Why is Aristotelianism so superior to modern reductionism?

Why is Aristotelianism so superior to modern reductionism?

Because it's been dressed up by historic mystique and seems interesting because it was written by a society you are not part of. It is not intrinsically better, and the focus on Aristotle actively promotes a blind acceptance of authority. Also, while Aristotle's ideas have a great deal of value for the practices they proposed, and I personally enjoy them and think they can be learned from, modern science is usually much more verifiable than many of the claims of Aristotle, and truth is ultimately the aim of science. I also don't think that kind of image corresponds to the style of discourse Aristotle would have appreciated.

is it better to make shit up if it gives you certainty?

If they are superior than why dont they work?

>I AM SILLY!

Arguably yes

What's the argument

But Aristotel was wrong. He was totally and utterly wrong. He may have been wrong with dignity but that is still wrong.

If engineers were to use his physics buildings would crumble, bridges would collapse and we would be back in the stone age by the end of the week.

Say it with me:
>W R O N G

How could making shit up give you certainty?

People who live their lives with certainty tend to be more driven and achieving than those who are doubt-ridden.

This is possibly the worst argument I've ever heard for anything

Because it gives us the comfortable notion that we are the center of all things and that the universe is a rational place that can be explained through simple observation, rather than the uncomfortable truth that we are but a small part of an unknowable expanse that has no real rhyme or reason to it apart from what we can speculate from a distance.

>If engineers were to use his physics buildings would crumble, bridges would collapse and we would be back in the stone age by the end of the week.

It seems to me like the Greeks had a number of impressive buildings, the Parthenon being among their number ofc. You must be exaggerating.

>M E M E S

Yeah and it was made out of stone

>jump off a ten-story building
>velocity is constant and heavier objects just fall faster than lighter objects
>survive unharmed because jumping off a ten-story building is the same as jumping down off a chair.

Those builders did not use Aristotle's physics. Mainly because he hadn't been born yet.

Aristotelian physics breaks down for non-discrete objects like water and snow tbqhwy

>People who live their lives with certainty...
...go to their graves believing heavy objects fall faster than lighter ones without ever testing that assertion.

Doubt fuels progress.

Specifically they end up in a grave because of

>superior
>couldn't resolve zeno's paradox

>metaphysics are physics

uh . . .

But Zeno's Paradox remains unresolved with modern physics. It is just that now the idea shifted from "stillness is every object's natural state" to "being static is result of having no acceleration," so the paradox has no reason to be proposed in the first place, as the idea behind the paradox was to support Parmenides' idea that everything was one, undefinable thing, which made any and all philosophical and scientific propositions besides "is" meaningless and, as such, objects that appeared to be moving were still because moving means that something was somewhere and now is not.

...

Yeah

>"being static is result of having no acceleration"
This statement is wrong on various levels.

It's not. Accurancy is superior to completness.

Temples that needed a billion columns to stand? Sure.