[beppe]

Originally Posted by FlorenceArt

I'm not sure what you are trying to demonstrate here Beppe, but I know one thing. If the natural philosophers in the 17th century had followed this kind of reasoning, we would still be stuck with Plato and Aristotle to explain reality. We would have a perfect world of ideas and "logical" reasonings, and it would have no relation whatsoever to the real world.

On the contrary. With the screen Plato tells you that you should not stop searching. And Aristoteles teaches you how.

You might have got this idea by the dogmatic approach of the "ipse dixit" of the dark ages, that prefered to stay in their safe monasteries and read and quote the not fully digested hand copied fragments of the Greek Giants. The dominicans. Mind you Thomas was also a Giant. Not all of them were abjectively obedient to the powers to be, of course. Some were rebels of sort and used their mind to speak up freely. Occam and his friend Marsilio da Padova, both Francescans, were excommunicated by Johan XXII (you see now why he choose XXIII?).Occam insisted that one should pursue knowledge without reference to metaphysics and theology and encouraged scientific research. Blah blah.

Up with Plato and Aristotle, down with system of power.

Yes, they (Newton and others) simplified things and made many assumptions, but this allowed them to build theories that worked for many practical purposes, and if they hadn't, the following generations, including Einstein, wouldn't have anything to build on. And if a better, more accurate theory replaces Einstein's, it will be built on his works and those of others, not replace it from scratch. It will improve, reduce the margin of error, continue the journey.

That's right, we are dwarf on the shoulders of giants. But it seems that for you Plato is an elitist snob, Aristotle an obscurantist, only modern made things of value, especially the much reverd Iilluminists. I just want to make the point that Plato en-planted in everybody's head that reality is a little more unreachable than what one may think or dream. Newton's is a law, not a theory. A theory is a little more complex than a formula however pregnant of implications. It's a conservation law. Imagine something that is conserved over a large enough amount of space and time. Since ever, for ever, everywhere, even before the beginning and after the end. It is childish to expect that sort of ethernal and universal conservation for anything. Just try to imagine something that is conserved through the big bang. Childish. Conservation laws are very useful, but let's not take them for absolute truth.

We have a saying in French, "Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien", "Better is the enemy of good enough". If you keep trying to reach perfection on your first try, you just won't get anywhere. Any journey begins with a first step. This is true of many human activities, including the pursuit of knowledge.

Of course. and Plato, and Aristotle, in spite of your slightly jacobin attitude, that does not belong to your generous nature by the way, made some important steps right at the beginning. 1800 years before the great Descartes, Apollonius of Perga developed in most of its sophistication analytical geometry. Mostly through abstract thinking. Luckily for me, the guy who taught us geometry in the first year, loved Apollonius and gave us glimpses of his genius. And of Pappus of Alexandria, practically the father of a very useful and difficult branch of mathematics that goes under the name of projective geometry.

Urray for Plato!