1. I feel Aristotle believed biology should be studied because its components, from the simplest organisms to the most complex are easily accessible to us (unlike celestial objects), they are the essence of the "substance" that is most like us, and they each accomplish various life functions in different ways. Celestial objects are too far away and Aristotle believed we could never truly understand them. I feel biology should be studied because as a pure science we are just trying to figure out what things are made of and how they work, and in turn we can apply what we have learned to understand how living things function, from the level of the biosphere all the way down to cells and even molecules and atoms. We learn about ourselves by studying all aspects of biology.
2. I agree with Aristotle's idea of aiming for causal knowledge because biology is based on the concept of structure and function; what it is, how it works, and in turn how all living things interact with their internal and external environments. Biologists should always strive for the how and the why, and how the parts work together as a whole.
3. Aristotle believed even the simplest organisms deserved to be studied because they all have something interesting, exciting, or unique to offer. He refers to the different means by which they all accomplish various life functions and behaviors. He says if one is not inclined to study any aspect of nature they are in turn reluctant to study man himself. Aristotle also discusses how the components of an organism are not the point, but the whole being, and how it lives, that is the goal and point of the study.
4.The cause of organisms can be determined through dissection because comprehensive comparative anatomy can reveal systematic and evolutionary relationships unseen otherwise. Conversely, dissection is limited in terms of study of live behaviors, biochemical, and molecular studies.
The most interesting part of this reading is that Aristotle was laying the foundation for modern science and trying to describe and explain natural phenomena. I was surprised he performed dissections, and I didn't know that he considered living things paradigms of the "substance" that constitutes the universe. I learned more about the philosophy of causation, and appreciate more all the years I supervised student dissections of various specimens. I would like to see this document when I visit the collections.
Bibliographic note:
Magruder, History of Science Online, Week4: Plato and Aristotle, http://homepage.mac.com/kvmagruder/hsci/04-Aristotle-Plato/aristotle-animals.html this web page included my first reading for my history of science course.
Further study:
Aristotle, Parts of Animals, Book I.5
Also History of Animals and Generation of Animals
3 comments:
ah dissection..."the whole being is the point" but hey, let's cut that sucker apart and see what's inside, shall we? (sorry, i just couldn't resist) i do like that quote from the article, "Mere acquaintance with unrelated pieces of information did not count as knowledge for Aristotle." interesting.
So then the goal must be to find out what relationships do exist between pieces of information that on the surface intitially seem disconnected. That's the engine that drives scientific inquiry.
I currently teach at a small K-8 school with a high proprtion of Native American and/or low socio-economic students. I also taught in a multi-cultural border environment in Texas, and can relate very much to your statement. Also, to me it only makes sense to consider biology the center of the scientific universe, because without living things in some form, who would study any branch of science?
Post a Comment