Remind me why we take anything ancient philosophers said seriously

Remind me why we take anything ancient philosophers said seriously.
>hurr durr, heavy objects fall faster than light ones

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=H36nCvraGac&list=PL3N_kWDDC39eDJhV3Wy46VO-lJpCCga6M
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

well, they talked about a lot of stuff

youtube.com/watch?v=H36nCvraGac&list=PL3N_kWDDC39eDJhV3Wy46VO-lJpCCga6M

Just because they were retarded about some things doesn't mean they were retarded about all things. Most people are retarded about some things. Newton believed in magic and alchemy, but we still use his physics most of the time today.

This, and it's really not that unreasonable to assume what Aristotle did at that time period. If someone had no idea what air resistance was and they dropped a phone book and a piece of paper at the same time, they would make the same conclusion.

I'm pretty sure feathers fall pretty slow though?

Believing that light objects fall faster than heavy objects is perfectly rational and excusable. It seems to be true when you do basic, common sense tests It takes a pretty big intellectual leap to discover that fundamental laws of mechanics must be considered in a vacuum (literally) and that air resistance is a special condition that we deal with on earth but isn't the case in most of the universe. Aristotle didn't believe a vacuum could exist at all and frankly had no reason to.

Because 90% of what they said are still live options. Where only 10% are not worth considering any more, and even those cases tend to have strong argumentation and interesting and useful ways of thinking embedded in them.

Aristotelian ethics and metaphysics are both back in vogue right now because we realized that there was more useful material there than what we were working with before.

Philosophy is literally worthless and has answered 0 proveable questions. Prove me wrong. Protip: you can't

>Aristotle didn't believe a vacuum could exist at all and frankly had no reason to

In fact, Aristotle had pretty good arguments against the existence of a vacuum. And no one had any sort of persuasive reason to think otherwise until 1277 when the Church demanded that the possibility of a vacuum be accepted in order to save certain theological positions like creatio ex nihilo and the possibility that God could have chosen to make the world in a different spot, that he could have made it bigger, etc. Then later scholastics showed that such a position was also rationally justifiable to a degree, and then these philosophers were read by early moderns who picked it up and rolled with it. As far as we can tell, until theologians stepped in and forced us to buy into it the possibility of a vacuum seemed way too outlandish to human reason to even take seriously.

Because less-ancient philosophers took them seriously, and less-less-ancient philosophers took those less-ancient- philosophers seriously, and so on.

Aside from memes about this inaccuracies thing anyone else wondering what world would be like if instead of socrates and platonists, the sophists got recognised and revered?

But sophism is recognized and revered in modern society. In fact it's the norm.

>proveable

Nice meme

Philosophy isn't useless, if it weren't for philosophy we wouldn't have any dank Diogenes memes

It should be a smug Pepe

>aristotle

Philosophy provided the epistemology and method to empiricism that even made science possible in the first place. Karl Popper was a philosopher of science, not a scientist.

Secondly, philosophy has no unified goal, but arguments without physical evidence is basically what a philosopher does. Would modern computing be possible without formal logic? No. You're comparing apples and oranges here with your logical positivist bullshit.

>Philosophy provided the epistemology and method to empiricism that even made science possible in the first place.

It actually didn't. The toolmaking that our caveman ancestors were busy with was already a very crude form of science. Science is also mostly about trial and error, and has almost nothing to do with theorizing, certainly not to the extend you seem to think it is

>heavy objects fall faster than light ones

they do though most of the time, Aristotle wasn't measuring the acceleration, but the objects that reached the ground first.

>BUT ACHTUALLY

no fuck off "oh they aren't technically falling "faster" though because they have the same acceleration" you drop a brick and a handkerchief the brick hits the ground first every single time except maybe in a complete vacuum

>literally birthed scientific inquiry and academic method
>HURR IT NOT EVEN USEFUL

neck yourself lad.

>implying it's anything but a very recent trend to have boring pleb scientists who aren't also philosophers

>anyone else wondering what world would be like if instead of socrates and platonists, the sophists got recognised and revered?

thanks for the nightmares m8

>Science is also mostly about trial and error, and has almost nothing to do with theorizing

>Science is also mostly about trial and error
>Philosophy must have come after tools

>has almost nothing to do with theorizing
>mostly about trial and error

So you are saying that science is almost only about empirism and still you are criticising a post that says science needs a methodical and systematic approach to empirism.

Can you please elaborate your argument?

>hurr durr, heavy objects fall faster than light ones

Actually they do in an atmosphere. If you dropped two balls of the same volume but different densities from the same height at the same time, the heavier will hit the ground first.

btw Galileo never did the experiment

does anyone take anything any intellectual says seriously

I only know that I don't know anything

Jesus...

>science needs a methodical and systematic approach to empirism.

Again, it doesn't. All you need, as far as methodology goes, is not make the same mistakes that the guy before you made. But even that doesn't guarantee that you're going to end up with reliable knowledge.

There's an old saying that goes ex cura theoria nascitur - theory is the child of the cure.

>Science is also mostly about trial and error, and has almost nothing to do with theorizing,

Please learn about Science ( and especially the history of science) before you make comments about it.

I see neo-Veeky Forums is here. L'avant-garde !