Interlocutors: Aristotle, Kuhn, Newton, and Iris

Iris. So, we are gathered here tonight because Kuhn would like to prove a point.
Kuhn. That you cant believe in two rival paradigms at the same time because they are
incommensurable, yes.
Iris. You make it sound really fancy.
Kuhn. Well, all Im saying is that two paradigms are competing if they have no common
measure. Or, as Ive already put it, if they are incommensurable.1
Iris. This doesnt seem to be all that youre saying, though. Your paper suggests that the
newly emerged traditions of practice and experimentation as a result of scientific revolutions
are also incommensurable with past practices. So you claim that not only are rival theories
incompatible, but the way that scientists go about deriving sub-theories and performing new
experiments is also incompatible with what used to be the popular way to practice science. 2
Newton. If thats the case, then my theories of gravity, motion, and inertia are certainly
incompatible with Aristotles teleological theories of nature. They are even widely accepted
in this current era.
Aristotle. Perhaps so, but Kuhn did not say that truth also comes with the idea of
incommensurability. Your theories may have found their place in society, but whether they
are correct is an entirely different matter.
Iris. Isnt it highly doubtful that anybody would deny that objects fall, though?
Kuhn. That depends on what you mean by fall.
Newton. What else could it mean but that those objects are attracted to the Earth?
Aristotle. I do not wish to fill your mind with ceaseless words. Let a simple experiment
speak for me.
Iris. Youdropped a rock?
Kuhn. Again, that depends on what you mean by dropped.
Iris. I mean, that the rock fell onto the ground.
Newton. Due to gravity.
Aristotle. Incorrect.
Iris. How do you mean?

1 CC page 194
2 CC pages 199-191

Aristotle. It is not the place that grabs the object towards itself, but the object that seeks
out the proper place. In this case, the rock traveled towards the earth because that is where
its perfect form manifests.3
Newton. Aristotle, you claim that there is a force that drove this rock to the floor, and that
this is different from my conception of gravity, but I cannot see how the two differ if both
explain the rock falling due to an innate property.
Aristotle. Incorrect again. You are speaking of gravity as you so perceive it in your mind,
which appears to be diminishing the purpose of the rocks movement. I am saying that this
rock traveled to its appropriate place from the inappropriate place of my hand. Forces do
not act upon an object unless it is to counter the natural principles of said object, as would
happen if you were to lift this rock back up against its will, per say.4
Iris. So, the rock dropped.
Aristotle. If by dropped you mean to say that the natural elements in the rock allowed it to
fulfill its purpose of reaching the ground, its final place, then yes.
Newton. You have been speaking of purpose since the beginning.
Aristotle. What else is there to speak of but that?
Newton. It is foolish to consider the paths of inanimate objects as motivational. Gravity does
not exist for the purpose of bringing rocks to the ground, as you seem to believe, but is
rather a naturalistic principle that you should accept.
Aristotle. And is my explanation not also a naturalistic principle that you should accept? You
say that I speak of purpose to the excess, but I implore you with a query of my ownhave
you seen with your own eyes this force of gravity?
Newton. I do not have to. If you drop a rock, it falls. This motion continues as long as it isnt
impeded by some air resistance that forces the rock back up.5 It is an innate attraction
between the rock, which is an object of mass, and the center of the Earth.
Aristotle. Youve admitted that you have not seen what you claim to be the truth, so who is
to say that your force of gravity is stronger than purpose? The center of the universe is
nothing but earth itself, so would this not be the same as saying the rock reached the
ground because of its nature to venture towards it?6

3 Huggett page 77
4 Huggett page 64
5 Huggett page 124
6 Huggett page 74

Newton. Weve already talked about this. Inanimate objects do not have purpose. They fall
if they are heavy enough. Thats all there is to it.
Aristotle. Now you have introduced another concept of heaviness, but yet you still fail to
explain what your intentions are. How can you claim that such properties as heaviness,
mass, or innate gravitational forces exist if you do not observe them around you? I see the
rock travel to the ground in my daily experiments. Therefore, it must be due to its desire to
align itself to its correct and intended position.
Newton. Yet you bring up another foolish pointhow can you hope to advance if you only
believe in what your eyes present? Perception can be deceptive, and by not considering
properties beyond what is possible in our world, you close yourself off from all that God
intended.7 You say you base your theories on observations of this world, but all you have to
offer is the notion that elements apparently seek out their proper places because it is in
their nature to do so. Are you going to sit there and ignore clear theories of motion?
Aristotle. But what is motion but the manifestation of an elements natural properties?
Newton. Youre avoiding the question.
Iris. I agree, you kind of are.
Aristotle. Newton appears to believe that his mind experiments have brought him to define
these invisible qualities in more depth than I have, but he fails to realize that his concept of
gravity is still rooted in faith.
Newton. And your explanation is too existential for people to handle. At least I paved the
way to progress. All you did was confuse people.
Kuhn. But do you all see from this how something as simple as a rock falling involves such
complicated dialogue and different concepts in your respective theories? I dare say were
back where we started.
Iris. Hold on. Whether its directly observable or not, the rock and the floor clearly met.
Newton, you call this a gravitational force that the earth exhibited on the rock, while
Aristotle explains that it was the rock that moved towards the floor. Both of you are
describing a similarly invisible connection between the object and its destination. It seems
that you only differ in your conceptions of what to call it.
Kuhn. But thats precisely the point! People observe what they believe in, so they also derive
the meanings of their measurements from the theories they create. It is clear that both
Newton and Aristotle include a certain kind of force in their theorieswhat this force
refers to, and how it acts, is a completely different story. Its circular reasoning, whether
you want to admit it. All this arguing just makes us feel like were progressing. 8

7 Huggett page 120

8 CC pages 189-190

Newton. Feel like? Do you not think that science has progressed over the years? Arent
your technological breakthroughs and other achievements what youd call scientific
advancement in this era? Havent you come to observe particles and other matter that you
wouldnt have before?
Kuhn. But whos to say that were on the right track? Im not affirming or denying anything.
All Im saying is that big scientific revolutions, as wonderful as they are, arent objectively
progressive. Our textbooks simply record them as such.9
Aristotle. The man thinks that there is no point in our debate.
Iris. Maybe, but I refuse to believe that he doesnt have any biases. If you had to pick a
theory, whose side would you choose? You still call yourself a scientist, so you must have a
preference.
Kuhn. Well, its not as if picking a side will bring us any closer to the Truth with a capital T. I
have my own opinions on the matter. Lets just say that its not going to be settled in one
conversation.
Newton. Now youre avoiding the question.
Iris. And I agree again. Also, youve pretty much already picked a side. Your paper gives
Newtons conceptualization of gravity, along with his other theories of course, as an example
of a paradigm shift.10
Newton. Really?
Iris. Yeah, because people had a hard time believing in gravity as an innate attraction, but
you managed to persuade others into accepting it along with your other theories. Basically,
you made people believe in the impossible, while Aristotle didnt have quite so much luck.
Kuhn. This is true. This did cause quite an uproar in his era. People were hesitant to accept
gravity because saying that things have this innate attraction between them had an occultish quality that was similar to Aristotles existential view that things just tend to fall. Its
interesting to think that from that point on, the search for innate forces was legitimatized
and thats how topics like dynamics and electricity have been tackled.11 But my point still
remains. I have not chosen one side over the otherIm merely stating the facts as theyve
presented themselves.
Aristotle. The fact that you acknowledge Newtons gravity as being nothing more than a
different way of conceptualizing the innate qualities of matter to travel towards a perfect
place will keep me silent and in agreement.

9 CC page 191
10 CC page 88
11 CC page 88-90

Iris. But Kuhn, you also said, how did you put it, that society at last succeeded in rejecting
the Aristotelian way of explaining things in terms of material bodies.12
Aristotle. An interesting statement, seeing as Kuhn mentioned not more than moments ago
that modern scientists have come to accept several things as primary properties of matter,
just as how I conceptualized my understanding of the rocks path to the earth.
Kuhn. I did write that, but like Ive said, I was merely stating the flow of history and how
society came to accept Newtons theory of gravity over Aristotles more naturalistic
approach. There was no opinion included in my words.
Newton. I dont know, you seem to like my ideas a lot. I do not agree with Aristotles
theories, but I concur that youve been contradictory in your statements. It seems you
believe that science has no clear purpose, if you dont think that revolutions are
progressive?
Kuhn. No, Im saying that people are not rational, but social creatures. We are too prone to
large trends and thats what sways our hearts, not hard facts.
Iris. Alright, but now Im confused. You mentioned near the beginning that rival paradigms
are incomparable, and are therefore incommensurable, but you also say that they must be
incompatible.
Kuhn. Correct.
Iris. But how can you determine incompatibility without doing some comparison in the first
place? Youve already admitted that the application of force as a concept is present, but
also different in both Newton and Aristotles theories, so havent you been comparing things
all along?
Kuhn. The real question is the degree to which force is being compared at. You may think
they seem comparable in terms of basic ideas, but their empire of knowledge was all based
on thatand Newton and Aristotle ended up with very different results.
Iris. But its not as if the concept of a force was invented by either Aristotle or Newton. It
existed before their times too, you know. I dont think its right to limit a terms meaning to
how a theory utilizes it.13
Kuhn. Except thats exactly how society operates. Mobs dont care about the details. All they
want is apparent progress and new ways to solve whatever problem is prevalent at the
moment, and thats what history gives them.
Aristotle. Newton, the man believes our theories are nothing more than tools for people to
use for puzzlesolving.14

12 CC page 88
13 CC page 195

Newton. I cant say that sits well with me.

Iris. Maybe you two should just quit doing science and take up politics, since apparently all
youve been doing is thinking of ways to outsmart everyone else.

14 CC page 188