نوع مقاله : پژوهشی
عنوان مقاله English
نویسندگان English
This article employs a descriptive-analytical method and a comparative approach to examine the epistemological models of Aristotle and Ibn al-Haytham, focusing on the concept of scientific knowledge, the role of observation and experience, and the relationship between induction and demonstration. The central question is how these two models differ in organizing the production and validation of scientific knowledge. The findings show that this difference cannot be reduced to a simple opposition between syllogistic reasoning and experience. In Aristotle’s model, observation and experience provide the starting point of knowledge, while scientific validity is ultimately established through the formation of universals, causal explanation, and syllogistic demonstration. By contrast, Ibn al-Haytham redefines the role of experience by incorporating empirical testing into the evaluation and validation of theoretical claims. His concept of validation connects observation, experimentation, mathematical analysis, and demonstration, allowing results to be critically examined and reassessed. Analysis of Ibn al-Haytham’s optical works further shows that he distinguished between investigating the nature of a phenomenon and analyzing its measurable relations. Accordingly, he employed observation, experimentation, mathematical analysis, and demonstration in line with the epistemic structure of the problem under investigation. The article argues that Ibn al-Haytham’s principal innovation was not the rejection of the demonstrative tradition, but the reconstruction of the relationship among observation, experience, and demonstration and, consequently, a transformation of the criteria for validating scientific knowledge.
کلیدواژهها English
