics

The reign of Aristotelian physics lasted for almost two millennia, and provides the earliest known speculative theories of physics. After the work of Galileo, Descartes, and many others, it became generally accepted that Aristotelian physics was not correct or viable.[5] Despite this, the scholastic science survived well into the seventeenth century, and perhaps even later, until universities amended their curricula.

 

[Oreoracle]

When I say that some of Aristotle’s claims are unfalsifiable, I’m talking about the claims that have a sort of aesthetic ring to them. He tended to speak of motions that he found to be “natural” (the most vague word in the English language in my opinion). He described other planets, or “the heavenly bodies”, as being perfect (another vague word), making the assumption that they must have circular orbits because circles were presumed to be perfect as well. He made conjectures about what would occur in a vacuum while simultaneously maintaining that vacuums could never be created. The list goes on.

In short, he tried to use a very rudimentary metaphysics to derive physics, which turned out to not be such a hot idea.

 

[tonyrey]

I wouldn’t speak in such sweeping generalities as Aristotle would.

The basic problem I think we are having is how we are defining science. I don’t consider what Aristotle was doing science as we know it today, more a pre-science. So asking how scientists fit an Aristotelian model is a false dilemma.

livescience.com/20896-science-scientific-method.html

• Ask questions about the observations and gather information.
• Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what’s been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.
• Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.
• Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.
• Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory.

Aristotle stopped at step two. It’s not science, it’s philosophy. Most of the conclusions he reached were not tested. When they were, they were found to be false. Ex. Dynamic Motion Theory.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelian_physics

You are overlooking Aristotle’s philosophy of science on which modern science is based and without which it could not have developed. Here is one example of his methodology which has been recognised and appreciated by all great scientists:

Aristotle is properly recognized as** the originator of the scientific study of life**. This is true despite the fact that many earlier Greek natural philosophers occasionally speculated on the origins of living things and much of the Hippocratic medical corpus, which was written before or during Aristotle’s lifetime, displays a serious interest in human anatomy, physiology and pathology. Even Plato has Timaeus devote a considerable part of his speech to the human body and its functions (and malfunctions). Nevertheless, before Aristotle, only a few of the Hippocratic treatises are both systematic and empirical, and their focus is exclusively on human health and disease.

By contrast, Aristotle considered the investigation of living things, and especially animals, central to the theoretical study of nature. Constituting roughly 25% of the extant corpus, his zoological writings provide a theoretical defense of the proper method for biological investigation; and they provide a record of** the first systematic and comprehensive study of animals**. There was nothing of similar scope and sophistication again until the 16th century. In the nineteenth century** the great anatomist Richard Owen** introduced a two lecture survey of Aristotle’s zoological studies by declaring that “Zoological Science sprang from his [Aristotle’s] labours, we may almost say, like Minerva from the Head of Jove, in a state of noble and splendid maturity” (Owen 1992, 91)…

So, then, the organ connected with breathing from necessity has length; therefore it is necessary for there to be an esophagus between the mouth and the stomach. The esophagus is fleshy, with a sinuous elasticity—sinuous so that it may dilate when food is ingested, yet fleshy so that it is soft and yielding and is not damaged when it is scraped by the food going down. (664a14–34)

I have highlighted the language of nature, necessity, possibility (and impossibility), and being for the sake of in this passage in order to highlight the contrast with the discussion of the same organic correlations in the corresponding HA passage. Here the goal is explanation—parts are present and have the character they do primarily due to the conditional necessity imposed by the organism’s functional requirements.** One sees here the Aristotle that so impressed the great French naturalist Georges Cuvier**: Aristotle is not only systematically discussing the adaptive functions of each of these organs; he is also displaying the complex way in which the internal parts of animals constitute an organic system.…

Recall **the stunningly accurate discussion of the head and eyes of the 4th day chick embryo **in HA (pp. 26–27, above)…

For the equally impressive embryological theory, the reader of Aristotle’s biology must turn to the Generation of Animals.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-biology/

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

You are overlooking Aristotle’s philosophy of science on which modern science is based and without which it could not have developed. Here is one example of his methodology which has been recognised and appreciated by all great scientists:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-biology/

Again, what he did then is not what is done now. His zoology and taxonomy are laudable but are not how those disciplines are practiced now. His philosophy is not the basis of science, which is defined by the scientific method.

 

[tonyrey]

Again, what he did then is not what is done now. His zoology and taxonomy are laudable but are not how those disciplines are practiced now. His philosophy is not the basis of science, which is defined by the scientific method.

It is obvious that science is not practised precisely as it was by Aristotle but the fundamental principles on which it is based will never change:

The classical model of scientific inquiry derives from Aristotle,[79] who distinguished the forms of approximate and exact reasoning, set out the threefold scheme of abductive, deductive, and inductive inference, and also treated the compound forms such as reasoning by analogy.

Aristotle also performed experiments to discover, test and confirm his hypotheses:

With Darwin, Aristotle must surely be ranked as among the greatest biologists. He was one of the very first to carry out systematic observations and to write a detailed work on organic forms, known to us as the Historia Animalium. The experiment I shall be describing laid the foundations for all subsequent embryological work. It is remarkable both for its systematic character, and for the shrewdness of the questions Aristotle was prompted to ask by the results of his investigations…

In drawing on Galen’s writings, Giles had to hand a much more detailed source than anything to be found in the works of Aristotle. But there was no scientific revolution in the history of embryology. Successive observers improved the quality and accuracy of their descriptions, refining and correcting the traditional wisdom. In his *De Formato Foetu *of 1604 Fabricius describes very much the same structures as Aristotle had recorded, and discusses very much the same problems as had bothered Giles of Rome. All agree that the foetal membranes serve the dual function of protecting the embryo and storing waste. Each realized that the pace of foetal development is best studied by referring all other sequences to the development of the blood vessels. Fabricius added a detailed description of the blood system of the umbilical cord, contributing one more brick to the growing edifice of knowledge.

In reading Aristotle’s description one must surely be struck both** by the clarity of the account, reflecting the care with which the various stages were observed,** and by his obvious grasp of the main physiological principles involved, particularly the distinctive roles of the white and the yolk. Already in the comparison between the membranes and the mammalian after-birth **Aristotle is generalizing his embryological observations from one species to others.**

But in what sense is this study an experiment? I distinguished empirical investigations which explore the given things and processes of nature from those in which active intervention is used to isolate causal influences and identify their particular effects. Greek science was largely exploratory and theoretical.** But in the controlled use of the sequence of eggs we have an example of an investigative technique which involves some interference and some contrivance. Aristotle did not wait passively for the stages of development of the chick to be presented to him, but actively intervened in the natural process **in the ingenious way suggested by the Hippocratic author.

iweb.tntech.edu/chem281-tf/Aristiotle.htm

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

It is obvious that science is not practised precisely as it was by Aristotle but the fundamental principles on which it is based will never change:
Aristotle also performed experiments to discover, test and confirm his hypotheses:

iweb.tntech.edu/chem281-tf/Aristiotle.htm

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_biology

The history of biology traces the study of the living world from ancient to modern times. Although the concept of biology as a single coherent field arose in the 19th century, the biological sciences emerged from traditions of medicine and natural history reaching back to ayurveda, ancient Egyptian medicine and the works of Aristotle and Galen in the ancient Greco-Roman world. This ancient work was further developed in the Middle Ages by Muslim physicians and scholars such as Avicenna. During the European Renaissance and early modern period, biological thought was revolutionized in Europe by a renewed interest in empiricism and the discovery of many novel organisms. Prominent in this movement were Vesalius and Harvey, who used experimentation and careful observation in physiology, and naturalists such as Linnaeus and Buffon who began to classify the diversity of life and the fossil record, as well as the development and behavior of organisms. Microscopy revealed the previously unknown world of microorganisms, laying the groundwork for cell theory. The growing importance of natural theology, partly a response to the rise of mechanical philosophy, encouraged the growth of natural history (although it entrenched the argument from design).
Over the 18th and 19th centuries, biological sciences such as botany and zoology became increasingly professional scientific disciplines. Lavoisier and other physical scientists began to connect the animate and inanimate worlds through physics and chemistry. Explorer-naturalists such as Alexander von Humboldt investigated the interaction between organisms and their environment, and the ways this relationship depends on geography—laying the foundations for biogeography, ecology and ethology. Naturalists began to reject essentialism and consider the importance of extinction and the mutability of species. Cell theory provided a new perspective on the fundamental basis of life. These developments, as well as the results from embryology and paleontology, were synthesized in Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection. The end of the 19th century saw the fall of spontaneous generation and the rise of the germ theory of disease, though the mechanism of inheritance remained a mystery.
In the early 20th century, the rediscovery of Mendel’s work led to the rapid development of genetics by Thomas Hunt Morgan and his students, and by the 1930s the combination of population genetics and natural selection in the “neo-Darwinian synthesis”. New disciplines developed rapidly, especially after Watson and Crick proposed the structure of DNA. Following the establishment of the Central Dogma and the cracking of the genetic code, biology was largely split between organismal biology—the fields that deal with whole organisms and groups of organisms—and the fields related to cellular and molecular biology. By the late 20th century, new fields like genomics and proteomics were reversing this trend, with organismal biologists using molecular techniques, and molecular and cell biologists investigating the interplay between genes and the environment, as well as the genetics of natural populations of organisms.

 

[tonyrey]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_biology

The history of biology traces the study of the living world from ancient to modern times. Although the concept of biology as a single coherent field arose in the 19th century, the biological sciences emerged from traditions of medicine and natural history reaching back to ayurveda, ancient Egyptian medicine and the works of Aristotle and Galen in the ancient Greco-Roman world. This ancient work was further developed in the Middle Ages by Muslim physicians and scholars such as Avicenna. During the European Renaissance and early modern period, biological thought was revolutionized in Europe by a renewed interest in empiricism and the discovery of many novel organisms. Prominent in this movement were Vesalius and Harvey, who used experimentation and careful observation in physiology, and naturalists such as Linnaeus and Buffon who began to classify the diversity of life and the fossil record, as well as the development and behavior of organisms. Microscopy revealed the previously unknown world of microorganisms, laying the groundwork for cell theory. The growing importance of natural theology, partly a response to the rise of mechanical philosophy, encouraged the growth of natural history (although it entrenched the argument from design).
Over the 18th and 19th centuries, biological sciences such as botany and zoology became increasingly professional scientific disciplines. Lavoisier and other physical scientists began to connect the animate and inanimate worlds through physics and chemistry. Explorer-naturalists such as Alexander von Humboldt investigated the interaction between organisms and their environment, and the ways this relationship depends on geography—laying the foundations for biogeography, ecology and ethology. Naturalists began to reject essentialism and consider the importance of extinction and the mutability of species. Cell theory provided a new perspective on the fundamental basis of life. These developments, as well as the results from embryology and paleontology, were synthesized in Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection. The end of the 19th century saw the fall of spontaneous generation and the rise of the germ theory of disease, though the mechanism of inheritance remained a mystery.
In the early 20th century, the rediscovery of Mendel’s work led to the rapid development of genetics by Thomas Hunt Morgan and his students, and by the 1930s the combination of population genetics and natural selection in the “neo-Darwinian synthesis”. New disciplines developed rapidly, especially after Watson and Crick proposed the structure of DNA. Following the establishment of the Central Dogma and the cracking of the genetic code, biology was largely split between organismal biology—the fields that deal with whole organisms and groups of organisms—and the fields related to cellular and molecular biology. By the late 20th century, new fields like genomics and proteomics were reversing this trend, with organismal biologists using molecular techniques, and molecular and cell biologists investigating the interplay between genes and the environment, as well as the genetics of natural populations of organisms.

None of which alters the fact that the metaphysical, logical and epistemological principles of science were established by Aristotle:

Aristotle laid the foundation for reason—that is, for an explicit, consciously defined and objective method of acquiring knowledge. In particular, he established the basic principles of scientific epistemology: the role of the senses, the role of abstraction, the laws of logic, the** types of reasoning**, the basic** rules of validity **in deductive reasoning.

        Further, he established principles of a** naturalistic**,  this-worldly              metaphysics: one reality, a world of  particulars, of entities acting              in accordance with their natures, lawful, intelligible and graspable              by man.

**
westerncultureglobal.org/aristotle.jpg**

Aristotle, regarded as the father of science, was** the first** to realize the importance of empirical measurement, believing that knowledge could only be gained by building upon what is already known.
Measurement and observation,** the foundations upon which science is built**, were Aristotle’s contribution. He proposed the idea of** induction** as a tool for gaining knowledge, and understood that abstract thought and reasoning must be supported by real world findings…

This is the first sign of a scientific method, with literature reviews, consensus and measurement. The Greeks were the first to subdivide and name branches of science in a recognizable way…

explorable.com/history-of-the-scientific-method

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

None of which alters the fact that the metaphysical, logical and epistemological principles of science were established by Aristotle:
**
westerncultureglobal.org/aristotle.jpg**

explorable.com/history-of-the-scientific-method

Metaphysics, Logic and Epistemology are parts of philosophy. Logic is used in science but isn’t science.

 

[Oreoracle]

Alright, so can you guys just agree that Aristotle established some, but not all, of the principles used in modern science?

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Alright, so can you guys just agree that Aristotle established some, but not all, of the principles used in modern science?

To me it’s like saying the guy that invented the guitar invented Rock n’ Roll.

 

[tonyrey]

Metaphysics, Logic and Epistemology are parts of philosophy. Logic is used in science but isn’t science.

Science doesn’t exist in a vacuum: it is based on metaphysical, logical and epistemological principles:

Epistemology — branch of philosophy that deals with what knowledge is, how we come to accept some things as true, and how we justify that acceptance.

• Empiricism — set of philosophical approaches to building knowledge that emphasizes the importance of observable evidence from the natural world.
• Induction — method of reasoning in which a generalization is argued to be true based on individual examples that seem to fit with that generalization. For example, after observing that trees, bacteria, sea anemones, fruit flies, and humans have cells, one might inductively infer that all organisms have cells.
• Deduction — method of reasoning in which a conclusion is logically reached from premises. For example, if we know the current relative positions of the moon, sun, and Earth, as well as exactly how these move with respect to one another, we can [deduce (http://undsci.berkeley.edu/glossary/glossary_popup.php?word=deduce) the date and location of the next solar eclipse.
• Parsimony/Occam’s razor — idea that, all other things being equal, we should prefer a simpler explanation over a more complex one.
• Demarcation problem — the problem of reliably distinguishing science from non-science. Modern philosophers of science largely agree that there is no single, simple criterion that can be used to demarcate the boundaries of science.
• Falsification — the view, associated with philosopher Karl Popper, that evidence can only be used to rule out ideas, not to support them. Popper proposed that scientific ideas can only be tested through falsification, never through a search for supporting evidence.

Paradigm shifts and scientific revolutions — a view of science, associated with philosopher Thomas Kuhn, which suggests that the history of science can be divided up into times of normal science (when scientists add to, elaborate on, and work with a central, accepted scientific theory) and briefer periods of revolutionary science. Kuhn asserted that during times of revolutionary science, anomalies refuting the accepted theory have built up to such a point that the old theory is broken down and a new one is built to take its place in a so-called “paradigm shift.”

    Aristotle (384-322 BC) — Arguably the founder of both science and  philosophy of science. He wrote extensively about the topics we now call  physics, astronomy, psychology, biology, and chemistry, as well as  logic, mathematics, and epistemology.

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/images/us101/aristotle2.jpg
undsci.berkeley.edu/article/philosophy

And metaphysics!

 

[tonyrey]

Metaphysics, Logic and Epistemology are parts of philosophy. Logic is used in science but isn’t science.

Without logic science wouldn’t even exist! Similarly science presupposes the reality of material objects, the intelligibility of the universe and the power of reason.

 

[tonyrey]

To me it’s like saying the guy that invented the guitar invented Rock n’ Roll.

The guy who invented the guitar knew something about the principles of music without which Rock n’ Roll wouldn’t exist - and science is based on far more than that…

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Without logic science wouldn’t even exist! Similarly science presupposes the reality of material objects, the intelligibility of the universe and the power of reason.

He didn’t singularly invent logic nor is it practiced in the same way.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_logic#Rise_of_modern_logic

A number of features distinguish modern logic from the old Aristotelian or traditional logic, the most important of which are as follows:[85] Modern logic is fundamentally a calculus whose rules of operation are determined only by the shape and not by the meaning of the symbols it employs, as in mathematics. Many logicians were impressed by the “success” of mathematics, in that there had been no prolonged dispute about any truly mathematical result. C.S. Peirce noted[86] that even though a mistake in the evaluation of a definite integral by Laplace led to an error concerning the moon’s orbit that persisted for nearly 50 years, the mistake, once spotted, was corrected without any serious dispute. Peirce contrasted this with the disputation and uncertainty surrounding traditional logic, and especially reasoning in metaphysics. He argued that a truly “exact” logic would depend upon mathematical, i.e., “diagrammatic” or “iconic” thought. “Those who follow such methods will … escape all error except such as will be speedily corrected after it is once suspected”. Modern logic is also “constructive” rather than “abstractive”; i.e., rather than abstracting and formalising theorems derived from ordinary language (or from psychological intuitions about validity), it constructs theorems by formal methods, then looks for an interpretation in ordinary language. It is entirely symbolic, meaning that even the logical constants (which the medieval logicians called “syncategoremata”) and the categoric terms are expressed in symbols.

 

[tonyrey]

He didn’t singularly invent logic nor is it practiced in the same way.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_logic#Rise_of_modern_logic

A number of features distinguish modern logic from the old Aristotelian or traditional logic, the most important of which are as follows:[85] Modern logic is fundamentally a calculus whose rules of operation are determined only by the shape and not by the meaning of the symbols it employs, as in mathematics. Many logicians were impressed by the “success” of mathematics, in that there had been no prolonged dispute about any truly mathematical result. C.S. Peirce noted[86] that even though a mistake in the evaluation of a definite integral by Laplace led to an error concerning the moon’s orbit that persisted for nearly 50 years, the mistake, once spotted, was corrected without any serious dispute. Peirce contrasted this with the disputation and uncertainty surrounding traditional logic, and especially reasoning in metaphysics. He argued that a truly “exact” logic would depend upon mathematical, i.e., “diagrammatic” or “iconic” thought. “Those who follow such methods will … escape all error except such as will be speedily corrected after it is once suspected”. Modern logic is also “constructive” rather than “abstractive”; i.e., rather than abstracting and formalising theorems derived from ordinary language (or from psychological intuitions about validity), it constructs theorems by formal methods, then looks for an interpretation in ordinary language. It is entirely symbolic, meaning that even the logical constants (which the medieval logicians called “syncategoremata”) and the categoric terms are expressed in symbols.

All this is beside the point that Aristotle formulated the metaphysical, logical and epistemological principles which enabled science to develop** in the first place**. It is not only unrealistic but unfair to criticise a pioneer for his mistakes and shortcomings as if he should have blazed the trail from start to finish.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

All this is beside the point that Aristotle formulated the metaphysical, logical and epistemological principles which enabled science to develop** in the first place**. It is not only unrealistic but unfair to criticise a pioneer for his mistakes and shortcomings as if he should have blazed the trail from start to finish.

You think he created falsification and Occam’s Razor.

What we can see from Aristotle is that logic without experimental verification result in wrong conclusions. E.X. Aristotle’s theory of motion and gravity are bunk. He wasn’t doing science as we know it.

 

[tonyrey]

You think he created falsification and Occam’s Razor.

What we can see from Aristotle is that logic without experimental verification result in wrong conclusions. E.X. Aristotle’s theory of motion and gravity are bunk. He wasn’t doing science as we know it.

All this is beside the point that Aristotle formulated the metaphysical, logical and epistemological principles which enabled science to develop in the first place. It is not only unrealistic and unreasonable but grossly unfair and unbalanced to criticise a pioneer for his mistakes and shortcomings as if he should have miraculously blazed the trail from start to finish. It is very easy to criticise and condemn but to create and appreciate is far more difficult…

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

All this is beside the point that Aristotle formulated the metaphysical, logical and epistemological principles which enabled science to develop in the first place. It is not only unrealistic and unreasonable but grossly unfair and unbalanced to criticise a pioneer for his mistakes and shortcomings as if he should have miraculously blazed the trail from start to finish. It is very easy to criticise and condemn but to create and appreciate is far more difficult…

I am saying that he was not practicing science as we know it. Yes, he was very instrumental in the formation of formal logic. We don’t use the same logic forms and use a different methodology when we practice science. His philosophical explorations led to faulty conclusions that do not reflect the physical world. His theories are not built upon in the advancement of science. I do think that his philosophy is important as a negative example. in that, thought can only get you so far. It’s nothing personal against him, I also don’t credit Humorism for creating modern medicine. The scientific revolution was a paradigm shift in humanity’s understanding of the world. It was in part a movement away from an Aristotelian view of the world. We are better as species for it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_revolution

 

[tonyrey]

I am saying that he was not practicing science as we know it. Yes, he was very instrumental in the formation of formal logic. We don’t use the same logic forms and use a different methodology when we practice science.

Entirely different?

Aristotelian logic, after a great and early triumph, consolidated its position of influence to rule over the philosophical world throughout the Middle Ages up until the 19th Century. All that changed in a hurry when modern logicians embraced a new kind of mathematical logic and pushed out what they regarded as the antiquated and clunky method of syllogisms. Although Aristotle’s very rich and expansive account of logic differs in key ways from modern approaches, it is more than a historical curiosity. It provides an alternative way of approaching logic and continues to provide critical insights into contemporary issues and concerns. The main thrust of this article is to explain Aristotle’s logical system as a whole while correcting some prominent misconceptions that persist in the popular understanding and even in some of the specialized literature. Before getting down to business, it is important to point out that Aristotle is a synoptic thinker with an over-arching theory that ties together all aspects and fields of philosophy. He does not view logic as a separate, self-sufficient subject-matter, to be considered in isolation from other aspects of disciplined inquiry. Although we cannot consider all the details of his encyclopedic approach, we can sketch out the larger picture in a way that illuminates the general thrust of his system. For the purposes of this entry, let us define logic as that field of inquiry which investigates how we reason correctly (and, by extension, how we reason incorrectly). Aristotle does not believe that the purpose of logic is to prove that human beings can have knowledge. (He dismisses excessive scepticism.) The aim of logic is the elaboration of a coherent system that allows us to investigate, classify, and evaluate good and bad forms of reasoning.

iep.utm.edu/aris-log/

In other words it is still the essential basis of science.