# Talk:Aristotle's biology

Personally, I would not dream of saying that Aristotle's writing on biology was a "theory of biology". That is far too grand, and misplaces the praise he is due. I see support in the contribution of Balme (now added to sources) when he/she writes: "The ancients spoke not of the study of biology but only of the study of animals and plants". Also, Medawar's diatribe against Aristotle is only indirectly quoted. [Medawar P.B. & J.S. 1984. Aristotle to Zoos: a philosophical dictionary of biology. Oxford.] (important because Medawar was a zoologist and Nobel Prize winner). There is also a positive review of Aristotle's zoology by D'Arcy Thompson, the details of which I will add later (my library is in transit). His view is important because he was both a classicist and zoologist. Finally, I don't see Singer's History of Biology or Greek Biology and Greek Medicine amongst the references. Its account needs to be read and quoted. Singer was a great expert in his day. It was in the details of what he personally observed that Aristotle was a great biologist and natural historian. In the more theoretical aspects he was more obviously a Greek immersed in Greek traditions of thought. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with most of this. He was a great biologist in that he observed systematically and made hypotheses, theories, models. laws (call them what you will) to account for his observations. A view of his biology imagining that it was purely observational with some useless wrong theories stuck on the side is a gross calumny; scientists come up with hypotheses which may be right or wrong, but are testable and can always be refuted. It seems that all his observations were theory-driven, based on his philosophy, and gathered to provide evidence from which laws could be discovered; and he stated many of those. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Did aristotle consider them above or below egg laying fish? They are place under them on the table, but a later paragraph says that animals with placentas (whihc included them) are above egg layers. 82.17.164.224 (talk) 09:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

The order is correct, and Aristotle could see they were not tetrapods, but groups like the selachians give (and gave) pause as not fitting exactly into any linear scheme. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
What I meant was that wouldn't a fish with a placenta be above a fish without one, as he thought placenta>egg?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.164.224 (talk) 10:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Now you are using your own opinion in place of reliably cited evidence; Wikipedia calls this "Original Research", and it is forbidden in the encyclopedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Are they direct quotes from aristotle, because I think they could be more consistent
82.17.164.224 (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The material is cited to Leroi 2015, a reliable source. The structure of Aristotle's scala naturae is not in doubt and can be found in different authorities on Aristotle. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Why do we say all the souls an organism has, instead of just the highest one. All organisms with a soul have all lesser souls. So, it makes sense that we should only list the highest.
82.17.164.224 (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Because that was Aristotle's view. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

82.17.164.224 (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Please clarify what you mean. All these words have very specific meanings; I see no room for ambiguity with any of them. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I linked them to the pages of Iron, Human, Insect, and Cat, but the links were removed 82.17.164.224 (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I do not think the links were necessary, since I think we can safely assume that any person reading this article will already know what a man, an insect, a cat, and iron are. Per WP:OVERLINK, we do not need to link everyday words unless there is a reasonably high probability that someone reading the article will not understand what these words mean. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Would people also know what birds, snakes, fish and plants are? 82.17.164.224 (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I think we can safely assume that anyone reading the article already knows what a bird, a snake, a fish, or a plant is. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Links are not only to resolve ambiguity, but also to provide further details. All of those links are possibly useful for navigation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I think someone inserted a hoax about the dong fish as a joke

Thanks, it was yesterdays vandalism. Reverted and warned. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: @Macdonald-ross: @Katolophyromai: You all seem to be the top editors here.
The Adelaide ebooks links here are now broken as the site's been shut down, and I'm going through removing them. Can I suggest that you replace these links with active ones? Smith(talk) 09:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah, quel joie. See what I can do. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Currently this Wikipedia article clearly states that the passage in Physics II 8 which Darwin, I believe correctly, identifies as being about evolution through natural selection, is actually about ontogeny.

Part of Physics II 8 has been translated as:

Wherever then all the parts came about just what they would have been if they had come be for an end, such things survived, being organized spontaneously in a fitting way; whereas those which grew otherwise perished and continue to perish, as Empedocles says his 'man-faced ox-progeny' did.

If this were a description of ontogeny then it would be saying that during an individual's development it would exhibit a series of diverse morphological forms which, through differential selection, would be retained or lost until it arrived at its developed state. I think people would have noticed if this was happening to their children and the other animals and plants around them and I can't imagine Aristotle meant it in relation to ontogeny.

Although I have not read all and certainly not understood most of the relevant material, I think that the extract I quoted above and particularly associated passages where tooth anatomy is considered are an attempt by Aristotle to paraphrase Empedocles' idea and that Aristotle then goes on to disagree with it. Personally I think Aristotle's exposition of evolution through selection, which he attributes to Empedocles, is clearly put, unlike Empedocles' which is impenetrable, and it contains the key elements of the theory. I think it is surprising, considering how well studied Aristotle has been, that Darwin only heard about these extracts after publishing the Origin of Species.

Specifically, I would suggest removing "he was in any case discussing ontogeny, the Empedoclean coming into being of an individual from component parts, not phylogeny and natural selection." I know there is a reference given for the statement but it is to a book of several hundred pages which does not seem to be very useful. If something more targeted could be provided in support of the assertion I would be very interested in it.

More generally, I think we should re-examine the history of evolution theory and why Darwin is so disproportionately associated with an idea first published thousands of years before he was born and republished many more times before he was born. Surely the allure of Darwin for the makers of the (then) modern world in Victorian England is that he was British and his work was conducted at the largess of their Imperial Royal Navy and Cambridge University. I think students would find it much more interesting to see how the idea really developed during its long history rather than be presented with a heroic fairy story where inconvenient facts are simply left out so as not to spoil the fun. Gourdiehill (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. We are however required to use reliable sources, not our own reasoning, in fact the latter is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia. The claims in the article are properly sourced. If later scholars have different opinions, of course we can cite them also. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. This Wikipedia article includes the following:
"Darwin quoted a passage from Aristotle's Physics II 8 in The Origin of Species, which entertains the possibility of a selection process following the random combination of body parts. However, Aristotle immediately rejected the possibility, and he was in any case discussing ontogeny, the Empedoclean coming into being of an individual from component parts, not phylogeny and natural selection."
In Darwin's 'Historical Sketch ...' to The Origin of Species he does quote this passage and I think it is valuable to point this out. Immediately after the quote he says: "We here see the principle of natural selection shadowed forth"
I should note that the book (Leroi) which is used as a reference for the incorrect assertion is of course also behind a pay wall. The book is also long and if it is being used to support a specific assertion then the part of the book that supports the assertion should be included in the reference.
While, I think it is great for people to challenge Darwin's writings I think there are no grounds to challenge his interpretation that Aristotle was talking about evolution in this extract and I think Darwin is of sufficient stature to be used as a source for making a change to Wikipedia. I have therefore improved the Wikipedia article by removing the incorrect sentence. Gourdiehill (talk) 11:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Exact page refs to Leroi are given in the text, so I shall restore your mistaken deletion. Books are entirely valid sources, and you need to understand the referencing scheme in use before trying to edit fully cited and formally reviewed articles. For the avoidance of doubt, page refs are given like this --- this is the one you decided to delete thinking it was unpaged:  This states, in a fully navigable way, that Leroi 2014, pages 272-275, discusses the topic at length, summarized by the article text that you also saw fit to remove as uncited.
On Leroi vs Darwin, it is certain that Leroi had read Darwin, and equally certain that Darwin had died before Leroi,
so we obviously can't use Darwin to rebut or deny or censor Leroi's informed opinion. I have no objection to reporting what Darwin thought back in the 19th century, 
but that has no bearing on modern scholarship.   Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I have to admit I hadn't noticed that the reference did include the page numbers. You are right that Aristotle rejected Empedocles idea of evolution through natural selection which is of course rather unfortunate considering it turned out to be correct. Gourdiehill (talk) 00:35, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I hope this is settled then. (Not relevant to this article, but I don't agree that Empedocles believed in natural selection either.) Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Sorry to have been a bit of a pain. I think the question of whether Empedocles believed in natural selection and whether Aristotle thought he did (even if he didn't) and was talking about it in the passage quoted by Darwin is a very interesting one. The translation I have read certainly sounds like evolution through natural selection to me and it is obviously important that Darwin thought so. Darwin was wrong about an awful lot and I guess it is possible I could be too. I am hoping to get to read Leroi's book. Gourdiehill (talk) 09:39, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Indeed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)