Comparison (between) and Critique (to) Interpretations of Terence Irwin and ‎Robert Bolton about Aristotle’s Method in Science.‎

The structure of Aristotle’s Science is deductive. It needs the premises that cannot be ‎deduced. Therefore, knowledge of the premises of science is an important stage in ‎scientific research. Aristotle, in Analytics and Topics, suggests induction and ‎dialectic for this stage. Aristotle's commentators disagree about this. For example, ‎Bolton prefers induction and Irwin prefers dialectic. Aristotle, according to Bolton’s ‎interpretation, is an empiricist; he starts his researches from particular sense data ‎and then discovers the general ‎principles of science by induction. Irwin believes that ‎scientific researches of Aristotle, as a rationalist philosopher, begins from special ‎kind of reputable opinions (ενδοξα) and then the principles of science are known by ‎a specific dialectic. This paper shows the differences between two interpretation of ‎Bolton and Irwin; observing the issue of the methodology for recognizing the ‎principles of science. Then, we investigate some important difficulties of their ‎interpretations and, finally, suggest some ideas for a better interpretation.‎