!!! Folks admire Newton for some of his breathtaking insights, not because of his methods. The scientific method is a tool. The results are far more important than the tool.
Also, it's not a game. His wacky ideas don't cancel out his brilliant ones. If you want to say that he technically wasn't a scientist, great. But to suggest that Newton is a myth of the hard sciences kind of misses the point of his fame. Michael On Dec 3, 2007 1:31 PM, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 13:29:58 -0800, Russ P. wrote: > > >> 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. > > > > The fact that someone studies theology does not mean that he cannot also > > be considered a scientist. > > He didn't just "study" theology, he considered his work on theology and > alchemy vastly more important than his work in natural philosophy. To > Newton, perhaps the most important thing a natural philosopher could do > was rediscover the wisdom of the ancients -- an attitude diametrically > opposed to the rationalist, scientific viewpoint of the Enlightenment. > > History judges Newton's work completely the opposite he did: his work on > mechanics had lasting impact on physics, while his work on eschatology > (the end of the world) and the Trinity had little influence on his > contemporaries and even less on later generations. > > > > And if the person who discovered the > > inverse-square law of universal gravitation is not a "scientist," I > > don't know who is. > > Science is defined by the process followed, not the result. The lone > genius toiling away in secrecy is not science. It is anathema to science, > *even if the genius turns out to be right*. Newton's secrecy *held back* > science and mathematics for decades. > > The process that we call "science" hadn't been invented while Newton was > alive. Newton played an important part of the invention of that process, > but that doesn't make him a scientist. Describing him as a scientist is > an anachronism: to use an ugly word, it is "presentism". > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_(literary_and_historical_analysis) > > Newton was to the science of physics what the alchemists were to the > science of chemistry -- an analogy that is especially apt, as Newton was > himself an alchemist. Newton was there at the paradigm shift from the old > magical ways to the new rationalist ways, and to some extent he straddled > the interface, but he was very much a part of the old ways. > > We do him a disservice to pretend he was something he wasn't. John > Maynard Keynes, who bought -- and read -- the largest collection of > Newton's writings in the world, described him thusly: > > "Newton was not the first of the age of reason. He was the last of the > magicians, the last of the Babylonians and Sumerians, the last great mind > which looked out on the visible and intellectual world with the same eyes > as those who began to build our intellectual inheritance rather less than > 10,000 years ago." > > Newton was one of the creators of the Enlightenment. But he was a pre- > Enlightenment man: he belonged to the world left behind. > > http://www.slate.com/id/2108438/ > > We can't understand Newton if we interpret him in post-Enlightenment > terms: all that gives us is the 19th Century triumphalist caricature of > Newton-as-rationalist-scientist. That's not the man, that's just the > image -- and an image that Newton himself would have hated. > > Unfortunately, there is a tradition in physics of treating that > caricature as real. Scientists themselves are especially prone to it: > even the hard sciences need their myths. > > > > -- > Steven. > -- > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list > -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
