Aristotle begins by saying that we suppose ourselves to possess knowledge of a thing, rather than to know it accidentally (sophist). He claims that we know all events by demonstration: by means of a syllogism which is a product of scientific knowledge. Assuming this to be true, the premises must be true because we cannot know what does not exist, they must be primary or basic truths which is an immediate proposition, they must be unprovable because to know something provable requires a demonstration, they must cause the conclusion and they must be known better and before the conclusion. If a syllogism lacks these things, it is not a proof. The objects closest to the senses are earlier and better known to man, and the most universal causes are the furthest from the senses. It then defines the following. A proposition is part of a sentence. If it is dialectical it assumes the part indifferently, if it is demonstrative it deposes one part and definitively excludes the other. The statement denotes both sides of a contradiction. A contradiction is an opposition that contains an affirmation and a negation. An immediate fundamental truth of the syllogism is a thesis. Something a student must know to know anything else is an axiom. If a thesis asserts it is a hypothesis, otherwise it is a definition. In summary he observes that the foundation of knowledge is a demonstrative syllogism and the foundation of that syllogism are premises therefore we must know (be convinced) the primary premises better than the conclusions. Nothing can be better known by a man who seeks knowledge through the demonstration of fundamental truths. Part 2 Next, Aristotle explains that knowledge is in the answers to four questions: whether there is a connection between an attribute and a thing, the reason... ... middle of paper ...... edge that one already has, Modules serve as reference points that allow you to identify other things. In this sense, the Forms answer the question of what something is. I think I agree more with Aristotle's theory on the nature of science. It seems reasonable that there are layers of causality in the world that, when broken down, reveal fundamental truths, rather than anything that is a direct representation of the immutable Forms. It makes sense that things are derived from things that are not necessarily fundamental truths. I believe that Aristotle's ideas more clearly describe the connections between things without relying solely on the commonality of the fundamental truths behind them. I also like that Aristotle's theory answers more questions than what something is, I think the combination of syllogisms with causality is more capable of providing conclusions than the theory of Forms.