How does the modern scientific method differ from the natural philosophy of the ancient Greeks ?

Question

How does the modern scientific method differ from the natural philosophy of the ancient Greeks ?

Answer 1

The biggest difference is that the Greeks didn't always do the gathering evidence/doing experiments bit of the scientific method.  To an ancient Greek, what you could logically conclude just by sitting around talking with your buddies was of just as much value as those ball dropping experiments that Galileo did.  Sure, they did do experiments sometimes, and when they did, they had great results.  But this is why they excelled more at math and philosophy than, say, natural sciences: math and philosophy you can do successfully sitting around talking with your friends.  Well, it helps if you have a stick and some nice dirt to draw in to do the math.

We did get the scientific method out of the logical reasoning of the Greeks, but we fine-tuned it somewhat.

Answer 2

Well, the way I remember my Gk philosophy....

The Sci method developed out of some of the Gk thinker's ways of doing things. The whole point is to think a problem, propose an answer and then prove or disprove your hypothesis. You can also do a study where you try to link A to F.

The Gk Philosophers did more of the latter, but it was far more difficult to prove than it is presently.

Newton's laws of motion were known to the Greeks. They knew the world was round (heck, they calculated it's circumference and were very close). Some was about direct observation (hey, I can't see all the way down this well; but this other one I can).

I think the biggest difference is in application. We try to prove or disprove something and take it further to make something (often $$ plays in). The greek philosophers were great at thinking up ideas like the steam engine- but didn't apply it to their daily lives to the extent that we do.