Aristotelian Rainfall or the Lore of Averages

Wardy, Robert

doi:10.1163/156852893321052433

Cited by 78 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Proponents of the non-teleological-rain interpretation include Ross (1936), Charlton (1970, 120–123), Nussbaum (1978, 94), Balme (1987), Gotthelf (1987), Irwin (1988, 102–107), and Judson (2005, 345–348). Proponents of the teleological-rain interpretation include Cooper (1982), Furley (1985, 179–181), Sedley (1991; 2007), Wardy (1993), Code (1997), Scharle (2008), and Leunissen (2010). I agree with those who say that, for Aristotle, rain falls for some end, at least during the winter.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

If naturalism is true, then scientific explanation is impossible

Bogardus

2022

Rel. Stud.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I begin by retracing an argument from Aristotle for final causes in science. Then, I advance this ancient thought, and defend an argument for a stronger conclusion: that no scientific explanation can succeed, if Naturalism is true. The argument goes like this: (1) Any scientific explanation can be successful only if it crucially involves a natural regularity. Next, I argue that (2) any explanation can be successful only if it crucially involves no element that calls out for explanation but lacks one. From (1) and (2) it follows that (3) a scientific explanation can be successful only if it crucially involves a natural regularity, and this regularity does not call out for explanation while lacking one. I then argue that (4) if Naturalism is true, then all every natural regularity calls out for explanation but lacks one. From (3) and (4) it follows that (5) if Naturalism is true, then no scientific explanation can be successful. If you believe that scientific explanation can be (indeed, often has been) successful, as I do, then this is a reason to reject Naturalism.

show abstract

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

If naturalism is true, then scientific explanation is impossible

Bogardus

2022

Rel. Stud.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…II 8 como aquello que ha de ser probado (198b10-11) y es reafirmada en las dos líneas finales, como aquello que se ha logrado probar (199b32-33). 11 A lo largo del capítulo encontramos 10 Las excepciones, hasta donde conozco, son R. Wardy (1993), y más recientemente M. Johnson (2005), L. Judson (2005) y M. Scharle (2008).…”

Section: IIunclassified

Aristóteles y la lluvia, una vez más

Rossi¹

2016

dianoia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

<p class='p1'>El texto de Física II 8 ha constituido recientemente ocasión para rehabilitar la tesis según la cual Aristóteles sostendría la vigencia de una teleología natural externa, e incluso antropocéntrica, sobre todo a partir del trabajo de D. Furley y especialmente de D. Sedley. En este trabajo ofrezco una serie de argumentos en contra de esta interpretación del texto de laFísica. De este modo, defenderé la lectura según la cual Aristóteles no sostiene, en este capítulo, que llueve con vistas al crecimiento del grano, en contra de lo que hoy constituye una opinión un tanto extendida.</p>

show abstract

“… David Sedley's 1991 answers "yes"; my reply(Wardy 1992) answers "no." Sedley correctly maintains that agriculture is a major testing-ground for ancient teleological theory; I agree, and welcome the opportunity to return to our dispute from a new angle.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

The Mysterious Aristotelian Olive

Wardy

2005

Science in Context

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ArgumentHow well does Aristotle's abstract definition of nature in the Physics cope with some significant agricultural facts? Are its implications in tension with the workings of artificial teleology? How Aristotle might categorize domesticated plants is problematic: they are neither obviously natural nor obviously artificial. That artificial things generally retain an intrinsic source of change does not help us to settle the status of “living quasi-artefacts.” A survey of Theophrastus reveals that many agricultural techniques go against nature, rather than collaborating with it; and, moving from the practical to the theoretical, the Mechanica might suggest a scientific program at odds with the Aristotelian tradition of passive observation. Reflection on the Historia Animalium exposes difficulties in specifying natural and artificial environments which exacerbate the puzzle, and reinforce the rationale for Aristotelians to adopt an active stance when investigating nature. The Aristotelian olive remains mysterious.

show abstract

Aristotelian Rainfall or the Lore of Averages

Cited by 78 publications

References 0 publications

If naturalism is true, then scientific explanation is impossible

If naturalism is true, then scientific explanation is impossible

Aristóteles y la lluvia, una vez más

The Mysterious Aristotelian Olive

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About