On Dec 2, 4:47 am, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED] cybersource.com.au> wrote: > 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.
Being fair, the bulk of Liebniz' writings have also been rejected by those in related fields. Most modern metaphysicians hold a view closer to Boston Personalism or at least post-Kantian Personalism (a la Buber), than monadic unity and pre-established harmony, a la Liebniz. It is an instance of the genetic fallacy to reject the achievements of a person in one field, simply because of their failures in another. > 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 That said, I think this whole "rename python" thing is silly. Regards, Jordan -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
