Question

compare and contrast the idea of aristotle and galileo.

Answer 1

Answer:

Hii friend Good morning ❤️❤️❤️❤️

Here is your answer ✌️✌️✌️✌️

Explanation:

According to Aristotle,

the motion of physical bodies is of two types: natural motion and violent motion.

Initial impetus is supplied to an object, making it move a new region.

Galileo -

A projectile moves in constant horizontal motion simultaneously with a constant vertical acceleration.

Aristotle thought a body in motion had to have a force on it. 

Galileo performed experiments and realized that a force causes a change in motion, not motion itself.

He found that a ball rolling along a horizontal frictionless surface ( no air resistance) will continue to roll forever.

Mark me as Brainliest ❤️❤️❤️

Follow me ✌️✌️✌️✌️

Answer 2

• They are pretty much opposite. Aristotle valued deductive reasoning above all things (that is, using pure reason with little appeal to empirical testing in order to come to a conclusion about a specific topic). And he is indeed splendidly good at that; he will usually tell us what his predecessors had to say about a certain subject and then look for inconsistencies in their theories, presenting us with a more consistent version of the best theory there was or starting a new one from scratch, if none of them were satisfactory. From that, he would create a series of other theories that were consistent with his previous ones, aiming to explain the whole multitude of phenomena in a unified way. His thought is like a building whose ontological foundation is metaphysics and whose metodological foundation is logic and deduction. There is little room for empiria, at least when his is compared with the methodology of modern science. Some people say that’s the reason why so little scientific progress has been made during the Middle Ages (although that might be a prejudice): Aristotle’s work was canonical and his words were often taken as necessarily true. Much of the work done by Medieval philosophers was focused on the paradoxes that were left by Aristotle’s philosophy, such as those regarding the Problem of the Universals, and few people were daring enough to depart entirely from his philosophical method. He was actually called “the Philosopher” in Medieval texts, and this goes on to show how much his thought was valued and central to everything that was done back then.

• Galileo, on the other hand, is thinking within a very different framework. During the Renaissance many of Aristotle’s dogmas had lost their appeal and philosophers were starting to experiment with different approaches to explaining reality. Many late Medieval philosophers paved the way for that to be possible, but I believe William of Ockham was particularly important in doing so. Galileo’s method is mainly inductive, although he did make use of deductive reasoning too. His theories were based on experimentation and if a certain thesis did not hold up to what was empirically observed, it had to go. This is much more similar to the method of modern science and this is the reason why Galileo is considered one of the key figures of the so called Scientific Revolution.

• Since their methodology and, consequently, their theories are so different, the similarities must rest on their topics of interest, then: as Rahi stated below, motion on Earth, motion in the skies (celestial bodies), the relationship between these two types of motion, the nature of matter etc.