Cool AF.

Objectively Descartes had a huge influence on what was taught in universities about what we would call science, maths and philosophy in the half-century after he died. His world-view largely replaced Aristotle - or at least, was taught alongside, in universities across Europe. Whether you would call him a scientist is another matter. Descartes claimed you could sit in an armchair and figure everything out. Aristotle was in many ways a much better scientist, actually going out and observing nature and reporting what he saw.

But it's true that Cartesian philosophy turned out to be an effective springboard for real scientists like Hooke, Newton and Huygens to launch from.

You are msisrepresenting Aristotle.

Firstly, he didn't strip everything down to a question of properties. He wrote aboute mechanical phenomena and his approach was based on transfers of force. Though obviously a very primitive version and he made ttale of assuming that force can only be transferred under contact. This lead to him being wrong about why objects stay in the air when thrown. The approach isn't wrog fundementally. He just didn't have enough knowledge for it to work.

Secondly, even taking your example, you are not demonstrating that Aristotelianism is incompatible with modern science. In fact it isn't. Both the aristelean approach and modern physics talk about heat transfer. Hot fire makes cold water hotter so it evaporates. Only one lived in the -300s while the other more than a millenia or even 2 afterwards. Of course the newer one is going to be more correct. There are more tools and prior knowledge to come up with a more detailed explanation. But fundementally, it still boils down to the property of one thing being transfered to the other. Nothing sprids from nothing.

As for Aristoteles influence. Aristotle wins without a doubt. Between his life and the 1800s, he is the one who layed the groundwork for everything philosophers (In natural philosophy or physics) worked on. Even the ones who diverged from him the most were still jumping off his ideas or ideas of later aristotelians. As for its role in modern science. He is the one who layed out the first scientific method with observation and deduction. Medieval aristotelians then defended using the observation to explain things. And in the 14th century, Dietrich of Freibourgh managed to correctly explain rainbows using notions of light rays and refraction. Thanks to the works of aristotelian philosophers before him.

Stop slandering Aristotle. Modern era scientists didn't exist in a vacuum. Ancient and medieval philosophy were their foundation. Modern science wouldn't exist without it

Descartes was incomplete.

I think, therefore I am in relation.

I think its hard to play games like this because there are so many considerations thinking in terms of total influence and all the measures that would justify a claim like this are rather fuzzy.

That said I think this is a pretty uncontroversial take, Descartes is arguably one the most influential figures in all human history, especially western thought, of which scientific speculation is one element.

Thaaaaat saaaaaaid, if we did want to play this game low key Aristotle himself is probably the single most influential figure in the history of scientific thinking.

Especially if you count critical engagement with his work.

I am proud to share 99.9% of my DNA with this guy.

Quite the fuck up isn’t it?

Issac Newton has entered the chat.

You should read Bacon's The Great Instauration. It's rather short.

What is new about modern science relative to ancient science is not merely observation. Aristotle observed things too. What is fundamentally new is that modern science concerns itself first and foremost with doing and making. Ancient science is mainly contemplative. The same arguments are posited and strengthened or rejected over and over again. Modern science, on the other hand, proves itself by action. It seeks not to observe nature but to subdue it. Bacon was the first to formulate this and spring it into action. He is to modern science what Machiavelli is to modern politics.

If you want to explore a bit more, I recommend Richard Kennington's book On Modern Origins.

I don’t understand

Bernard mandeville : fable of the bees

What does this mean

Mandeville

Francis Bacon was important but I really don’t think he did anything to upend Aristotelian natural philosophy. Bacon retained the forms through laws, retained many of Aristotles causes and Aristotle already had an emphasis on observation this isn’t new with Bacon

The man you are looking for is not Descartes but Francis Bacon.

Godspeed. The vasics are there.

The real problem comes wheb you decide the pipeline where the water goes.

Theres the liar that makes you build a pipe that has a leak.

Theres another dude who create false problems so that you close 1 section and open another one.

And the third one, generally in command of input vs. Output gets so confused by false information that ends up reporting more water output than input.

This is the 21st century.

What we need is God

I'm sorry but that is too vague to be useful. It's not really clear what the idea is. I recommend you spend some time articulating exactly what you really think and trying to get rid of vague generalities. They say if you cannot explain it to your grandmother, then you don't understand it.

this system actively controls society through control of media and use of statistics but there are other ideas that something similar to this as well. Except, my one actively improve society through control of media, economy and resources to help individuals in society to become intelligent, fit and united. The system encourages adaptation and change for better, which most system reject the idea of changing polices.

Thanks for the feedback.

That's not a system. It's not even an idea. You might as well have said "I want people to be smart and good." As a separate point, this is full of grammatical errors and typos. Proofread your work if you expect to be taken seriously.

Hmm it's a nice idea in theory but i'm not sure I understand the difference between this and all the other ideas for improving society?

If you don't know the field it's probably too early to start writing your proposal.

The anglophone field of the history of ideas proper started with a guy called Arthur Lovejoy. He founded the Journal of the History of Ideas, which still exists and is still going strong. I'd recommend looking at their publications (https://muse.jhu.edu/journal/91), as well as their excellent blog (https://www.jhiblog.org/), to get a grasp of what's being done in that field atm. Related fields you'll want to have some familiarity with:
- The Cambridge School of intellectual history (Pocock, Skinner, etc.)
- German Begriffgeschichte (Koselleck, Conze, etc.)
- French historical epistemology (Koyré, Canguilhem, etc.)

By the way, history of ideas as established by Lovejoy is considered a bit dated, too focused on the 'ideas' and not enough on the 'context'. So people tend to avoid the term: intellectual history (if you take a sociological lens), or history of science, of ideologies, of religion, etc. A closely related approach is the sociology of knowledge, which foregrounds the method for studying rather than the content studied, and is worth a look if you plan to go down that road.

You know that a PhD is something you get by going through, like, a school program of education, right? Where there are people who will explain to you how this works and what is required, right? At a designated building in a big institution that does this sort of thing in a particular way that makes sense, right?

Both true, and Emser knew the second one - it is why he checked the oldest translations alongside the oldest manuscripts. An ancient translator who read a word when its connotations were still alive is himself evidence for what the word meant. You end up with probabilities, not certainties, and he would have said that is exactly why you do the work.

I think the biggest issue is that no matter what someone will disagree with any translation. We also cannot be sure of some .. social connotations of certain words.