It is worth remembering that many of Aristotle's works begin by covering the whole field as it existed in his time, and it is often difficult to untangle what A

It is worth remembering that many of Aristotle's works begin by covering the whole field as it existed in his time, and it is often difficult to untangle what Aristotle himself thought vs what he reported others thinking. The "standard" translations of Aristotle's major works--particularly Metaphysics--by Sir David Ross are also heavily influenced by Ross' neo-Platonism, so they can be quite misleading given the number of gaps and ambiguities that need to be filled. It is also worth remembering that we know today that Aristotle's physics accurately describes human experience. If you inquire into the physical beliefs of non-physicist college students you will find they give accounts that are Aristotelian to the core. The degree to which Newtonian physics is bizarre, abstract and counter-intuitive is often forgotten by people who bash Aristotle. He was often wrong, but the problems he was working on were fiercely difficult, and the tools he had to bring to bear on them incredibly crude by modern standards.