In Physica—I have missed a part there which I apologise for. Only objects which are made of earth fall toward the noble position of earth—as is their want to be with their own in their own noble position. Things made of air will seek out the heavens (which is why smoke rises), things made of water will seek out water (which is why rivers flow into the sea), and things made of fire will seek out fire. For Aristotle, heavy objects contained more of the element earth—so naturally they moved quickest to reach their natural position.
Why doesn’t this seem to you like a model grounded in empirical evidence?
Aristotle never tested it—never even wrote of the possibility of testing the model. Post-hoc reasoning is not science. It’s inventing plausible (to the time) sounding explanations for observations, and then just leaving it at that.
Which is why Aristotle (or any Aristotlean naturalist) never climbed up a cliff and dropped two balls—one made of lead the other of wood.
In Physica—I have missed a part there which I apologise for. Only objects which are made of earth fall toward the noble position of earth—as is their want to be with their own in their own noble position. Things made of air will seek out the heavens (which is why smoke rises), things made of water will seek out water (which is why rivers flow into the sea), and things made of fire will seek out fire. For Aristotle, heavy objects contained more of the element earth—so naturally they moved quickest to reach their natural position.
It’s from his argument of natural motions.
Why doesn’t this seem to you like a model grounded in empirical evidence?
Aristotle never tested it—never even wrote of the possibility of testing the model. Post-hoc reasoning is not science. It’s inventing plausible (to the time) sounding explanations for observations, and then just leaving it at that.
Which is why Aristotle (or any Aristotlean naturalist) never climbed up a cliff and dropped two balls—one made of lead the other of wood.