Reply
Sun 5 Dec, 2004 10:50 am
Today most of us know that the there are over one hundred elements instead of the four from old times: earth, air, fire and water. What occured to me today is that even though the model with four elements is old it is not inaccurate if we interpet it a little differently. We can state that the four elements are representing the four different ways matter can exist in the world. Earth- solid matter. Water- liquid matter. Air- vaporous matter, and fire-energy, or untrapped matter. All four work together to form and sustain the material world.
Cyracuz
I often use the "four elements" as an example of an historical paradigm within "science". The point is that "four" is no longer sufficient to account for explanation of known phenomena and is merely a vestige of the mystical values associated with certain numbers. (four humours/gospels/and even colours of the rainbow ) The words in italics are of course areas of philosophical dispute.
Related topics to this are "factor analysis" in statistics, the minimum number of "dimensions" to explain physical phenomena, and the number of elementary particles.
I think what your are talking about Cyracruz is how the ancients basically had it correct. I think we often see them as naive (I know most do when looking at virtue ethics) but the more I study them - the more I think they have a lot more right than wrong.
TF
Fresco.
Do you mean that the number "4" is inadequate, or that the model with four elements is not sufficient? I agree that it cannot be used to explain what it was intended to explain in a scientific manner, but I still think the model is of some value. Matter can exist in four states.
No, I am saying that four is arbitrary.
www.visionlearning.com/library/ science/chemistry-1/CHE1.1-matter.htm
See the CHE1.1 reference which implies 5 states and thats not counting your "energy state".
Other references talk about multile "phases" as "states".
"Elements" has been redefined, and though it has been defined very accurately, that doesn't say anything against past definitions.
I could say there are two elements. Living matter, and non-living matter. And I would pretty much be correct, but I would not be very accurate.
Sorry, I don't think I worded that well.
There are two elements as I see it SCoates. Matter, wich is dead, and something else that is life... You're right, not very accurate.
Cyracuz wrote:There are two elements as I see it SCoates. Matter, wich is dead, and something else that is life... You're right, not very accurate.
very good point.
I never thought of it like that.....
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace