On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 23:55:32 -0800, Russ P. wrote: > I neither know nor care much about Newton's personality and social > graces, but I can assure you that he was more than a "technician" (no > offense to technicians). > > If you just read the Wikipedia preamble about him you will realize that > he is arguably the greatest scientist who ever lived.
"Arguably" is right. Please, stop with the fanboy squeeing over Newton. Enough is enough. Newton has already received far more than his share of honours. He might have been a great intellectual but he was no scientist. It's only by ignoring the vast bulk of his work -- work which Newton himself considered *far* more important and interesting than his work on physics and mathematics -- that we can even *pretend* he was a scientist. Newton was arrogant, deceitful, secretive, and hostile to other peoples ideas. Arrogance sometimes goes hand in hand with intellectual brilliance, and there's no doubt that Newton was brilliant, but the last three are especially toxic for good science. His feuds against two of his intellectual equals, Leibniz and Hooke, held mathematics and the sciences back significantly. They weren't the only two: he feuded with Astronomer Royal John Flamsteed, John Locke, and apparently more tradesmen than anyone has counted. He held grudges, and did his best to ruin those who crossed him. Historians of science draw a fairly sharp line in the history of what used to be called "natural philosophy" (what we now call science). That line is clearly drawn *after* Newton: as John Maynard Smith has said, Newton was the last and greatest of the magicians, not the first of the scientists. He was first and foremost a theologian and politician, an alchemist, a religious heretic obsessed with End Times, and (when he wasn't being secretive and isolating himself from others) a shameless self-promoter unwilling to share the spotlight. The myth of Newton the scientist is pernicious. Even those who recognise his long periods of unproductive work, his wasted years writing about the end of the world, his feuds, his secrecy and his unprofessional grudges against other natural philosophers, still describe him as a great scientist -- despite the fact that Newton's way of working is anathema to science. The myth of science being about the lone genius dies hard, especially in popular accounts of science. Science is a collaborative venture, like Open Source, and it relies on openness and cooperation, two traits almost entirely missing in Newton. There is no doubt that Newton was a great intellect. His influence on mechanics (including astronomy) was grand and productive; that on optics was mixed, but his alchemical writings have had no influence on modern chemistry. Newton's calculus has been virtually put aside in favour of Leibniz's terminology and notation. The great bulk of his work, his theological writings, had little influence at the time and no lasting influence at all. Newton was lucky to live at a time of great intellectual activity. Had he lived thirty years earlier, his secrecy would almost certainly have meant that his discoveries, such as they were, would have died with him. Had he lived thirty years later, others like Leibniz, Hooke, the Bernoullis, or others, would have made his discoveries ahead of him -- perhaps a few years or a decade later, but they would have done so, as Leibniz independently came up with calculus. There's no doubt that Newton was a genius and an important figure in the history of science, but to describe him as a scientist is to distort both the way Newton worked and the way science works. By all means give him credit for what he did and what he was, but don't pretend he was something that he was not. -- Steven -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
