/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9684429
Probably not much because Aristotle was a sophist brainlet. Archimedes, on the other hand, would love hearing about calculus, seeing as he was really close to properly developing it.

>>9684429
He was a brainlet that thought men had more teeth than women.

>>9684434
>>9684448
>brainlet
>not the man who is responsible for the way you think now

>>9684429
No
>how much of modern science do you think you could teach Aristotle
not very much.

>>9684429
>Trying to convey 2000 years of progress to someone who doesn't even use arabic numerals and has a limited conception of algebra in a way that would actually convince him would be difficult.
You might be onto something here. There are a lot of facts that we take for granted which happened to emerge out of hundreds of years of developing thought. What we know as common knowledge were debated 2000 years ago.
>9684448
>>He was a brainlet that thought men had more teeth than women.
yea he could have just opened up someone's mouth and counted. some other things like his logic was the main form of logic until the 19th century.

>>9685101
Why would it be impossible to him assuming we can teach basics in less than 4 years to students who just take these thoughts for granted. Who's to say he wouldn't accept these arguments as easily as modern day students?

>>9684434
>Developing calculus with these monstrous runes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_numerals
It's no wonder they liked geometry better.

>>9685108
Not impossible, but you'd have a hard time proving the properties of imperceptible organisms or matters like bacteria or atoms without equipment. You'd also probably be stating a lot of things without sufficient or undeniable proof. The connection between the physical events and mathematics is also a nonstarter.

>>9685178
I mean necessary connection between physical events and mathematics. We've pretty much settled for convenient, pretend-truths rather than undeniable facts

You could easily teach it him. Why would it be hard?

>>9684429
I'd teach him everything I know, withing a generation we'd have space rockets being launched to the moon.

All the amenities of modernity, with unlimited man power unhindered by contemporary morality - not that I would not want to end slavery and such eventually that is.

Together with Alexander we'd reach a modern age in just under 100 years.

So, kids today are more able to learn than fucking aristotle? Maybe he will not become an expert in niche mathematical fields, but ffs, calculus is thought at highschool to dumb as rocks kids.

the only problem would either be that you're a shitty teacher or that he would dismiss you out of pride (which shouldn't happen if you could demonstrate convincingly, aka unless you're a shitty teacher)

I dropped out of high school before I even took algebra.

>>9684473
This. A course in syllogisms should be required for everybody, seeing how much stupid shit people on /sci/ say.

>>9685689
as always some philosophy nigger is here trying to not to feel like the worthless pseudointellectual shit that he is

>>9685769
>syllogisms
>philosophy
It's basic reasoning, and looks like you've utterly failed at it.

>>9684434
>Probably not much because Aristotle was a sophist brainlet.
Plato and Aristotle are some of the few non-brainlet philosophers and practically the only two ancient philosophers with ideas that have stood the test of time. Science as a framework is nothing but an updated take on Aristotelianism.

In short, you're the brainlet.

>>9684448
Stop reading Russell.

>>9685398
No. Aristotle was a fucking genius on par with Gauss. Ignore the memesters here, they've never read anything by Aristotle other than some dumb anecdotes about him.