Grizzly

Forgive me for my ignorance. I am currently writing a book chapter with a colleague about experimental and quasi-experimental designs in research (I’m the second author). My colleague has written a short introductory paragraph that introduces the experimental paradigm. He has written the following sentence.

I would like an opinion about the accuracy of this statement. Did Aristotle rely on intuition and divine revelation? I know he relied on induction, but beyond that my knowledge is limited. Any help would be deeply appreciated.

Thanks
Grizzly

[ December 23, 2002: Message edited by: Grizzly ]</p>

phaedrus

You could call the science that existed before 16/17th centuries "scholastic science"....the time before the scientific revolutions (sic!) - De Revolutionibus of Copernicus and then Principia of Newton, which resulted in "modern" science that replaced the Aristotelian tradition.

For Aristotle, all activity that occurred spontaneously was natural. Hence, the proper means of investigation was observation. Experiment, that is, altering natural conditions in order to throw light on the hidden properties and activities of objects, was unnatural and could not, therefore, be expected to reveal the essence of things. Experiment was thus not essential to Greek science.

The Aristotelian tradition placed no emphasis upon experiment and this failure did contribute to stagnation in the sciences that we pursue today in this fashion. One can only imagine how history might have been different had
Aristotle's successors advanced his empirical inquiries by means of systematic experiment.

ex-xian

I'm not sure of the accuracy of your friends statemente. I know Aristotle was more of a rationalist than an empiricist. Neither Aristotle's physics nor metaphysics were based on "intuition" or revelation, but were based on reason. Aristotle's logic of predication is still tought in logic classes today. One of his most famous works is his Prior Analytics, which deals with deductive logic, the categorical syllogism.

Aristotle's argument about the unmoved mover was the basis of most of Aquinas's arguments, but I don't think Aristotle applied to deity, he merely believed that motion must be eternal.

As for intuition, I guess that depends on what your colleague means. Personally, I wouldn't consider rational thinking to be intuition. And I'm not aware of Aristotle claiming divine revelation for anything.

Oh yeah, Aristotle was really into marine biology. His student Alexander the Great shipped is specimens from all over the empire to study. It's not exactly experimental science, but there ya go.

Rousseau_CHN

contrary to xtianseeker beliefs, I believe Aristotle system were based on intuition (common sense), divine revelation and common sense.

Aristotle, should he hear that all falling objects fall at the same time, would quickly dismissed it. Simply because it goes against common sense or intuition.

And on the subject of divine revelation. He actually called it the fifth cause. There is the material cause...and so on. (Sorry I forgot what the fifth cause was called.)

Anyway, the fifth cause states that things happen for a divine reason.

Examples:
The rice grows, not only because of sunlight, etc, but also because to feed man and animal.

The sun exists, not only because of Hydrogen and Helium, but it was made to exist to give us warmth.

Aristotle did not use the word "Divine"; it was probably Aquinas who used it. But the essence is still the same. Things happen for a "divine" purpose.

It was this fifth cause that was dropped by the coming of the Scientific Revolution.

ex-xian

Really? I've never heard of the fifth cause. There's the material, efficient, formal, and final.

What your descibing sounds like the final cause, the purpose or function, the "for the sake of which" the thing exists.


I guess it really depends on how you define intuition. I tend to think of it as a "feeling" w/o rational justification, not in terms of reasoned thought. Things can seem very reasonable and still be incorrect, as is illustrated by your example of falling things.

Rousseau_CHN

Ah yes that's the name...it's been too long since I've taken up my Aristotles or any "serious" book for that matter (and there is no fifth cause, just four).

Anyway, I guess you're also right about this boiling down to the definition of intuition. I tend to equate it with "common sense".

Keith Russell

Greetings:

I view intuition as what happens when you see a math problem, and you 'know' the answer (the right answer), but you don't know how you know.

In math (and everything, IMO) its not enough to intuitively know (or be able to mentally work out the answer very quickly). You have to understand the process, you still have to 'do the work', in order to be able to verify that you do, in fact, actually have the right answer.

Intuition is all very fine and good, but its not enough.

(And I don't think in any case that it is 'divine' in any way...)

Keith.

ex-xian

Isaac Avimov loved intuition in science. He said that anyone can work out problems, but truly great scientists can intuit an answer an then work it out.

I also think that what Einstien meant when he said that imagination is more important than intelligence (or knowledge...can't remember the exact quote and don't feel like looking it up).

Grizzly

Thanks you all for your thoughtful replies. I think I am going to suggest some changes to that sentence to reflect the Aristotelian emphasis on observation and inductive reasoning over experimentation. I may remove the comment of divine revelation and leave it unaddressed.

Thanks again

Grizzly