Introduction
Aristotle remains a great philosopher whose works and ideas continue to influence human thought and behaviors today. While he primarily presented numerous epistemological arguments, the philosophers offered additional information in other fields of study, such as science and the arts. The emerging conceptions remain practical and capable of guiding more people to pursue their goals. Aristotle’s conception of a science treats the field as a posteriori relying on a dialectic approach to acquire new information about knowable objects. Practicing scientists can apply the model to identify specific fields or topics, develop their philosophies, and complete investigations that will only present new knowledge about the natural world.
Aristotle Conception of Science
In most of his works, Aristotle envisaged a sort of posteriori intended to guide people to appreciate and apply scientific knowledge. To support his argument, the philosopher revealed that human beings were capable of possessing and using knowledge. With this kind of initial sense perception, it was possible for them to develop an additional understanding of all the invariant, necessary, and even unknown aspects of the natural world. In Physics, Book 1, Aristotle writes: “The natural course is to proceed from what is clearer and more knowable to us, to what is more knowable and clear by nature” (Ackrill 130a1). Through such a process, Aristotle believed that individuals could be in the pursuit of episteme, also known as genuine science (Ackrill 130a5). This foundational information presents the philosopher’s conception of science.
To extend his argument further, Aristotle revealed that a dialectic approach was essential since it works as a deductive reasoning to give additional accounts of existing things. Through the use of the identified method, the thinker indicated that people could be focusing on three unique goals. These would include conversational exchange, training, and pursuit of science from a philosophical perspective. The dialectic method would guide individuals to have a sense of direction, master the nature of the intended inquiry, and be ready to select the most appropriate subject (Ackrill 100a18–20). The strategy follows a scientific approach whereby scholars would be able to discuss all objects, credible observations, and ideas that define the observable world.
In his writings, Aristotle indicated that science was a powerful field that guided people to learn more about themselves and all objects. Specifically, he argued that the presence of knowable objects would support any form of study. Human beings had to observe and have prior knowledge of something if they were to go further to engage in science. Aristotle observes: “We must try to make inquiry in such a way that the ‘what-is-it’ is provided; and so that the problems are solved” (Ackrill 171b5).
This reasoning would explain why he indicated that it was impossible to have a scientific study of nonexistent things. Based on Aristotle’s understanding, it becomes quite clear that any form of focus on imaginations could not be examined or treated as science. This form of conception is acceptable and capable of guiding more people to pursue their inquiries through the power of a posteriori.
Aristotle believed that any practice identifiable or acceptable as science was critical towards the realization and achievement of scientific knowledge. Through the relevant investigations and descriptions, people would find it possible to acquire universal understanding and be able to identify what ought to be true. He indicated that the emerging knowledge had to be applicable in all parts of the world since it revolved around a knowable object, phenomenon, or natural event (Inamura 559). The new truth would have a global significance while remaining applicable anywhere in the world. This kind of knowledge would guide and encourage future scholars to consider the best ways to expand their scientific inquiries.
Importance to a Practicing Scientist
The thoughts by Aristotle are timeless since they present unique details and approaches for pursuing scientific studies. Based on the nature of the presented conception, modern scholars would find the arguments meaningful and applicable in their respective studies. For instance, investigators would be keen to appreciate the fact that any form of analysis would only be identified as a science if it seeks to examine an understandable or observable object (Ackrill 72b21–23).
Professionals planning to practice the field would be keen to develop their own checklists for identifying would fit in a proper scientific study. The major areas to note would include the nature of the targeted subject, event, or phenomenon, the manner in which people understand it, and its relevance to human understanding. With positive answers to the outlined issues, the scholar would be ready to study the identified subject and eventually present additional information or knowledge.
Scientists who want to achieve their aims will rely on Aristotle’s conception to examine whether the intended scientific inquiry is capable of introducing revolutionary ideas that could be applicable in diverse settings or not. Specifically, the emerging scholars would want to examine the nature of these investigations and the kind of knowledge they might present to improve people’s lives (Inamura 562). The attainment of appreciable scientific truths that could be applied in a wide range of settings becomes the driving force behind any form of study. The use of the emerging knowledge is what increases human understanding, problem resolution, and realization of additional goals.
In his works, Aristotle managed to offer unique divisions of science that modern investigators should take seriously. The outlined subject areas have the potential to guide individuals to select the most appropriate field and apply the relevant methods. First, theoretical science is a common field whereby a researcher would be considering the best approaches to acquire knowledge and develop the relevant frameworks. Second, productive science is essential since it guides people to theorize and develop a product that has the potential to transform human experiences (Inamura 564). Third, practical science is a method intended to shed more light on praxis or action. Aristotle’s reasoning that people should rely on reason if they are to lead good lives would be studied as a practical science.
The presented study areas are plausible and capable of guiding more scientists to pursue their investigations from an informed perspective. Each field appears to have its unique specialization, an achievement that could make it easier for modern scholars to identify their niches and select favorable topics that could result in either a new idea or a product. People who take Aristotle’s conception seriously will avoid identifying inappropriate subjects or imaginary objects whose study might not present any meaningful information regarding the nature of the world (Inamura 568). The proposed approach is practical and capable of empowering modern investigators to achieve their maximum potential.
Based on the findings and arguments by Aristotle, it would be relevant that a practicing scientist engages in an inquiry that is capable of shedding additional information. For example, a scholar might choose to examine a phenomenon from diverse viewpoints in an effort to present a new form of understanding. The emerging insights would be identified as scientific knowledge that is capable of guiding more people to address the challenges they face or pursue additional goals in life. In the present world, new technologies, inventions, and equipment have emerged than ever before (Inamura 571). A scientist involved in a specific field would rely on these achievements and focus on improvements that can improve the manner in which people make sense of the natural world.
With these insights, it becomes possible for a practicing scientist to rely on Aristotle’s arguments and conceptions to develop a personal philosophy of science. The emerging framework will guide the beneficiaries to ignore imaginations since any form of study around tem cannot support the development of the field. Instead, they will identify the relevant subject area and apply some of the existing ideas to find additional and unknown truths about common events or objects (Ackrill 100a18–b4). The philosophy would be founded on scientific attributes and ideas that continue to define human life today. This strategy will make any scientist more successful and capable of transforming the world.
Conclusion
Aristotle’s conception of science has remained a fundamental principle for guiding modern scholars to pursue new truths. It begins with a posteriori and guides people to focus on knowable objects to develop additional knowledge. Practicing scholars can consider productive, theoretical, and practical sciences if they are to define their fields, select relevant topics, complete investigations, and present new information about common objects or phenomena. They will develop unique philosophies to guide their practices and eventually make it possible for more individuals to acquire new ideas and understanding of the natural world.
Works Cited
Ackrill, John L., editor. A New Aristotle Reader. Princeton University Press, 1987.
Inamura, Kazutaka. “Aristotle’s Political Theory as a Craft and Science in Politics 4–6.” POLIS, The journal for Ancient Greek and Roman Political Thought, vol. 39, no. 1, 2022, pp. 553-575.