I'm just talking about hard science facts

This only works if you believe science is an accumulation of facts. Instead, it might be useful to think of science as a project to model nature (see Thomas Kuhn). For instance, Newtonian physics is a model that has retained much of its predictive power even as its assumptions about the nature of reality have been questioned by subsequent physicists.

On that understanding of science, Aristotle offered some models that were very useful until more precise and predictive models came along. For instance, the idea of elements with inherent tendencies can be useful. It makes sense of fire reaching upward, water settling into holes, and the incredibly regular motion of heavenly bodies. Ultimately, every Aristotelian model of nature that I'm familiar with has been replaced by more precise models with very different assumptions about the nature of things.