I show that Aristotelian physics is a correct and non-intuitive approximation of Newtonian physics in the suitable domain (motion in fluids), in the same technical sense in which Newton theory is an approximation of Einstein's theory. Aristotelian physics lasted long not because it became dogma, but because it is a very good empirically grounded theory. The observation suggests some general considerations on inter-theoretical relations.
arXiv comments
11 pages
Journal reference
Journal of the American Philosophical Association, 1 (2015) 23-40
Linked by 8 identifiable commenters in 13 comments across 12 threads, from Jul 2016 to Jun 2025. Found in 3 HN submissions from Jul 2016 to Aug 2026. Open submission discussions.
It’s actually a very reasonable approximation within a certain regime: https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.4057 There’s a reason people without training in sciences sometimes have the intuition that heavier things fall faster. This intuition isn’t developed in a vacuum (hah).
You may be interested in: "Aristotle's Physics: a Physicist's Look" My take is that it was hard to find a better theory, the usual explanation of scholastical dogmatism is to shallow. https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.4057
Aristotle said that denser things fall faster than less dense things and even gave a correct expression for their speed given the limits of his mathematics and notation. https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.4057
Aristotle was the smartest guy around. Yes he got almost everything wrong but it took many centuries to find better theories. Carlo Rovelli: "Aristotle's Physics: a Physicist's Look" https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.4057
> Classical mechanics is not something sacred. It is our first serious model of physics. Just a sidenote: it is at most our second serious model. Aristotle's Physics has a bad rap, but it's "a correct and non-intuitive approximation of Newtonian physics in the suitable domain…
I feel I must defend Aristotle. At least we would need a lot more information before we can conclude that Philoponos really knew what he was talking about. Of course he was right but for this to be effective there needs to be a theory and better experiments and that is what…
You might want to read Carlo Rovelli's paper https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.4057. TL;DR Aristotle's physics lasted a long time because it works in the environment in which people used it.
I'd suggest that in addition you should read at least some parts of modern translations of early scientific works starting with Aristotle. I don't mean read everything of course but try to get a sense of perspective, not everything was invented in the last hundred years. Also…
I have a lot of respect for PG, but boy, is he off track on that. Aristotle was highly specific and highly empirical. His ethics, for instance, is an elaborate study of the various ways individual go right or wrong in their decisions. His politics was based on extensive studies…
Aristotle's biology and political science were quite empirical, and are the foundations of the more modern versions. His cosmology was off track because he didn't have the instruments, like the telescope, needed to collect the needed data. His physics was sound for the…
It’s actually a very reasonable approximation within a certain regime: https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.4057 There’s a reason people without training in sciences sometimes have the intuition that heavier things fall faster. This intuition isn’t developed in a vacuum (hah).
OsmiumView on HNParent context