--not to impose, but didn't Aristotle , a SCIENTIST put women on a lower scale of perfection because they had less teeth than men? and wasnt his theory based off of male and female horses? and did he ever count the teeth of women? no. he based it off of his opinion and it became right and untried for a long time... science sucks.
18 comments
Here's the thing: assuming what you say is true, science hasn't believed that for god knows how many years.
Well, it was St Agustine, another scientist, who did the other part. So, idioticy sucks NOT SCIENCE.
Aristotle was the one of the wrongest philosophers of all time. Looking back, he had one of the least accurate understandings of the natural world. We can look back, because humanity is capable of learning, and we use the knowledge we've learned to advance further in our understanding of the world. Look up Anaxagoras, or Heraclitus, or Democritus, or Epicurus. Every one of those men had a better understanding of true natural philosophy. All of them except Epicurus were pre-Socratic. Hell, Epicurus had a theory of relativity.
A lot of things get passed on as truth simply because people haven't checked. Did the OP check the claim s/he is passing on? If so I'd like to see it. My (admittedly short) search for the passage ended up at google books with this quote from page 31 of Aristotle's "History of Animals" (See, that's how science works. We cite things so that the evidence is repeatably available to all to examine, verify and come to their own conclusion.).
"The male has more teeth than the female in mankind, and sheep, and goats, and swine. This has not been observed in other animals."
No horses involved. No direct evidence either way that Aristotle didn't count the teeth of women, but an implication that the claim - as wrong as it is! - is based on observation.
And you know what? Since the scientific method is a self-correcting system, the error was corrected over time, as even the OP admits. Ironically, the thing the OP is bitter about, the "it became right and untried for a long time" part, is NOT science. We can even understand how the not-science lasted so long, given the prevalent philosophies of the times. Not-science can suck, but please don't trash science for it.
Edit for spelling error.
> Aristotle
> He based it off of his opinion and it became right and untried for a long time.
Regarding the sciences, Aristotle was primarily a physicist. This may come as a shock, but there are different kinds of science. I'm a human biologist. I can tell the difference between cardiac arrest and a cardiac tamponade by looking at a patient's neck. I can't tell the difference between a comet and a meteor. That doesn't mean I'm any less intelligent than the next scientist; it just means I'm proficient in a different field of science. Also, I think back then they thought the Earth was flat, and science had to start from somewhere.
--not to impose, but didn't Aristotle , a SCIENTIST put women on a lower scale of perfection because they had less teeth than men? and wasnt his theory based off of male and female horses? and did he ever count the teeth of women?
And didn't Aristotle live and die more than 2300 years ago?
He was a philosopher and he lived over 2000 years ago. NO-ONE knew as much then, as the average 6th grader knows today.
Scientist are wrong all the time, silly, but even being wrong teaches you things, and it helps you perform better next time. Just saying "Goddidit" doesn't advance anything, it's just status quo. If we had all been satisfied with that, we would still place women on a lower scale and base our knowledge of human teeth on horse's teeth. Luckily we don't, so science trumps wilful ignorance any day. Wilful ignorance sucks!
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
