It is said that Aristotle is the father of the biological sciences. Through his exploration of animals, Aristotle used systems of classification and ideas of the scientific method that are the precursors to similar concepts today. Extending this, many would say that Modern Biology stems directly from the ideas and methods of Aristotelian Biology. However, while Modern Biology does follow the basic principles of Aristotle’s scientific method and classification of animals, it extends them beyond Aristotle’s concepts and in doing so begins to depart from an Aristotelian conception of species and the process and purpose of their development into a new scientific schema distant from Aristotle’s original beliefs that is only comparable in its origins. …show more content…
Aristotelian science has the two stages for which it aims, the physical and immediate description, and the more distant description of something’s natural essence. Modern science only seems to target the first of these principles and has completely forgone the second. In aiming for the first stage however, modern biology has extended Aristotle’s principle of exploring the observable aspects of an organism and delved beyond that into the imperceptible strata of cells, proteins, and DNA. But in going so far it has forced itself to be specific and blind to the general nature of an organism, instead reducing “to microversions of themselves and ultimately to chemistry and physics.” Modern biology acts as if each individual process when combined is what makes the organism, that the whole is made up of the constituent parts, and that is why it breaks it down to the molecular level because if it can fully explain how all the smaller processes work it can explain the organism as a whole. This is the final depth of the departure from Aristotelian scientific method because in going so far beyond the observable and whole organism, modern biology fails to realize the essential nature of the whole organism itself. The roots of modern biologic method can be seen in Aristotle’s system of observation and new knowledge stemming from previously described and known information, however beyond that, it seems as if modern biology has lost the more holistic view of the organism and its essential nature that Aristotelian biology aimed for in its
The essay starts off by stating, “One could say that the dominant scientific world-view going into the 16th century was not all that “scientific” in the modern sense of the
... middle of paper ... ... We can trace the origins of modern scientific trends back to Greek primal establishment. From the simplistic Socratic approach of ‘Who am I?’
Jackson, James R. and Kimler, William C. "Taxonomy and the Personal Equation: The Historical Fates of Charles Girard and Louis Agassiz". Journal of the History of Biology. 32 (1999): 509-555.
The term biomedicine is used to describe scientific medicine which is prominent in Western societies. To get a better grasp of this concept, Baronov (2008) presented the following interrelated views which account for biomedicine’s ongoing development. Fi...
Here, we examine some of the scientific arguments presented by Henry M. Morris in his various publications. As a biology major, I find Morris= writings fascin...
Science has now proven that there are indeed other animals capable of reason, such as apes and dolphins. The extent to which these beings can reason, however, has yet to be seen. In conclusion, it remains that, even after being around for over 2000 years, Aristotle’s philosophy on human nature remains one of the most accurate questions to the eternal question of “what is human nature?” It may not, in the end, prove to be the correct answer to the question, in fact, it may very well be possible that there is no definite answer possible. But until scholars and students in programs such as ours can find a suitable replacement, his analysis will remain superior to all others.
To some the causes and effects of things are mutually exclusive, and coexistence with one another. When observing specific equipment or even life, the question stands that there must be an account that took place before such items ceased to exist. Particularly, Aristotle argues that each thing, whatever it may be, will have causes, or types of explanatory factors by which that thing can be explained. The significant knowledge of causes allows for specific accounts to be known. It’s like questioning what occurred first the chicken or the egg. Anything in life offers a question of cause; something must have been in order to bring about the nature of today. These causes are apparent in answering everyday questions, which in turn explains that the causes of life clarify the being of which stood before it and such causes amount to same entity.
Aristotle claims that plants are unable to share the higher Sensation Soul with animals. This is the claim Aristotle makes when stating, “Of the soul’s power mentioned above, namely, those of nutrition, desire, sensation, locomotion, and thinking, some living things possess all, as we said, others some, and others only one.” In this concept we see Aristotle building his idea on the way living things are separated and how the functions of the soul are arranged. The nested order appears to be a functional formula at first, however, we begin to see problems with the order when an organism does not follow a norm and must be in one level of the nest that it may not necessarily fit. I assert that the nested concept of the soul is actually a framework system that provides ways to traverse the layers and allows for variations that fail to fall within a defined layer.
...ence of the cognitive feature of the animal. For Aristotle the body and soul are not two separate elements, but they are of one thing. A body and a soul make a person. If a person has no soul, then that person is dead and it would only be a person by name. A thing that has a soul and is complete must be able to move and change. The soul dies with the body, and without the soul, the person is no more a person, but another inanimate object. One cannot exist without the other. With this concept of one not existing without the other, Aristotle leaves no room for there to be a possibility of immortality. Aristotle’s ideas of the soul and the body really formulate and combine both psychology and biology together, even though today many of his ideas have been proven wrong, for his time, they were very advanced with the research and materials that he was able to come by.
Amidst many similarities, the rift between ancient and modern science is enormous and has frequently left historians puzzled. Although it is clear to historians that the stagnant science of ancient times developed into the modern scientific pursuit in the 17th century, it is not clear what specifically caused this revolution of scientific thought.
The world we live in today is full of an exceptional variety of animals. The time it took to conclude to the various sorts of species seen today has been throughout a period of millions of years. The vast majority of these animals are accredited to evolutionary advancements. When the environment changes, organisms have become accustomed to changing to fit their environment, to ensure their species does not die off. These physical changes have resulted in different phyla, ranging from basic structures, like sponges to advance systems, like that of an octopus.
The biological perspective started with 17th Century philosopher Descartes’ idea that the spiritual mind and the physical body are separate. It searches for the cause of behavior in the function of
Aristotle uses his matter/form distinction to answer the question “What is soul?” and explains through his hylomorphic composition (matter, form, the compound of matter and form) to show that the body requires the soul and vice versa. He believes that compounds which are alive, are things that have souls and it is their souls that make them living things. In this essay, I will present Aristotle’s argument of the soul and whether he is successful in arguing for the mutual dependance of soul and body.
Biochemistry is considered as a component of science, which has originated in recent years. ‘Biochimie’ is a term, introduced in the year 1877 by German scientists Hoppe-Seyler with two enormous ideas of vitalism and generation of living cell enormously. According ...