= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Thomas comments on Rationality quotes: May 2010 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (288)
I agree, of course. But don't be too harsh on Immanuel Kant, who had no knowledge of modern chemistry but was able to understand, that Aristotle was essentially wrong in his views about "natural places of light things up on the sky and heavy things down here on Earth".
People understood that Aristotle's understanding of natural place didn't work long before Kant. As early as the 1300s, Oresme laid out problems with this view. The work of Galileo and others made it clear that it didn't make sense. Newton removed any remaining doubts about this. And Newton died about when Kant was born. That Kant knew that Aristotle was wrong is no credit to Kant.
As to the chemistry matter, I'm not completely sure but I think that idea also was around before Kant. Robert Boyle wrote The Skeptical Chemist about 70 years before Kant was born and he touches on the idea of conservation of mass. Hooke also died before Kant was born and did work involving mass loss in chemical reactions. I don't think this can be substantially credited to Kant either.
Kant "quoted a philosopher" in his book. An unnamed philosopher, who answers the described way.
Kant promoted the idea of his predecessors and contemporaries against the still popular views of Aristotle, in his time.
Even today, you can hear a lot of "five elements" and "the fifth element" and so forth. An Aristotelian myth, very much alive even today.
What?
Is this another non-US thing? I never hear talk of the "four elements" except in mocking of how foolish the ancients must have been to think that (for instance) wood contains fire. And it was hardly an Aristotelian original.
I recall being taught them (as in, the teacher said "these are the 4 elements: earth, fire, wind, and water" and had us each make a full page drawing to plaster on the wall; no mention that it was an antiquated Greek model or anything) in kindergarten and/or elementary school in Peru. Aether was also mentioned as the 5th element, but it was handwaved as being too advanced for us or something. Frankly, I don't think they had any idea what the hell they were talking about; somebody just told them that those were the elements and they passed it on.
That is one of the most deeply fascinating and frightening anecdotes I have ever heard on LW.
I had a science teacher in about 5th grade who told us that
She was surprised and skeptical when I told her that cells were made of atoms.
Not quite as extreme, but I had a science teacher (iirc, in junior high (that's 7th through 9th grade) who said very firmly that the sun is not a star, the sun is the sun.
Could you please elaborate on why you regard it as such? I can think of a couple of things to take away from it that would be frightening (that people will repeat "earth, fire, wind, and water" as easily as they will "carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and fluoride", for instance), but I feel like I must be missing something because I wasn't expecting that kind of response.
Part of it is that. But it also that someone could be so divorced from modern science that it wouldn't occur to them that earth varies in nature. Or that they hadn't heard that water is hydrogen and oxygen. Or if they have heard that, they didn't try to reconcile it at all with the claim about water being elemental. The notion that there are people out there who are that uncritical not for any motivated reason (as some religious individuals are) but out of simply humdrum everyday lack of thinking. And that such people would then go on to teach other people?
I guess I shouldn't have found this as disturbing as I did. But I generally have a low opinion of humans, and it seems like no matter how cynical or pessimistic I am, I'm sill surprised by their behavior.
The four elements is still really popular in new-agey circles. I believe my element is "air" and it has something to do with my birthday or astrological sign. The four element thing is really central to Wiccan practice, or it least it was in middle school when I learned this stuff (doing spells and shit was at that time very popular among 14-year-old girls and I was a 14-year-old boy).
I had never heard of quintessence until I studied Aristotle, though.
I'm a somewhat casual Neo-pagan-- I enjoy the rituals.
As far as I can tell, the four elements are viewed as a convenient source of symbolism, but not believed in literally.
I don't know about Wiccans, but Neo-paganism is a community of practice, not belief. Neo-pagans cover the range from atheism to literal belief.
I shouldn't speak for actual Wiccans, my experience was mostly love spells and giggling. I did sit in a circle once and "call" the air element after which people did the same for fire, earth and water. Then someone stole some of my hair to make me fall in love with them and we all smoked cinnamon sticks.
Another example: I don't know if Eric Raymond would self-describe as atheist, but he is a neopagan with, as far as I can tell, a naturalistic worldview.
Edit -- a key quote:
Doreen Valiente talks about the four elements and Spirit as a fifth element in An ABC of Witchcraft (1973); see for example the "Pentagram" entry. (I was into Wicca when I was a 14-year-old boy too!)
In what sense did the Wiccans believe in the four (or five) elements?
Wikipedia is more trustworthy than I am (they same the same about it being more about ritual than belief). I don't remember anything about the 5th element but wikipedia says that is there too. What we did was apparently "casting the circle" and I sat on the east side (or facing the east, I can't remember) and read something about wind and slyphs. I recall thinking that being born with air as my element should imply that I had more control over the air/wind, but that's probably the 14-year-old version.
Sorry, I was automatically not counting the Wiccans as 'serious' which is probably unfair.
Really?
Ah. I didn't realize you were speaking of Aether specifically.
Also, the kids are pretty into Avatar: The Last Airbender.
(Though I realize you were talking about serious belief)
It's a reasonable hypothesis that Kant came up with, but until he's tested it -- or at least thought of a way to test it -- he should have been more tentative about it.
Really? Why is the fact that you've thought of a way to test something a reason to be more confident of it?
I agree that if he had actually tested it that would have been reason for more confidence, but intention to experiment is not Bayesian evidence.
Hmm. What do we mean by weight? Mass * g?