To some extent then, Aristotle reconciles abstract thought with observation, although it would be a mistake to imply that Aristotelian science is empirical in form.

This is because mathematics did not lend itself to the primary pursuit of Aristotelian science: the discovery of causes.

His ocular observations were in a qualitative vein, hearkening back to Aristotelian science rather than forward to Newton.

On this analysis then impetus dynamics was to be preferred if the Aristotelian science of motion was to incorporate a dynamical explanation of pendulum motion.

He is a leader in the study of Aristotelian science in light of his groundbreaking work on Aristotle's biology and philosophy of biology.

It focused on empirical evidence, the importance of mathematics, and discarded Aristotelian science.

This new approach liberated scientific speculation from the dogmatic restraints of Aristotelian science, and paved the way for new approaches.

Of these, the Condemnations of 1277 are considered particularly important by those historians who consider that they encouraged scholars to question the tenets of Aristotelian science.

In a sense, the classic statement of the omnipotence paradox - a rock so heavy that its omnipotent creator cannot lift it - is grounded in Aristotelian science.

(Some claim this section draws heavily on Aristotelian science and metaphysics; others suggest that it is within the tradition of Saadia Gaon.)