A) & B) Explain two key differences between the Aristotelian worldview and the Newtonian worldview and how those beliefs changed over time.
C) Explain why it is not a problem that “Science is a Liar Sometimes” (explain why it is not a problem that scientific views change substantially over history, especially in terms of how we view our current scientific worldview and the confidence we have in our current scientific beliefs).
Response A and B
Two key differences between the Aristotelian worldview and the Newtonian worldview are that the Aristotelian worldview believed the earth was the center of the universe, and all planets or heavenly bodies revolved around the earth. The Newtonian worldview, on the other hand, believed that the sun was the center, not the earth, and the planets, including the earth, moved around a circular path around the sun. Today we know the earth is not the center of the universe, and we have multiple galaxies formed by numerous planets and stars. Our galaxy is the Milky Way, and we do not know what the center of the universe is.
The two worldviews are complete opposites in a sense. The only similarities are the theories about the universe. Both worldviews refer to the planets, stars, and universe. These are similar, but the concepts deviate in a sense. One states that the earth is the center and that everything revolves around the earth. The other states the sun is the center, and the earth and stars revolve around the sun. The Aristotelian worldview also gives the concept of earth, wind, water, and fire. These four elements make up the universe in a sense. Today we have other meanings stating all planets and stars are made up of similar fundamental components. The components can be generalized as fire, earth, wind, and water, but this is still misleading. Everything is composed of essential elements, matter, and energy. Those are fundamental components. Matter and energy are more basic, smaller concepts that form the later fire, earth, wind, and water. Those four are more broadly understood because they are visible or felt in a sense, but matter and energy are more basic components that are smaller.
This means that we now have a more detailed and micro understanding than the generalized macro view of the fire, earth, wind, and water. The Aristotelian worldview set up a concept that was altered later on. The basic concepts may still be there, but we know many mistakes have been made, and we now have a more detailed explanation that still is not one hundred percent correct and may still be altered in the future.
“This technology was not available during the period of the Aristotelian worldview. Beliefs about the stars and planets had to be based primarily on naked-eye observations. What can one observe about stars and planets with the naked eye? Not much. In fact, without modern technology, stars and planets appear quite similar. Stars and planets both appear to be points of light in the night sky. The main observational difference between stars, on the one hand, and the five points of light we call the planets (at least, the five planets visible to the naked eye) on the other hand, is that stars and planets move across the night sky in different ways. This different movement between planets and stars is the main factor distinguishing planets from stars.” - Worldviews: An Introduction to the History and Philosophy of Science by Richard DeWitt.
As stated already, the universe could only be studied with the naked eye in the past. This makes it very difficult to see anything accurately. The planets, stars, and meteors all look the same to the naked eye. It was not until later that we could tell the difference between these objects in the sky. Without technology, all we would have is theories that can never be proven. Thanks to the later inventions, we could see where mistakes were made.
Response C
The idea that science is a liar sometimes is often mistaken. It is wrong to believe that science will be accurate one hundred percent of the time. If science were always correct, scientists would be gods, yet they are not. Human beings are fallible, and science is a concept created by fallible beings; thus, science must be fallible itself. The idea of “the apple does not fall far from the tree” can be applied here. If humans invented science, humans could be seen as the fathers/mothers, and science is the child. If the parent is fallible, so is the child. Perfection is impossible for imperfect beings, so science must have flaws.
We saw how the Aristotelian worldview changed and was altered later. We also saw where the mistakes were made with the Aristotelian worldview. Due to the lack of technology and ways to observe the galaxy, it was easy for even scientists of that time to misinterpret it and make a theory a hard fact because they could not see if they could prove or disprove it. It took so long for the technology to be made. If these scientists were brought forward in time, they would be astonished at how wrong they were and how humans have evolved. We have seen this with the food pyramid as well. That idea is still here today, but the foods added are different to a certain point. These ideas and theories only work for a time as we evolve and move forward; they can be proven wrong or altered. That should be acceptable in science because we have no guarantees. We have theories that will be proven or disproven shortly or even in the distant future.
A) Give a definition/description of what makes someone a scientist. (Their area of study, their achievements, their methods, their personality?)
B) Give at least two examples of people we discussed in this course who count as scientists based on your definition, making sure it is clear why.
C) If you were having a dinner party, who would you invite from the following list: Plato, Aristotle, Ptolemy, Hypatia, Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler, Vincenzo Galilei, Galileo Galilei, Newton, Einstein, Popper, Kuhn.
Response A
A scientist is a person who researches to gain and share knowledge on a particular subject or even multiple issues. Scientists make hypotheses or theories that they test or may be tested in the future. A scientist comes up with a logical concept that may be true or false. The idea of true or false can be considered the end goal, the 50/50 margin. The theory is a forest, and logic guides you to the end goal to prove the outcome. A good example would be a treasure map: a big concept with the "X" on the map as the end goal that the scientist does not know what it means. A theory or hypothesis states there could be treasure or may not be treasure based on various factors. It is very likely there is or is not treasure at the "X." The scientist will go to the "X" to prove one or the other is true or false.
Response B
I believe many people could be considered scientists even if they are not remembered or thought of as such. Two that were studied in this course would have to be Ptolemy and Hypatia. Ptolemy studied astronomy and created the Ptolemaic system, a geocentric system model. I think Ptolemy was ahead of his time but contributed much to astronomy. Even if he may have been mistaken, this is understandable because, during his time, he was constrained. He could still create a concept for our system despite his limitations. His idea was kept for many centuries and was a base for newer concepts that came later. It can be argued that without this base, we may not have achieved as much as we have today. He theorized and tried to prove it as best he could with the logic and limitations of his time, and I believe he qualifies as a scientist.
Hypatia is another person who can be considered a scientist. She was the first female scientist in history. She used distilled water, a hydrometer, and a hydroscope to measure water depths. She came up with logical ideas that could be proven true or false at a later time and had a good understanding of scientific concepts. She was ahead of her time and can be considered a scientist and should. She came up with concepts and tested them. The logic behind her concepts and testing is essential, not if they turned out to be true or false.
Response C
If I were having a dinner party, I would invite these people in this order—Galileo Galilei along with Hypatia. Galileo has always interested me, especially since I never liked that he was falsely convicted, placed under house arrest, and ridiculed when he was correct. Hypatia is exciting, and I believe she and Galileo would make good company for me and everyone else. Copernicus and Kepler are two individuals who would be great additions to the dinner party and may also do well with communicating with Galileo and Hypatia. Vincenzo Galilei would be an excellent addition to learning more about how Galileo grew up and understood, and his music may set a good mood for the party. Newton and Einstein would make great additions to see where the older concepts collide with newer ones and how these scientists would accept the new ideas or argue them with new evidence. I have sat down with Aristotle before, so I may avoid adding him to the list, but since I want to invite Plato, I may have no choice but to ask him as well. It would also be an excellent chance to inform Aristotle of his mistakes with his ideas of love, family, and everything else. Brahe would be difficult to handle, especially after a few drinks at first; he may be exciting but may get tiresome quickly. Popper and Kuhn are much later than the others, so I would rush to speak to them since I want to talk to the forefathers first.
If I can only invite one or two, it would be Galileo Galilei first and second Hypatia. Those two are the most interesting ones that I would want to speak to the most. After those two, I would go down the list to the rest. If I could invite all of them, I wouldn’t mind sitting with them in the room, but I think they may all argue too much amongst each other and not find common ground.
The best articles, links, and news delivered once a week to your inbox.