Timeline for Why are theories of Greek philosophers so ineffectual?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
30 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 29, 2020 at 6:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackPhilosophy/status/1321693271899459587 | ||
| Oct 23, 2020 at 2:51 | vote | accept | CommunityBot | ||
| S Oct 22, 2020 at 2:33 | history | suggested | user46009 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added link to the page
|
| Oct 22, 2020 at 2:10 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Oct 22, 2020 at 2:33 | |||||
| Oct 22, 2020 at 1:58 | answer | added | user46009 | timeline score: 0 | |
| Oct 22, 2020 at 0:35 | history | edited | user44243 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 20 characters in body
|
| Oct 21, 2020 at 21:34 | answer | added | Nelson Alexander | timeline score: 3 | |
| Oct 21, 2020 at 21:27 | answer | added | CriglCragl | timeline score: 1 | |
| Oct 21, 2020 at 17:49 | answer | added | J D | timeline score: 3 | |
| Oct 21, 2020 at 13:58 | comment | added | Mauro ALLEGRANZA | In conclusion, despite some attempts at "scientific method" in ancient time, it has been a modern "discovery". | |
| Oct 21, 2020 at 13:39 | comment | added | Mauro ALLEGRANZA | In effect, "to use mathematics to model natural phenomena was not present in antiquity" is not totally correct: geometrical astronomy, Archimedes' statics and geometrical optics are mathematical physics, but the big step forward was the new (mathematical) science of motion. | |
| Oct 21, 2020 at 13:36 | comment | added | Mauro ALLEGRANZA | The issue is with the aim of science an "effectuality". For ancient science to explain natural phenomena means to "understand" and not to "predict". The invention of mathematics as a rigorous science was Greek (Euclid through Archimedes) and the Renaissance re-discovery of ancient Greek mathematics was the first step toward the birth of modern science. But, despite of this, the idea to use mathematics to model natural phenomena was not present in antiquity, and thus the idea of "prediction" was basically foreign to ancient science. Without prediction, no "effectuality" in modern sense. | |
| Oct 21, 2020 at 13:32 | comment | added | Mauro ALLEGRANZA | @HiterDean - in A's universe there is no vacuum. In A's universe there is no "gravitation": every physical object is either heavy (and goes down) or light (and goes up). In A's physics there is "impressed force" that drive the projectile and "consume" itself in motion. | |
| Oct 21, 2020 at 10:36 | comment | added | user46009 | @MauroALLEGRANZA if you think about that boat experiment carefully you will find that Aristotle's hypothesis doesn't work even there as well. So Aristotle's theory is also lame like Thales's(in OP's term), it seems to explain phenomena but if you think about them carefully you will find that Aristotle's theory doesn't work at all. | |
| Oct 21, 2020 at 10:32 | comment | added | user46009 | @MauroALLEGRANZA Aristotle's hypothesis that "a force is needed to maintain a constant motion" is naive and ineffective. It can't explain any phenomena whatsoever. Suppose I throw a ball in space(vaccum) where gravitational effect of every other thing is negligible so after leaving my hand there will be no force, so according to you the ball must cease to move instantly, as there is no force which is sine qua non for object to move. | |
| Oct 21, 2020 at 9:24 | comment | added | Mauro ALLEGRANZA | Consider this simple "experiment": when you are rowing on a bot, if you stop rowing the boat will stop: thus, "it is evident" that a force is needed to "maintain" a constant motion. | |
| Oct 21, 2020 at 9:23 | comment | added | Mauro ALLEGRANZA | Maybe, a more deep understanding of history of science will help... The discussion about causes of so-called Scientific Revolution lasted at least since middle 19th Century and a satisfying answer is still missing. Thus, two considerations: (i) all "civilizations", and not only Ancient Greeks, failed to develop scientific method, as understood since Galileo, Descartes and Newton. (ii) Ancient Greek Science is full of "good science". Aristotle biology and physiology was corrected only from Harvey on; also Aristotle's science of motion was quite successful. | |
| Oct 21, 2020 at 9:14 | history | edited | user44243 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 3 characters in body
|
| S Oct 21, 2020 at 8:22 | history | edited | user44243 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added quote mark
|
| S Oct 21, 2020 at 8:22 | history | suggested | user46009 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added quote mark
|
| Oct 21, 2020 at 8:22 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Oct 21, 2020 at 8:22 | |||||
| S Oct 21, 2020 at 8:18 | history | suggested | user46009 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added a link
|
| Oct 21, 2020 at 8:17 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Oct 21, 2020 at 8:18 | |||||
| Oct 21, 2020 at 8:13 | history | edited | user44243 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 67 characters in body
|
| Oct 21, 2020 at 7:59 | history | edited | user44243 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 12 characters in body
|
| Oct 21, 2020 at 7:58 | comment | added | user44243 | @Conifold It is odd (& stupidity) to compare one of first rational thinkers with Newton, someone who was born almost after 2 kyr from them, indeed. So is it correct to think that "Milesians were concerned only with answering questions rationally. They weren't trying to explain nature but trying to find a rational answer to the question of what is first principal. So when Einstein uses the word Greek , he means Atomists, Aristotle, Empedocles... Now they tried their best to explain nature, as Einstein says, but due to lack of proper method and instruments they failed". | |
| Oct 21, 2020 at 7:29 | history | edited | user44243 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body; edited title
|
| Oct 21, 2020 at 5:05 | review | Close votes | |||
| Oct 29, 2020 at 3:02 | |||||
| Oct 21, 2020 at 4:57 | comment | added | Conifold | By what standard do you measure effectiveness? It is not like they were less effective than anything else offered in their time. Comparing them to something from 2 millenia later, that benefited from their ideas, is very odd. And why is Thales compared to Newton rather than Aristotle, at least? By the same token, we can ask why Newton was so ineffective when relativity and quantum mechanics explain things so much better. | |
| Oct 21, 2020 at 3:08 | history | asked | user44243 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |