I don't think that any of the scientists/philosophers/mathematicians mentioned (not even Hawkings) can damage Aristotle that much. Aristotle is kind of far and

I don't think that any of the scientists/philosophers/mathematicians mentioned (not even Hawkings) can damage Aristotle that much. Aristotle is kind of far and away in terms of perceived importance. Perceived because I don't know the body of work of all the people mentioned in the article. IMHO these ancient scholars from whom western civilisation started, will be read and re-read from the original text, studied and re-studied much more thoroughly and many more times in the years to come than Russel of Hawkings. Maybe unfortunately so, maybe not. I'm not able to judge any of the names mentioned in the article. That's just a feeling, only time will tell. As other posters already pointed out, when science comes at play, we have to understand the dynamics of ancient Greece at 400 BC, with their lifestyle, beliefs and lack of knowledge (in any science: physics, chemistry, etc.). However the most important body of Greek philosophy is the questions/answers surrounding men, existence, purpose (in life), knowledge (inherited or learned?), etc. Because these are universal questions that any human being with acceptable intellect will have to confront in his lifetime. Off-topic: I've read an essay some time ago - can't find the link :-( - saying that especially today the difference between the body of knowledge of a top notch scientist and average peasant Joe is chaotic. Might be, but thinking how Aristotle, Euclid, Newton or Gauss would have felt in their era when talking to a peasant is a lot more scary to me.