Billy 1

Vincent Billy (121010007)

GFN1000 In Dialogue with Nature

12 Mar 2022

Topic 1

Natural philosophers and scientists of the past age had been searching for truth: what

knowledge is. They were constantly trying to explain how nature works and why some

phenomena happen. Correspondence means that the proposition we believe to be true relates to

the reality we sense. Coherence refers to how a belief is consistent with other beliefs, forming a

sound and reasonable system of beliefs. Together, both “correspondence” and “coherence”

constitute the criteria of truth. This journal will elaborate on past usage of these two criteria and

the hurdles encountered.

For a start, the Ancient Greek Philosopher Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) proposed a theory of

cosmology. We do not feel the Earth move nor rotate. Moreover, an object thrown straight

upwards would fall straight down to its original location. As a result, people in Aristotle’s days

surmised a stationary Earth, adhering to the “acquiring knowledge begins with sense experience”

principle (Lindberg Ch.3 Par.10). It is also essential to note that Aristotle defended a spherical

Earth, contrary to “the widespread myth that medieval people believed in a flat earth” (Lindberg

Ch.3 Par.30). Not only did Aristotle consider “this eternal universe to be a great sphere”

(Lindberg Ch.3 Par.25), considered to be the perfect shape for its symmetry about the center

point, but he also suggested that elements have the quality of being heavy or light. Heavier

elements are more likely to fall towards the center of the universe, which Aristotle described as

the natural place of Earth, implying that the universe we live in is a geocentric model (Lindberg
 Billy 2

Ch.3 Par.29). Examples include the observed rise and fall of stars in a uniform circular motion

and circular shadow during a lunar eclipse (Lindberg Ch.3 Par.30). Thus, these three statements

make up the Aristotelian worldview.

Furthermore, Aristotle’s theory of motion claimed two types of motion: natural motion

and violent motion (Lindberg Ch.3 Par.32). Natural motion is best represented by vertical

motion, in which heavier elements, such as earth and water, fall towards the Earth’s center, while

lighter elements, such as air and fire, go up into the sky. Essentially, these different elements

tend to move towards their natural place, determined by their heavy-light qualities. On the

contrary, violent motion best describes horizontal motion in which Aristotle stated that motion

needs a mover, i.e., an external force (Lindberg Ch.3 Par.33). Despite this, an object undergoing

projectile motion in mid-air would still move forward. Desperate to find the mover, Aristotle

boldly answered that air, the medium, is the one pushing the projectile forward (Lindberg Ch.3

Par.34). However false it may be, Aristotle managed to use both correspondence and coherence

to describe and justify his theories of cosmology and motion, which impressively persisted for

more than a millennium.

Fast forward to 17th Century England, Sir Isaac Newton (1643-1727 A.D.), being the co-

inventor of Calculus, naturally used mathematics extensively in his laws and proofs, unlike

Aristotle. Firstly, Newton introduced the renowned Three Laws of Motion in The Principia. The

First Law, Law of Inertia, states that an object will continue being at rest or having uniform

linear motion if there is no external force (Newton Law 1). Instead, external force will result in a

change of motion (Newton Law 2). Secondly, cohering with the Second Law, Newton

discovered gravity and centripetal acceleration, demonstrating why planets, including our Earth,

revolve around the Sun with elliptical orbits (Cohen Par.5). This way, he further improved
 Billy 3

Copernicus’ Heliocentrism and Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Orbit. Lastly, Newton

mathematically proved “the attractive force exerted by the Sun on a planet varies as the inverse-

square of the distance”, which fellow contemporary Robert Hooke (1635-1703 A.D.) failed to do

so (Cohen Par.19). Not only do these concepts have explanatory power, but they also have

profound prediction power, as shown by Edmond Halley (1656-1742 A.D.) when he, using

Newtonian methods, accurately predicted that a comet would return in 1758, long after he died

(Cohen Par.62). Therefore, Newton successfully developed concepts that cohere with each other

and “apply to all matter everywhere: on earth as in the heavens” (Cohen Par.61).

However, Aristotle’s system of beliefs is primarily seen as flawed nowadays despite

being correspondent and coherent at the time. Cohering with violent motion theory, the idea of

no motion without a mover does not correspond to thrown objects still “flying” mid-air even

after leaving our hands, the mover (Lindberg Ch.3 Par.34). Then Aristotle suggested air is the

mover, which does not cohere with air as the resisting force. John Philoponus (490-570 A.D.)

argued how air, the medium, could simultaneously be the mover and resistance (Lindberg Ch.12

Par.52). Additionally, an incomplete sense experience such as us not feeling the Earth move

would also mess up the correspondence portion of truth, resulting in a stationary Earth and the

geocentric model. Hence, combined with the lack of quantitative reasoning, Aristotle’s case has

shown how fulfilling the two criteria can still lead to an incorrect system of beliefs.

In conclusion, Aristotle relied heavily on his sense experience. He applied

correspondence plus coherence to develop his theories of cosmology and motion. In contrast,

Newton combined math as a tool to establish and legitimize his Laws of Motion and Universal

Gravitation. Difficulties of these two criteria include correspondence and coherence conflicting

with each other, a limited sense of experience, and minimal usage of mathematical proofs.
 Billy 4

Works Cited

Aristotle. Physics. Tanslated by Robin Waterfield. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.

Cohen, I. Bernard. The Birth of a New Physics: Revised and Updated. New York: W.W. Norton,

1985. Used in In Dialogue with Nature: Textbook for General Education Foundation

Programme. Revised 2nd ed. Hong Kong: Office of University General Education, 2012.

P.49-62.

Lindberg, David C. The Beginnings of Western Science: The European Scientific Tradition in

Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context, Prehistory to A.D. 1450 (Second

Edition). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007. Used in In Dialogue with Nature:

Textbook for General Education Foundation Programme. Revised 2nd ed. Hong Kong:

Office of University General Education, 2012. P.11-48.

Newton, Isaac. The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. Berkeley:

University of California Press, 2012. Reproduced in In Dialogue with Nature: Textbook

for General Education Foundation Programme. Revised 2nd ed. Hong Kong: Office of

University General Education, 2012. P.63-70.