Changes

::::The "absurd conclusion" was the way Aristotle proved that there was no void.  It's his application of logic, not mine.  He shows that (because of the fact that we are discussing -- to wit -- mass has an innate character to fall (at a speed in proportion to itself) ) that the removal of all resistance due to medium results in an infinite rate of fall.  He compares this with division by zero.  Because infinite speed is impossible, he feels he as proven that there must always be a medium to resist falling bodies.  He is arguing reductio ad absurdum.  It is not me making an editorial comment!  [[User:MelH|MelH]] 00:44, 19 October 2014 (EDT)

::::The "absurd conclusion" was the way Aristotle proved that there was no void.  It's his application of logic, not mine.  He shows that (because of the fact that we are discussing -- to wit -- mass has an innate character to fall (at a speed in proportion to itself) ) that the removal of all resistance due to medium results in an infinite rate of fall.  He compares this with division by zero.  Because infinite speed is impossible, he feels he as proven that there must always be a medium to resist falling bodies.  He is arguing reductio ad absurdum.  It is not me making an editorial comment!  [[User:MelH|MelH]] 00:44, 19 October 2014 (EDT)

:::::Yes, you inserted this discussion of the void where it wasn't relevant to begin with.  It's conclusions aren't relevant to the discussion.  Yet you allowed them to sweep away the real subject (the interpretation of the earlier portion of the quotation before it gets applied to the case of the void) into discredit along with them.  And here you are discussing them again as if its the reasoning itself rather than the ambiguity you introduced through the reasoning that's objectionable. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 01:07, 19 October 2014 (EDT)

:::::Yes, you inserted this discussion of the void where it wasn't relevant to begin with.  It's conclusions aren't relevant to the discussion.  Yet you allowed them to sweep away the real subject (the interpretation of the earlier portion of the quotation before it gets applied to the case of the void) into discredit along with them.  And here you are discussing them again as if its the reasoning itself rather than the ambiguity you introduced through the reasoning that's objectionable. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 01:07, 19 October 2014 (EDT)

:::And Aristotle's conception of gravity isn't the same as ours, yet we are to conclude he shared our conception of differentiating mass from weight?!  And using this alleged conception of mass in various propositions is to you not only central, but its centralness is clear to you?!  And clear to you to a nuanced degree?! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 23:57, 18 October 2014 (EDT)

:::And Aristotle's conception of gravity isn't the same as ours, yet we are to conclude he shared our conception of differentiating mass from weight?!  And using this alleged conception of mass in various propositions is to you not only central, but its centralness is clear to you?!  And clear to you to a nuanced degree?! [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 23:57, 18 October 2014 (EDT)

:Perhaps I came across as disrespecting one of the greatest thinkers of antiquity, for which I apologize.  The intention of that whole section was to give examples of "accepted wisdom" being overthrown later by observation and experiment, and the gravity business, with the Leaning Tower of Pisa, is a well known example.  Perhaps a more nuanced treatment of Aristotle's role in this is called for.

:Perhaps I came across as disrespecting one of the greatest thinkers of antiquity, for which I apologize.  The intention of that whole section was to give examples of "accepted wisdom" being overthrown later by observation and experiment, and the gravity business, with the Leaning Tower of Pisa, is a well known example.  Perhaps a more nuanced treatment of Aristotle's role in this is called for.