Aristotle’s Ideas on the Nature of Science

Joseph D. Sanns

Phil 201: History of Philosophy

Dr. Michael Arts

22 February 2025

To modern minds, Aristotle’s vision of science feels almost alien - rooted not in experimentation and falsifiability but in a search to grasp the very essence of phenomenon. Aristotle articulated his conception of science as grounded in demonstration, causation and essential definitions. For Aristotle, scientific inquiry is to not only describe phenomena but also to uncover their very nature, not asking just about “what happens” but also asking ‘“why does it happen in precisely this way?” This knowledge can in this way be revealed to man through exploring the causes and fundamental principles of a phenomena. Aristotle’s approach to scientific knowledge is thus structured around the necessity of first principles, syllogistic reasoning and what he calls the four causes.

To start, Aristotle believed that scientific knowledge was characterized by certainty and necessity. For him, it was not enough that something was the case; he had to also know why it was the case. This addendum, knowing why, distinguished true scientific knowledge from mere opinion or accidental knowledge. For Aristotle, true knowledge flows from universals to particulars. It is an ascent from what is “better known in itself” (broad and timeless principles) to what is “better known to us” (our immediate, personal experiences). For him, scientific knowledge’s aim was to go from understanding particular instances to general principles, whereas scientific demonstration’s aim was to go from understanding general principles to particular instances.

Aristotle expanded on these ideas by introducing four causes as explanatory principles. These causes provide the framework for understanding why things exist or occur.

 The first cause is the material cause, which is the substance out of which something is made, e.g., the marble of a statue, the wood of a table, etc. The second cause is the formal cause, which is the essence or pattern that defines a thing, e.g., the design of a house, the shape of a chair, etc. The third cause is the efficient cause, which is the force or movement that brings something about, e.g., the sculptor of a statue, the builder of a house, etc. And lastly, the fourth cause is the final cause, which is the purpose or end for which something exists, e.g., a house is meant for people to live in, a chair to sit in, etc.

 For Aristotle a complete scientific explanation accounts for all four causes and any explanation which fails to do so is not a scientific or reliable explanation. Take for example the house example above - explaining why a house stands requires understanding what it is made of or its materials, its design or form, its construction process and who built it, as well as its intended function to have a family live in it. Aristotle points out that people oftentimes rely solely on material and efficient causes when explaining things and thus fail to grasp the full reality of a phenomenon. What this means for us today is that we might be missing a richer, complete and whole understanding of reality by only reducing to mere mechanics (focusing on only material and efficient causes). By adding an understanding of the formal and final causes of phenomenon, we find meaning.

Aristotelean explanations also focus on the “middle term” which function as the cause explanation. For example, to explain why the moon is eclipsed, one must identify the middle term-that the Earth is blocking the Sun-which links the subject (the moon ) to the predicate (that it is being eclipsed). The middle term grounds and brings into focus the entirety of an explanation.

 Perhaps the most fascinating part of Aristotle's vision of science is his insistence on essential definitions. This idea is captivating, it suggests that true knowledge isn’t only about observing r. Language becomes the foremost function necessary for understanding any truth - it is the ability reason at all. It allows for the derivation of a conclusion and comes from one's ability to participate in language. It requires everyone to obey the same rules . It makes the work of understanding truth not just one person's but the work of everyone. Without language no science could be done and no understanding could be had.

For Aristotle a science must identify the essence of the subject being studied. He distinguished between primary substances (individual things) and secondary substances (species and genera or genus). These substances are primarily how language is employed in his science. Aristotelian science deals mostly with secondary substances because they better capture the essence of things than do particular or primary substances.

 He argued that to define something scientifically is to state what it is in terms of its essential properties, meaning the properties bound in its essence. This is where language and definition get most interesting as they are no longer mere communicative, linguistic conventions but rather revelatory tools for understanding the necessary attributes of a thing. In contrast to today’s view of science which emphasizes empirical verification and prediction, Aristotle’s emphasis, in a rather beautiful way, is on explaining the intrinsic nature of things.

 So, Aristotle’s view of the nature of science follows a specific syllogistic structure bound by causal stipulations. This view is fundamentally different from contemporary views which use the scientific method, but still remains influential on discussions of causation and knowledge. What is most importantly identifiable in Aristotle’s view is his insistence on demonstration, the four causes and essential definitions. These parts of his view establish a framework where scientific knowledge is understood as the discovery of necessary truths rather than mere generalizations. Even in an age dominated by empirical science, Aristotle’s vision still haunts the foundations of our inquiry. His insistence on demonstration, the four causes, and essential definitions remind that science is not just about knowing facts—it is about understanding why reality is the way it is.