Return to Question

The philosophy of science is to explain many natural phenomena with simple and least number of axioms(=hypothesis). As Albert Einstein writes in his book, The Evolution of Physics at page number 56:

In the whole history of science from Greek philosophy to modern physics there have been constant attempts to reduce the apparent complexity of natural phenomena to some simple fundamental ideas and relations. This is the underlying principle of all natural philosophy. It is expressed even in the work of the Atomists. Twenty-three centuries ago Democritus wrote:

"By convention sweet is sweet, by convention bitter is bitter, by convention hot is hot, by convention cold is cold, by convention colour is colour. But in reality there are atoms and the void. That is, the objects of sense are supposed to be real and it is customary to regard them as such, but in truth they are not. Only the atoms and the void are real."

Now my question is, if Greek philosophers wanted to explain natural phenomena (as Einstein says) then, why were their theories so ineffectual.

Consider Thales's hypothesis of water as "first principal of matter". Now this hypothesis clearly can't explain any natural phenomena. It can't explain plurality of things, rise of sun, roundness of moon, solar eclipse ... Similar thing can be said for Anaximander and Anaximenes.

Theory of the Atomists is able to explain some phenomenon but still not many. Their theory could not explain apparent things like rise of sun, motion of projectiles.....

So my question is that if Greeks wanted to explain nature then why their theories didn't explained, at least apparent phenomena? As Newton's theory explains almost all natural phenomena that one normal man can experience. I think I don't need to tell how splendidly his theory explains nature with such simple hypothesis.

So does that mean Greeks didn't wanted to explain nature as Einstein thinks? Were they only interested in only answering "What is first principal of matter?" and not in explaining many phenomena of nature with simple and few hypothesis?

The philosophy of science is to explain many natural phenomena with simple and least number of axioms(=hypothesis). As Albert Einstein writes in his book, The Evolution of Physics at page number 56:

In the whole history of science from Greek philosophy to modern physics there have been constant attempts to reduce the apparent complexity of natural phenomena to some simple fundamental ideas and relations. This is the underlying principle of all natural philosophy. It is expressed even in the work of the Atomists. Twenty-three centuries ago Democritus wrote:

"By convention sweet is sweet, by convention bitter is bitter, by convention hot is hot, by convention cold is cold, by convention colour is colour. But in reality there are atoms and the void. That is, the objects of sense are supposed to be real and it is customary to regard them as such, but in truth they are not. Only the atoms and the void are real."

Now my question is, if Greek philosophers wanted to explain natural phenomena (as Einstein says) then, why were their theories so ineffectual.

Consider Thales's hypothesis of water as "first principal of matter". Now this hypothesis clearly can't explain any natural phenomena. It can't explain plurality of things, rise of sun, roundness of moon, solar eclipse ... Similar thing can be said for Anaximander and Anaximenes.

Theory of the Atomists is able to explain some phenomenon but still not many. Their theory could not explain apparent things like rise of sun, motion of projectiles.....

So my question is that if Greeks wanted to explain nature then why their theories didn't explained, at least apparent phenomena? As Newton's theory explains almost all natural phenomena that one normal man can experience. I think I don't need to tell how splendidly his theory explains nature with such simple hypothesis.

So does that mean Greeks didn't wanted to explain nature as Einstein thinks? Were they only interested in only answering "What is first principal of matter?" and not in explaining many phenomena of nature with simple and few hypothesis?

The philosophy of science is to explain many natural phenomena with simple and least number of axioms(=hypothesis). As Albert Einstein writes in his book, The Evolution of Physics at page number 56:

In the whole history of science from Greek philosophy to modern physics there have been constant attempts to reduce the apparent complexity of natural phenomena to some simple fundamental ideas and relations. This is the underlying principle of all natural philosophy. It is expressed even in the work of the Atomists. Twenty-three centuries ago Democritus wrote:

"By convention sweet is sweet, by convention bitter is bitter, by convention hot is hot, by convention cold is cold, by convention colour is colour. But in reality there are atoms and the void. That is, the objects of sense are supposed to be real and it is customary to regard them as such, but in truth they are not. Only the atoms and the void are real."

Now my question is, if Greek philosophers wanted to explain natural phenomena (as Einstein says) then, why were their theories so ineffectual.

Consider Thales's hypothesis of water as "first principal of matter". Now this hypothesis clearly can't explain any natural phenomena. It can't explain plurality of things, rise of sun, roundness of moon, solar eclipse ... Similar thing can be said for Anaximander and Anaximenes.

Theory of the Atomists is able to explain some phenomenon but still not many. Their theory could not explain apparent things like rise of sun, motion of projectiles.....

So my question is that if Greeks wanted to explain nature then why their theories didn't explained, at least apparent phenomena? As Newton's theory explains almost all natural phenomena that one normal man can experience. I think I don't need to tell how splendidly his theory explains nature with such simple hypothesis.

So does that mean Greeks didn't wanted to explain nature as Einstein thinks? Were they only interested in only answering "What is first principal of matter?" and not in explaining many phenomena of nature with simple and few hypothesis?

The philosophy of science is to explain many natural phenomena with simple and least number of axioms(=hypothesis). As Albert Einstein writes in his book, The Evolution of Physics at page number 56:

In the whole history of science from Greek philosophy to modern physics there have been constant attempts to reduce the apparent complexity of natural phenomena to some simple fundamental ideas and relations. This is the underlying principle of all natural philosophy. It is expressed even in the work of the Atomists. Twenty-three centuries ago Democritus wrote:

"By convention sweet is sweet, by convention bitter is bitter, by convention hot is hot, by convention cold is cold, by convention colour is colour. But in reality there are atoms and the void. That is, the objects of sense are supposed to be real and it is customary to regard them as such, but in truth they are not. Only the atoms and the void are real."

Now my question is, if Greek philosophers wanted to explain natural phenomena (as Einstein says) then, why were their theories so ineffectual.

Consider Thales's hypothesis of water as "first principal of matter". Now this hypothesis clearly can't explain any natural phenomena. It can't explain plurality of things, rise of sun, roundness of moon, solar eclipse ... Similar thing can be said for Anaximander and Anaximenes.

Theory of the Atomists is able to explain some phenomenon but still not many. Their theory could not explain apparent things like rise of sun, motion of projectiles.....

So my question is that if Greeks wanted to explain nature then why their theories didn't explained, at least apparent phenomena? As Newton's theory explains almost all natural phenomena that one normal man can experience. I think I don't need to tell how splendidly his theory explains nature with such simple hypothesis.

So does that mean Greeks didn't wanted to explain nature as Einstein thinks? Were they only interested in only answering "What is first principal of matter?" and not in explaining many phenomena of nature with simple and few hypothesis?

The philosophy of science is to explain many natural phenomena with simple and least number of axioms(=hypothesis). As Albert Einstein writes in his book, The Evolution of Physics at page number 56:

In the whole history of science from Greek philosophy to modern physics there have been constant attempts to reduce the apparent complexity of natural phenomena to some simple fundamental ideas and relations. This is the underlying principle of all natural philosophy. It is expressed even in the work of the Atomists. Twenty-three centuries ago Democritus wrote:

"By convention sweet is sweet, by convention bitter is bitter, by convention hot is hot, by convention cold is cold, by convention colour is colour. But in reality there are atoms and the void. That is, the objects of sense are supposed to be real and it is customary to regard them as such, but in truth they are not. Only the atoms and the void are real."

Now my question is, if Greek philosophers wanted to explain natural phenomena (as Einstein says) then, why were their theories so ineffectual.

Consider Thales's hypothesis of water as "first principal of matter". Now this hypothesis clearly can't explain any natural phenomena. It can't explain plurality of things, rise of sun, roundness of moon, solar eclipse ... Same thing can be said for Anaximander and Anaximenes.

Theory of the Atomists is able to explain some phenomenon but still not many. Their theory could not explain apparent things like rise of sun, motion of projectiles.....

So my question is that if Greeks wanted to explain nature then why their theories didn't explained, at least apparent phenomena? As Newton's theory explains almost all natural phenomena that one normal man can experience. I think I don't need to tell how splendidly his theory explains nature with such simple hypothesis.

So does that mean Greeks didn't wanted to explain nature as Einstein thinks? Were they only interested in only answering "What is first principal of matter?" and not in explaining many phenomena of nature with simple and few hypothesis?

The philosophy of science is to explain many natural phenomena with simple and least number of axioms(=hypothesis). As Albert Einstein writes in his book, The Evolution of Physics at page number 56:

In the whole history of science from Greek philosophy to modern physics there have been constant attempts to reduce the apparent complexity of natural phenomena to some simple fundamental ideas and relations. This is the underlying principle of all natural philosophy. It is expressed even in the work of the Atomists. Twenty-three centuries ago Democritus wrote:

"By convention sweet is sweet, by convention bitter is bitter, by convention hot is hot, by convention cold is cold, by convention colour is colour. But in reality there are atoms and the void. That is, the objects of sense are supposed to be real and it is customary to regard them as such, but in truth they are not. Only the atoms and the void are real."

Now my question is, if Greek philosophers wanted to explain natural phenomena (as Einstein says) then, why were their theories so ineffectual.

Consider Thales's hypothesis of water as "first principal of matter". Now this hypothesis clearly can't explain any natural phenomena. It can't explain plurality of things, rise of sun, roundness of moon, solar eclipse ... Similar thing can be said for Anaximander and Anaximenes.

Theory of the Atomists is able to explain some phenomenon but still not many. Their theory could not explain apparent things like rise of sun, motion of projectiles.....

So my question is that if Greeks wanted to explain nature then why their theories didn't explained, at least apparent phenomena? As Newton's theory explains almost all natural phenomena that one normal man can experience. I think I don't need to tell how splendidly his theory explains nature with such simple hypothesis.

So does that mean Greeks didn't wanted to explain nature as Einstein thinks? Were they only interested in only answering "What is first principal of matter?" and not in explaining many phenomena of nature with simple and few hypothesis?