How Accurate Were Aristotle’s Views on Science?

Aristotle may be remembered as one of the world’s greatest philosophers, but his interests spanned various topics, including the sciences. He wrote prolifically about many fields, including biology, physics, and cosmology. In fact, some of his writings are still influential in their fields today. However, as impressive as Aristotle’s beliefs were for his time, he still got some things wrong. Here are four ways Aristotle’s views on science differ from today. 

Today, it is generally accepted within the scientific community that the universe began as a single point, stretching and growing over time to its current size, and it will continue to grow. This theory — known as the Big Bang — was first proposed in 1927 by ​​physicist Georges Lemaître. Although the theory is incomplete, it is used by scientists to explain the dynamic state of the cosmos. Aristotle, on the other hand, believed that the universe is static. This was the common view at the time — and would be until the 1920s — but in failing to account for expansion and growth, Aristotle lacked the modern-day understanding of the nature of the universe. 

He Thought the Earth Was the Center of the Universe

In 1543, Nicolaus Copernicus proposed heliocentrism, the idea that the sun is the center of the solar system. Although his theory had some inconsistencies — it wouldn’t be formally proved until almost a century later, thanks to the combined efforts of Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, and Isaac Newton — it was one of the first formal attempts at proposing the sun-centric theory. 

By the time Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev created the periodic table, John Dalton’s discovery of atoms had existed for just over 60 years. Dalton’s work came as the result of years of experimentation and investigation. Today, the idea that tiny, invisible atoms make up the building blocks of matter is a proven fact — and the periodic table is just one way to keep track of them. 

This discovery would have been nearly impossible when Aristotle was alive. Lacking both the tools and understanding that modern science has developed, Aristotle had to turn to a different theory to explain the composition of the world. Instead, he proposed an alternate explanation: that matter was based on four elements — earth, water, air, and fire. Unfortunately, his beliefs were based more on philosophical speculation than science, and his views have long been proved wrong. 

Today, Experimentation is More Important than Observation

Aristotle and his beliefs relied heavily on what he could see. Without the tools and modern understanding of science, Aristotle was left to use only what he could observe to form his beliefs, which led to his incorrect views (as discussed in this article). Aristotle couldn’t see the universe growing, so he believed it was static. He couldn’t see the Earth moving, so he believed the planet was at the center. Atoms are too small to see with the naked eye, but the elements aren’t, so the elements became the foundation of matter. 

Nowadays, scientists prefer to use experiments to supplement their observations, relying heavily on tests and systematic manipulation to isolate phenomena. Today’s scientific community prefers to base their theories on empirical evidence, as opposed to the observational evidence Aristotle used.