As a believer in physical science as we know it (because it may change as it has in the past), Aristotle’s empirical view on all matters of life are very refreshing. Aristotle dealt almost entirely of facts, what you see is what you get, this is in stark contrast to his recent Greek predecessors including Plato whose writings seem to be filled with riddles and whose worship of gods that were clearly false. His works cover everything from biology, zoology, metaphysics, politics, ethics and poetry just to name a few, many of which being completely original and unknown areas of science at the time. His resume is long and impressive. His works were translated to many languages. His thoroughness and attention to detail are mind blowing. One could easily argue he is the first true scientist. Of course there were those before him that made observations about plants and animals, but no one had classified and examined to the extent of Aristotle in this empirical way. He really ties it all together in a very sane, relatable, and easy to read text considering the time period. Amazingly, there appears to be nothing in the way of biology from his death until about the 16th century, arguably not until the 18th century.
With this project, I would like to examine the original contributions that Aristotle made through his writings of science during his life. The contributions that gave way to all other branches of science including medical science. I will be focusing mainly on biology because a third of his works include it, but will examine all other original essays that relate. The requirements state that the time period should not exceed 25 years, however it is difficult to find dates on his books therefore the time period may be stretched. My primary source of information will be Aristotle’s book The History of Animals, in it he describes in detail the mechanisms and characteristics of many animals and how they all relate internally and externally. My secondary references will include an article from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, both of which give a pretty good summary of his biological works and tries to interpret and give insight into some of them.
In order to investigate Aristotle’s work as a scientist, it is imperative to discuss the scientific principles he established that laid ground for the determination of scientific inquiry. In this regard, Aristotle sought to establish an organized pattern of thought that is associated with scientific inquiry. He aimed at arranging the disorganized and unrelatable premises of a subject under study, to an organized form of inquiry that will facilitate scientific understanding (Internet Encyclopedia of Psychology). The first instance provided by Aristotle was the establishment of a concept in achievement of a goal. In this case, he indicated that the objective of inquiry was to align with a systematic arrangement of concepts in a hierarchical manner. In this regard, this would enable the determination of the important natures of the subject to guide the scientific study. This would lay basis of the determination of universal truths and principles that would apply in the course of the scientific inquiry.
Therefore, the causal explanations would seek to relate the truths to essential features of the subject under study. As such, the attributes of the subject would be identified by virtue of their nature, a concept Aristotle determined as causal demonstration. In order to determine the ‘how’ of a causal demonstration, Aristotle considered it essential for one to know their object of inquiry (Lennox, 2006). If this is not done, it becomes impossible to carry out the inquiry. In this case, Aristotle indicates although perceptual experience is not scientific, it provides guidance to the undertaking of inquiry. In addition, he provides a link between objects of inquiry and objects of scientific understanding. In this case, he identifies four main variables, facts, reasons why, something is, and what it is. The establishment of the fact provides basis for the establishment of the underlying reason. On the other hand, the determination of a subject leads to the inquiry of what it is. These classifications provide the analysis of the subject in terms of determination of the factual inquiry in relation to the attributes or characteristics of the subject under study.
The above basis of demonstrative inquiry is used extensively in Aristotle’s works. In his book, The History of Animals, he uses the criteria described above in determination of factual concepts and the subsequent scientific understanding of different animals’ phenomena. In this regard, Aristotle studies animals and provides the similarities and differences that are to be studied and establishes a sketched manner of how the differences will be determined. In this regard, he provides a generalized view of how the determination of the above will be done, by indicating that the determination of the similarities and differences between animals is made to provide a foundational basis for the investigation of the causes of the established attributes and differences (Lennox, 2006). This would guide the investigation of the subject under study in order to come up with factual and accurate results.
Aristotle credits this explanation to three main principles of demonstrative knowledge, that is, historia (inquiry), peri hori (fact) and ex hon (explanation). In this regard, the determination of a successful factual inquiry assists in the understanding the attributes and differences, from which will establish facts upon which will guide the underlying cause and explanation of their existence (Lennox, 2006). For instance this line of thought is illustrated in his identification of animal parts. According to Aristotle, all animals that have lungs have windpipes. From this observation, he further indicated that all cetacea are viviparous in nature. Following the criteria established, one would seek to explain what lungs and viviparous are, and what they mean. However, this observation has been contested by various scientists owing to the lack of clarity of application of the criteria established by Aristotle with respect to the above indication. In this regard, the heart of the contention is based on whether the application of descriptive knowledge in this context refers to the definition of animal kinds, or the definitions of animal’s attributes. However, Aristotle has provided the explanatory treaties in this regard, and identified the basis of the establishment of both the animal’s parts and the reasons as to why they are in the animal’s system (IEP).
In the study of animals, Aristotle sought to use the natural method in the identification of each animal’s attributes and differences that are meant to be demonstrated. According to Aristotle, the facts identified and to be explained are organized in order to establish a causal demonstration. In this regard, causal demonstration is guided by the determination of the reasons as to why the attributes and differences identified previously exist. In this case, this is determined by the exploration into the animals’ locomotion and parts.
Aristotle plays a crucial role in the determination of the identification of animal types. In this regard, he identifies the need to have a defined object or concept of investigation. In this case, he indicates that the consideration of the many attributes found in animals and which are common to their concrete kinds, one would be repeating themselves (Lennox, 2006). Therefore, he bases his differentiation on the differences of these kinds, that is, their differences in form, or locomotion for instance, swimming, flying or walking, or based on kinds such as respiratory systems or death. Aristotle describes animals as complex structures which perform integrated activities. In relation to this, the guidance provided in this identification is based on three concepts, namely, the prioritization of goal-causation to motive-causation, the prioritization of the animal’s form , which is identified as its soul, to the investigation of its body, and the prioritization of goals and form, a concept referred to as conditional necessity (IEP).
In this case, form as described by Aristotle refers to the animal’s ability to carry out functions. As such, it takes precedence to the determination of its material constituents, that is, the body.
The concepts discussed above set precedence of the scientific classification and division. This leads to the adoption of a biological division theory which organizes differences in a predetermined manner. Aristotle argues against the concept of dividing characteristics based on their differences, and separate division of attributes that are identified as similar. This provided the foundation of dichotomy and the division of non-essentials. In this case, dichotomy is defined as a means of classification, based on exhaustive alternatives, for example, winged and wingless. On the other hand, the division of non-essentials is based on further dividing a differentia-class, based on unrelated differences. The system is still used in the biological division and classification of organisms.
All in all, the premise of scientific investigation is based on the determination of facts and the causality relationship with underlying occurrence of the phenomena. As such, Aristotle demonstrated that he was, indeed, the first scientist, whose premises, principles, and standards of scientific reasoning and practices still resonate with the present time.
Works Cited
Aristotle. "The History of Animals." The History of Animals. N.p., 15 July 2015. Web. 21 Feb. 2016. <https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/a/aristotle/history/>.
Internet Encyclopedia of Psychology. “Aristotle.” Internet Encyclopedia of Psychology. Web. 16 Mar. 2016. http://www.iep.utm.edu/aristotl/
Lennox, James. "Aristotle's Biology." Stanford University. Stanford University, 15 Feb. 2006. Web. 21 Feb. 2016. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-biology/
