News0 min ago
Was Aristotle Somewhat Right?
Aristotle said there are Four Elements: Earth, Water, Wind and Fire.
In reeality, did he discover the Four States of Matter? Solid=Earth, Liquid=Water, Wind=Air and Plasma=Fire.
I research the fire=plasma and it seems to be somewhat true.
Any comments would be appreciated.
In reeality, did he discover the Four States of Matter? Solid=Earth, Liquid=Water, Wind=Air and Plasma=Fire.
I research the fire=plasma and it seems to be somewhat true.
Any comments would be appreciated.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by vbasic77. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.First, I probably phrased the question wrong. It should have been "What did Aristotle Actually Discover in Relation to Matter?".
Next, I brought up the issue because it was discussed on a local radio show.
Also, regarding my knowledge set, I was a Physics Major at University and took a minor in the History of Science and Technology. So I try to be factual as well as understand what scientists, philosophers and Natural Philosophers ponder.
Next, I brought up the issue because it was discussed on a local radio show.
Also, regarding my knowledge set, I was a Physics Major at University and took a minor in the History of Science and Technology. So I try to be factual as well as understand what scientists, philosophers and Natural Philosophers ponder.
Aristotle's third element wasn't 'wind' but 'air'. Further, he believed in the possibility of a fifth element, 'aether' .
His model saw 'hot' and 'cold' as two distinct entities, rather than 'cold' simply being the absence of heat. (Incidentally, I saw it that way myself up until my secondary school education, where I was initially puzzled that my science teacher kept making references to 'heat' but never to 'cold'). He likewise saw 'wetness' and 'dryness' as distinct entities, rather than 'dry' simply meaning 'not wet'.
As the concepts of 'hot', 'cold' 'wetness' and 'dryness' formed an integral part of his four-elements model, attempts to link his elements directly with the four states of matter that are currently recognised by science might be a step too far. However there are, of course, clearly some analogies.
His model saw 'hot' and 'cold' as two distinct entities, rather than 'cold' simply being the absence of heat. (Incidentally, I saw it that way myself up until my secondary school education, where I was initially puzzled that my science teacher kept making references to 'heat' but never to 'cold'). He likewise saw 'wetness' and 'dryness' as distinct entities, rather than 'dry' simply meaning 'not wet'.
As the concepts of 'hot', 'cold' 'wetness' and 'dryness' formed an integral part of his four-elements model, attempts to link his elements directly with the four states of matter that are currently recognised by science might be a step too far. However there are, of course, clearly some analogies.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.