3 ms·
Yes, I was referring to the opening of the article which ridicules (trolls) Aristotelian physics. No, I did not only read the beginning. I also skimmed over the
by GranularRecipe 2y ago
Yes, I was referring to the opening of the article which ridicules (trolls) Aristotelian physics.
No, I did not only read the beginning. I also skimmed over the rest.
- omnicognate 2y agoThen you'll be aware that he goes on to defend an Aristotelian, teleological view (which he describes, in accordance with your comment, as only nowadays held by a few "cranks"), so I'm not sure what prompted the question?
- GranularRecipe 2y agoLet me expound my arguments more verbosely: The author set himself an ambitious goal of webbing an intricate story about Western physics from Aristotle to Lagrange. Good story-telling starts with something familiar, seemingly truthful to the reader, that is yet (partially) wrong or incomplete (unknown to the reader). And through the story, the reader gains wisdom by being surprised of something new that (partially) falsifies their current body of knowledge. The author starts with something that the modern-day reader knows to be wrong, and ends with a dubious conclusion (that somehow the variational principle validates Aristotelian teleology). A good story would start with the Newtonian mechanics, the prevailing view among those who did not study physics at the university. The author does not need to heed my amateur advice: He can attack strawmen, i.e. valid yet superfluous, off-target criticisms.