Creation of the scientific outlook (2)

Creation of the scientific outlook (2) Note: This book series (Towards a Descriptive Approach to Science: A Critique of Contemporary Philosophy of Science) for more see the book. (b) The theory of the four elements played a central role in Aristotle's physics, namely, earth, water, air and fire. Aristotle did not regard the elements as free-standing first bodies, but as mere manifestations of something else of a single substance, the first substance, transmitted from one form to another according to the manner in which it is affected; These appearances are found by force within the first matter, and then come into action by the influence of four basic qualities: cold, hot, and wet; these qualities are not encountered in a parting, but are coupled with two, except for the coupling of cold, hot, or wet, because they are incontestable opposites. When the first substance is exposed to Lebos and cold it turns into dust, when it is exposed to cold and moisture it becomes water, when heat and humidity meet the first substance becomes air, and when that substance is exposed to heat and Lebos becomes fire. Next to the four elements is the element of ether, which is incorruptible, i.e. immortal, and from which the heavenly bodies are formed. It follows that the heavenly world consists of matter contrary to that of the terrestrial world or the world under the moon, and this makes the movements of each of them contrary to the movements of the other. The natural motions of each are determined by its constituent matter, for while the motions of the heavenly world are circular (the perfect form of the Greeks and others), regular and immortal, the motion of the under-moon remains upward and downward, downward and upward, because the earthly world has natural places, each element longing for its place, according to its weight. Just as the sky is absolute with nothing behind it, Aristotle believed that the entire universe exists within the sphere of matter-filled stars with no voids or holes. As an example of the organic interdependence between Aristotelian physics and astronomy, we point out that Aristotle's view of motion is based on the belief that in the absence of thrusts from the sky, the earth elements remain in their natural places unless they are taken out by some violent movement. The universe is its natural place, and the earth is where its natural place is, so nothing invites it to move, because what all the bodies in a sub-moon world yearn for is realized in relation to the Earth. The idea of fullness plays an important role in Aristotelian physics, as it has to rely on proving the inertia of the body, and that the objects naturally tend to live in the natural place of origin of the objects. Physical bodies as a result of their inertia are unable to emerge spontaneously, because every movement requires an engine, and since the inertia is true of the stillness, the movement will not continue unless there is an engine of its own action and in the absence of this action there is no possibility of continuous movement, but Aristotle Note that the centrality of the earth to the universe requires that the universe be infinite, there is no center or medium except in a finite area, but infinite has no center.[2] Note also that next to the Aristotelian dualism between the world of heaven and the world of earth physically there is an emotional duality, the sky is perfect and eternal, and all terrestrial physics causes him to learn from the movements of the heavenly spheres.[3] These perceptions were not specific to a certain elite class, but to a general loss, " He sees in the movement of earthly things a kind of transitory disease that keeps them away from their physiological state, which is stillness. It is believed that the earth and the sky meet each other, in terms of the rules of their arrangement, and that the corruptible and the eternal meet each other completely. He considers the motions of the celestial spheres to be the key to all other motions".[4] Therefore, it was very difficult to imagine mechanics applicable to the sky, for example, or cosmic law. This Aristotelian system has led to anomalies that the church has not been able to explain, and has tried over the centuries to offer different interpretations in different ways, but the irregularities and anomalies are obvious to the naked eye, such as the planets changing course before their eyes, such as the planet Mars, which sometimes stops or retreats backwards, and the only convincing explanation of a system known to have celestial bodies in which the orbits are not changed is the explanation given in the 2nd century AD. These efforts by Ptolemy to provide mathematical models of observed planetary motions led him to propose hypothetical entities, and to make assumptions based on simplicity (elegance), which seemed incompatible with Aristotelian physics. This may have simply led to the rejection of Ptolemaic ideas, but there was no other useful astronomical system. At the same time, the recognition that the true order of the sky must be as described by Aristotle's cosmology continues." Centuries later, the higher circles of European society sensed the need to reform the current Gregorian calendar due to its increasing errors with time (most notably the inability to accurately estimate the date of Easter), so the Pope himself asked Copernicus (1473-1543) to undertake the reform himself within the framework of Ptolemy's theories and the applicable astronomical observations, but he rejected the whole matter, because he felt it necessary to do so. Reform of astronomy. But not the reform intended for scientific reasons, or say that "scientific reasons are limited to some technical considerations related to the lack of control and accuracy in the calculation of astronomical positions: it is a lack of control that results in the lack of conformity of sensory observations with the results of astronomical calculation. Apart from this technical mathematical urgency, we find no other scientific urgency, for no new scientific event has appeared to lie the Ptolemaic system, and force astronomers to reconstruct their theories, but the same observed facts, and the same observational techniques since the time of Ptolemaic are the same as those adopted by Copernicus. Copernicus has his new system in the book (Cycle of the Heavenly Arks) quoted on how Ptolemy wrote the book (Almagest) even at the level of the order of doors and chapters. But he differed in making the sun the center of the universe and moving the earth, and even in this treatment was influenced by ancient teleological conceptions, "he studied such issues as: Which is more generous to the body, to move or to be still? "It seems that Copernicus's introduction of the idea of a rotating earth was not a primary purpose, but merely an incidental means of contributing to the facilitation of accurate prediction of the positions of the cup, that is, of reforming the techniques used to calculate those positions." By reforming Copernicus, he meant neither a scientific nor a cognitive revolution in any sense, nor was his work intended to break with ancient and intermediate thought, for he was "more a thinker and philosopher in the manner of the ancient Greeks than a modern scholar",[10] which, as Georges Cangelam puts it, "has transcended the cosmology of Ptolemaicism, but has done so with an obsession of greater fulfillment." For its soul, that is, in order to better save, that is, in a simpler way, visual phenomena...in the sense that, in order to be more blundering than Ptolemy, it made possible the Copernican revolution."[11] Then the existence of an appropriate climate gradually led to physical innovations by Galileo, Kepler and then Newton. However, this does not diminish the value of the scientific Copernican model. He explained some of the phenomena that served as a mystery to the ancients, the most important of which is that Mercury and Venus can only be seen from Earth at dawn and dusk, unlike the other known planets. The length of time it took for each planet to complete its orbit around the Sun, and these periods formed a continuum from Mercury, where its year was the shortest, to Saturn, where it was the longest.[12] The greatest value or influence of the new heliocentric perception was largely hidden, or gradually exploded by auxiliary factors, a gradual change in the Aristotelian religious world (which recognizes the centrality of the Earth) to become a rational independent world. Whether Copernicus saw a physical realism of the rotation of the Earth and the centrality of the Sun, or whether it was merely a theoretical imposition to facilitate calculations, "not only did he set the Earth in motion against all the teachings of Aristotelian physics, the Bible, and common sense, but also based his position on what most of his contemporaries consider to be illegitimate foundations. It should be noted that the Copernican book De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium was not targeted by the sky after the release of the Bible, apparently because the church did not view the idea as a material fact, but as a simpler calculation method. "It is a fact that most of those who were familiar with Copernicus believed that the author had intended only to represent the Ark of the Covenant".[15] The Catholic Church soon recognized the seriousness of his findings and denied him in 1616 (and did not remove him from the forbidden list until 1835), decades after the book was published (1543). The Italian philosopher Giordano Bruno's enthusiasm for the idea of the centrality of the sun played an important role in the Church's position on the book, as Bruno was accused of heresy from the Catholic Church for his religious views completely opposed to the Church, and thus strongly condemned the astronomical theory. Kepler (1571 - 1630): One of the most important ideas presented by Kepler - the big astral object - on our subject is the idea that the universe is a machine, he used the results of Copernican observations, his view that the planets move in orbit at a slower speed as they move away from the sun, and he argued that they continue to move in their orbits by a force reaching them from the sun and pushing them forward, and he emphasized that this force or energy becomes less the farther away from the sun and has the more distant planets. Kepler sent copies of his book to many thinkers of his time, led by Galileo. With the help of his subsequent major new ideas, it is no wonder that Kepler-like mentality is surprised by the mystery of Mars’ orbit, and he first tried to experiment with an equivalent (but still circular) orbit so that Mars is closer to the Sun in one half of the circle than in the other. Kepler in 1602 came to what is now Kepler's second law, that there is a hypothetical line between the Sun and a planet orbiting it, and that the Sun is traversing equal areas at equal times, a specific way that shows that the planet has the fastest motion the closer it is to the Sun, since the shorter radius must extend across a larger angle to the same region as the longer radius of each orbit. Kepler thus overruled the legality of the need to say that orbits, their opposite points, and other ancient complexities were included in earlier models of the universe[19]. Because orbits were originally supposed not to drop the Aristotelian view of the orbital circuit. Galileo (1564-1642) was the first to create an astronomical telescope around the Moon.[20] With this instrument (especially after being developed to a twenty-times magnification force), the four brightest and largest moons of Jupiter were discovered in the early 1610s. This discovery is proof of the accuracy of the Copernican model (which Galileo strongly championed, though his interest in it at first was in terms of naked motion and geomechanics, not celestial mechanics). Galileo explained that the Moon could remain in orbit around the Earth even as the Earth moved. He also discovered that the Milky Way is made up of a huge number of individual stars, and that the surface of the Moon is not a perfectly flat sphere (as the Aristotelians believe) but is abandoned by craters, and on its surface are not entirely kilometer-long mountain ranges.[21] This denial of the full sphericality of the Moon is also completely opposed to the then prevailing view of celestial matter. None of this convinced the Aristotelians, who refused to accept what their eyes saw through the telescope, and some of them originally refused to accept Galileo's invitation to look at him, "Galileo himself tested this possibility by observing hundreds of objects through the telescope and then closing it to me to see if the machine was doing anything other than zooming, and concluded with the definite conclusion that what he saw through the machine was real."[23] However, "Galileo's opponents who distrusted his discoveries. He knows it," and "It is significant that Galileo's moon-surface map, based on what he saw with the telescope, includes some craters that are not actually there. These craters may be distortions caused by how Galileo's telescopes worked, which were far from perfect."[24] Despite the support for the Copernican model, Galileo took great care not to endorse the Copernican model, fearing Bruno's fate, and left the telescope itself to speak to the learned priests who officially came to test Galileo's machine, not his observations, and already admitted that the Milky Way has a huge number of stars, that the moon is not flat, that Jupiter has four moons, and so on. In a conversation between professors at the University of Pisa about condensation, one of Galileo's colleagues argued that snow should be seen as a form of condensation of water, since it is solid and water is liquid, but Galileo, on the other hand, said that since snow floats on the surface of the earth, it is a matter of interest. Water, it must be lighter than water, and therefore less dense. His colleague said: Not so, the snow floats because it has a wide and flat base that prevents pushing it down into the water. Galileo rejected the argument and denied it by explaining that if the snow were to tighten it down under water and then leave it, its wide and flat shape would not prevent it from rushing upward into the water. It was then debated whether solid objects made of a single substance (and thus of a single density) could be made to sink or ascend in water if we only changed their shapes, and the outcome of the dialogue was that Galileo challenged his main opponent to show them by experiment whether objects of similar composition but different shapes were, from the very beginning, completely submerged in water. Its height on the surface or sinking depends on the nature of its shape. The experiment took place during the day in front of everyone and Galileo proved the failure of his rival.[25] Empirical application and reliance on testing in this way were not so common to schoolchildren, as was the integration of the mathematical picture of the world with natural philosophy, and "the nature of this amalgamation of science and mathematics has encouraged interest in certain scientific standards of knowledge."[26] Galileo says, "The book of the universe will not be understood unless one first learns how to understand language and understands the alphabet written in it. It is written in the language of mathematics, and its characters are triangles, circles, and other geometrical forms, and without them it would be humanly impossible to understand a single word of it, and without it one would wander through a dark labyrinth. Perhaps his greatest contribution to science, as Gary Hatfield has suggested, is his representation of the usefulness and success of the mathematical approach to nature.[28] "It seems fairly clear that mathematical practitioners played an important role in the foundation of the scientific method," although "the exact nature of the role of mathematical science in the formation of the experimental method has not yet been proven in historical research."[29] No doubt a man of Galileo's fame influenced the presence of this mode of inference, especially by his followers who continued his work in mathematical physics, such as Bonaventura Cavalieri (1598-1647), and Evangelista Torricelli (1608-). In his letter to Christina, written specifically in 1614 and clearly documented, Galileo put the text of the Bible squarely before science: "I believe that the sun is at the center of the heavenly bodies that are in its orbit and do not change their place. I also believe that the planet Earth is orbiting itself and moving around the sun," he said, commenting on Christina's concern that this conflicted with the Bible text: "When a disagreement arises about natural phenomena, then we should start not with the reference of the written text, but with the reference of sensory experience and the necessary proofs to prove it."[30] Of course, it was his famous trial. One of the most influential scenes in the false picture of the incompatibility of science and religion. But it is proven that it was the beginning of "a clash between the spirit of induction and the spirit of measurement. By analogy with the way of access to knowledge, believers are obliged to find their introductions somewhere, and they usually find them in the scriptures ... Since analogy in terms of the means of obtaining knowledge is crumbling if doubt is cast on its introductions, it is therefore inevitable that believers should be outraged by analogy on those who doubt the validity of the scriptures. Newton (1642-1727): Newton, who is considered by many to be the greatest scientist of all time, naturally benefited from the contributions of previous names and others, and was very much involved in various scientific disciplines, but what matters is that the assumption of the first law of motion "has eliminated the need to assume that there must be a momentum or attraction for the planets to move in their tracks."[32] Newton applied the explanation of the Moon's rotation around the Earth to the planets' rotation around the Sun. It is not necessary to have a tangent force, since the Moon's constant motion can be explained without any force, and the only thing that is required for the force to be interpreted is to change the direction of the straight line. Newton realized this with his genius and was able to dispense with the force of a contact, and he was looking for a radial force. He found his reason in the "Law of Gravity", which was an unclear idea before him and was invented by previous scientists. There was a 12% difference between the calculated and actual motions, but he then returned to study the problem using a new estimate of the moon's distance, and his calculations were consistent with the observed facts.[33] He similarly interpreted the motions of the planets around the Sun with the same law, and succeeded in explaining many phenomena, including the planets' perturbation in their orbital motion with force other than force causing their regular rotation, and also the phenomena of tide and caution. Newton was known to be deeply religious, and saw the divine dimension in the movement of the planets and their regular rotation around the sun. He believed that God created the world like a machine to work in this way, and he realized that any change in those paths in terms of distance or speed (which affects the Earth's path) means the absence of life on Earth. Newton referred in her writings to the teleological aspect of the study of nature, and it was customary to mention this at all. This teleology was rejected by Laplace (1719-1827), who showed that these deviations are not cumulative, as Newton assumed, but that they correct themselves after a long enough period of time and cancel each other. This example has become the biggest icon to reject any teleological explanation of natural processes, and if the reaction to Neutenianism – quite contrary to Newton’s intent – is to deny teleology as a scientific explanation except the process of divine creation itself; the reaction to Darwinism was to teleology. This mechanical conception of nature in the 17th century has gradually become a general conception of the larger sector of people, because Newton's book "The Fundamental Principles of the Mathematics of Natural Philosophy" (the "peak of modeling the image of the world mathematically" [35]) has gained unrivalled fame, and his friend John Locke has written about it: "Mr. Newton, whom no one can condemn, explained how mathematics, when applied to certain aspects of nature, and perhaps to the principles that are justified by the facts of things." The philosophy of science is the same for all.[37] The material of which the world is composed contains no other features than that of the apparent mind-intuition, i.e., extension, so that it must be conceived in such a way that it is understood and acknowledged by the natural mind, which is guided by mathematical principles. Matter is a geometric extension that fills and occupies us, so that there is no space or space left in it. The "heart" in 1628, calling for the authority of experience and comparison of the animal body with man, greatly influenced Descartes in this respect until Darwin. [1] Salem Fatou, op. cit., p. [2] Ibid., p. Hence, astrology was only revered and ratified during long periods of humanity, and continued to be so until the 17th century. [4] Georges Cangelam, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, Arab Organization for Translation, translated by Muhammad ibn Sassi, pp. 75-76 [5] James Burke, When the World Changed, The World of Knowledge, translated by Leila Jebali, p139 [6] John Henry (2008), P. 15 [7] Salem Fatou, op. cit., p. [8] Philip Frank, Philosophy of Science: The Connection between Science and Philosophy, Arab Foundation for Studies and Publishing, translated by Ali Nassef, p136 [9] Salem Fatou, op. cit., p. [10] John Gribbin, History of Science C1, World of Knowledge, translated by Shawqi Jalal, p. [11] George Kangelam, op. cit., p. [12] John Gribbin, op. cit., p. [13] John Dewey, Reconstruction in Philosophy, National Center for Translation, translated by Ahmed Al-Ansari, p83 [14] John Henry (2008), P. 17 [15] John Henry (2008), P. 18 [16] James Burke, op. cit., p. [17] Adam Frank, The Constant Fire: Beyond the Science vs. Religion Debate, University of California Press, 2009 [18] John Gribbin, op. cit., p. [19] Ibid, p. 93 [20] History states that within 24 hours Galileo created a telescope better than any known in his time, and if the Dutch telescope he saw before this day used two convex lenses, so that you see the picture upside down, Galileo used a concave and a convex lens, so that you see the picture in its normal mode. See: History of science, op. cit., p. 123 [21] Ibid, p. 124 [22] John Henry (2008), P. 25 [23] Bizarre, op. cit., p. [24] Alan Chalmers, Theories of Science, Toubkal House, translated by Hussein Sartan and Fouad Safa, p. [25] Strange, op. cit., p. 129 [26] Peter Dear (2001), P. 77 [27] Ibid, p. 134 [28] John Henry (2008), P. 25 [29] Ibid., p. [30] Weird, op. cit., p. [31] Bertrand Russell, op. cit., p. [32] Walter Stace, Religion and the Modern Mind, Madbouli Library, Translation, Commentary and Presentation: Imam Abdel Fattah Imam. p84 [33] Ibid., pp. 86-87. [34] John Henry (2008), P. 28 [35] Weird, op. cit., p. 239 [36] Salem Fatou, op. cit., p. [37] Ibid., p. - Reza Zeidan. — Source: Brahin Center website - Published 2019-07-08 (archived at the Internet Archive) https://braheen.com/articles/science-scientism/نشأة-النظرة-العلمية-2