Andrew+Week+2

From Michael Fowler's pages on Greek Science and Philosophy one can notice that science and natural studies during the period were extremely varied. There were numerous views of research, study, and intellectual advancement among the noted figures of the time, many developing and following their own. Each contributing a little to what became the modern idea of science, or at least the textbook version. The Milesians' seemed to accept that there were laws and processes that governed the world that were out of their reach of comprehension and followed a process or proof, review, and debate. This method seems remarkably similar to today's ideas of science and is a good place to look to when trying to find where it all started, if only in the Greek world.

Multiple figures pushed towards a mature form of science. Thales and Anaximander were some of the pioneers of the Milesian scientific stand point. The former producing the idea of the Earth floating on a vast ocean as a source of earthquakes. The latter theorizing that lightning was the caused by the wind and clouds. Both of these men went against the common beliefs that the gods such as Poseidon and Zeus were the source of these forces of nature. This type of break away from theology and the development of secular hypotheses for natural events was an important step toward science as we know it. Mainly because that is what science is, a question and the search for an answer. Most would probably agree that it's impossible to recognize an answer without knowing the question or problem that needs it. Especially when one already believes they have the answer and refuses to look further, as can be the case with theology. To put this in a hypothetical situation, what good would penicillin have been had it not been known that bacteria caused disease? Penicillin is an answer, a solution, to the problem of infection and disease. When Alexander Fleming noticed how the Penicillium fungus was able to combat and kill bacterial cultures he saw it as an answer to fighting illness. Had he and society in general still believed that sickness was caused by bad odors and demons the thought to use this fungus's excretion as a medicine, by simple logical, probably would never have arisen. While this example may be full of holes if one was to fight it out, the basic idea is there. One has to have an idea what he or she is looking for before it can be found. Moving on, Hippocrates and his followers rejected the thought that diseases were punishments from the gods and instead believed there must be some earthly cause. More importantly they upheld the idea of careful observation and experimentation instead of coincidence. This same thought has become central to modern scientific theory. Getting hypothetical again, the common cold is a perfect example of this. Usually in the colder months the number of those with the illness increases. Therefore one could assume by basic logic that cold causes the cold. However we know now it's not that cold weather causes the cold but that the stress that it causes weakens the body making it so one is more likely to catch the disease, a disease that is always present. If we didn't look beyond coincidences such as this and continue to ask questions we might not have had reason to prod deep enough to find the truth.

Aristotle was another mover in the Greek world of science with the way he approached a subject. In a simplification of Fowler's words, Aristotle defined the topic, reviewed earlier works and suggestions, and finally developed his own position and arguments. This is similar to the textbook version of the scientific method. Start with a topic, make a hypothesis, research and experiment, and end by producing a resulting conclusion. For this his fame is justly deserved but his lax use of his own method in certain areas such as physics do have a downing quality. His idea that the speed at which an object falls is directly proportional to it's weight is a perfect example of one of his failings. Fowler stated it perfectly when he wrote “It would not have taken long to find out if half a brick fell at half the speed of a whole brick...” So clearly while Aristotle made leaps in the method of science, he may have needed to embrace some more experimentation in his theories.