> I mean Aristotle's approach to physics is gold standard of modern science. I don't consider Aristotle's approach to physics to be the gold standard of modern

> I mean Aristotle's approach to physics is gold standard of modern science. I don't consider Aristotle's approach to physics to be the gold standard of modern science, but I'm willing to entertain the notion if you spell out exactly what you mean by "Aristotle's approach to physics." > Also geocentrism is still used, because it gives correct numbers. Next question is whether correct numbers are everything needed from science. If yes, then geocentrism is perfectly good, because it gives correct numbers. This makes zero sense to me. > Another example: black hole information paradox. Solid modern science. It begins with "suppose we have a black hole defined as such and such". It has structure similar to many philosophic ideas, e.g. solipsism: "suppose we have solipsism defined as such and such". OK. What, if anything, does the study of the philosophical notion of solipsism contribute to resolving the black hole information paradox?