"The reason why snakes are limbless is first that nature makes nothing without purpose, but always regards what is the best possible for each individual, preserving the peculiar essence of each and its intended character, and secondly the principle we laid down above that no Sanguineous creature can move itself at more than four points. Granting this it is evident that Sanguineous animals like snakes, whose length is out of proportion to the rest of their dimensions, cannot possibly have limbs; for they cannot have more than four (or they would be bloodless), and if they had two or four they would be practically stationary; so slow and unprofitable would their movement necessarily be. "
Could you elaborate why you choose this particular bit?
Aristotle's production is full of enumerations of the observable phenomena but the science as we know it today got going only after people started to figure out they actually should test the conclusions they drew from their observations and found out that Aristotle was in several places in fact not correct but merely blowing so much hot air to impress his audiences.
I was not questioning the cultural merits of his legacy, but merely the practical. His political and pedagogic writings are far more interesting, IMO, as studies of the human condition.
While the roots of science have several offshoots buried in greece soil the tree started to seriously bear any fruit only after Baconian inquiry was accepted by the european intelligentzia.
He insists that specifically a mayfly, which does walk on only four of its legs, only ever using the other two to grip during mating, only has four legs, while discussing the locomotion of walking. Which seems fair. If legs are for walking, mayfly do only have four legs.
