Book 6 / Chapter 3
Paragraph 2 - Scientific Knowledge and Its Characteristics
Explanation - Part By Part
"Now what scientific knowledge is, if we are to speak exactly and not follow mere similarities, is plain from what follows."
Aristotle starts by saying he wants to precisely define what scientific knowledge (or understanding) is, rather than relying on vague comparisons or approximations. He emphasizes that the explanation he’s about to give is meant to be clear and exact, setting the tone for a deeper, precise exploration of its nature.
"We all suppose that what we know is not even capable of being otherwise; of things capable of being otherwise we do not know, when they have passed outside our observation, whether they exist or not."
Aristotle is explaining that true knowledge—what he calls scientific knowledge—is about things that are unchanging and cannot be any other way. If something can change or be different, then we can't claim to truly "know" it in the strictest sense, because once it changes or goes beyond what we can observe, we are left uncertain about its existence or its state. In short, scientific knowledge pertains to permanent truths, not fleeting or variable things.
"Therefore the object of scientific knowledge is of necessity. Therefore it is eternal; for things that are of necessity in the unqualified sense are all eternal; and things that are eternal are ungenerated and imperishable."
Aristotle is saying that true scientific knowledge concerns things that are necessary — meaning they cannot be otherwise. These truths are constant, unchanging, and eternal. Since they are necessary, they are not subject to birth or destruction; they have always existed and will continue to exist. This is the nature of the knowledge tied to eternal principles, not fleeting or contingent realities.
"Again, every science is thought to be capable of being taught, and its object of being learned. And all teaching starts from what is already known, as we maintain in the Analytics also; for it proceeds sometimes through induction and sometimes by syllogism."
Aristotle is emphasizing that true knowledge, or scientific knowledge, is something that can be taught and learned. For this to happen, it must have a solid foundation—teaching always begins with what people already know. From there, new understanding is built, either through induction (observing specific instances to draw general conclusions) or through syllogism (a logical process where conclusions are drawn from general principles). So, he's pointing out that knowledge builds logically, step by step, starting from familiar ideas or observations.
"Now induction is the starting-point which knowledge even of the universal presupposes, while syllogism proceeds from universals. There are therefore starting-points from which syllogism proceeds, which are not reached by syllogism; it is therefore by induction that they are acquired."
Aristotle is explaining the two key methods by which humans arrive at knowledge: induction and syllogism. Induction is the process of observing specific examples or particular cases and using those observations to draw a general, universal principle. For example, if you observe over time that all swans you've seen are white, you might inductively conclude that "all swans are white."
On the other hand, syllogism works the opposite way—it starts from universal principles and applies them to specific cases. For instance, if you know the universal principle "all humans are mortal," and you know that Socrates is a human, then you can deduce (through syllogism) that "Socrates is mortal."
Now, the crucial point Aristotle is making here is that syllogism itself needs starting points. These starting points—basic universal principles—cannot come from syllogism, since syllogism depends on them to function. Instead, these foundational principles must originally come from induction. Induction provides us with the building blocks from which syllogistic reasoning can proceed.
"Scientific knowledge is, then, a state of capacity to demonstrate, and has the other limiting characteristics which we specify in the Analytics, for it is when a man believes in a certain way and the starting-points are known to him that he has scientific knowledge, since if they are not better known to him than the conclusion, he will have his knowledge only incidentally."
Aristotle is explaining here what scientific knowledge truly is. He defines it as a mental state or ability—a capacity to demonstrate something clearly and logically. This means that scientific knowledge isn’t just about having random facts in your head; it involves understanding why something is true in a way that can be systematically explained or proven.
For this to happen, Aristotle emphasizes that a person must know the starting-points (or "foundational truths") that support the conclusion. These starting-points are fundamental truths or principles that are more certain and well-understood than whatever it is you're trying to prove. If someone doesn't truly grasp these foundations and only understands the conclusion in a casual or indirect way ("incidentally"), they don't really have scientific knowledge.
In essence, Aristotle is saying that real knowledge isn't just about reaching a conclusion—you must deeply understand and be able to explain how that conclusion is built upon solid, reliable truths.
"Let this, then, be taken as our account of scientific knowledge."
In this section, Aristotle is wrapping up his explanation of what scientific knowledge means to him. He is essentially saying, "This is how we should think about and define scientific knowledge." For Aristotle, true scientific knowledge is a very specific kind of understanding. It is based on certainty, deals with things that cannot be otherwise (i.e., necessary truths), proceeds logically, and starts from clear and self-evident foundational principles (which are gained through induction, or observation of patterns). This is meant to clarify the importance of reasoning and evidence in knowledge, which must be structured and rooted in what is undeniable.