Talk:Isaac Newton

Regarding "Newton was a devout Christian who said his discoveries were inspired by God"

I am not changing anything yet, but my (christian) science book says that Newton had a firm belief in God, but denied the Trinity, and the Deity of Christ. Not exactly the beliefs of a "devout Christian" --TimSvendsen 20:41, 6 March 2007 (EST)

That's a big surprise to me. My understanding is that Newton was a Christian who relied on the Bible daily.--Aschlafly 21:05, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Relied on the Bible daily? yes. Accepted the Trinity? Definitely not. Whether that makes him a "devout Christian" is presumably therefore very much a defintional issue of how you define Christian. JoshuaZ 21:08, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Well, we don't need to take sides on that matter. We can just report his beliefs and leave it at that; readers can decide for themselves whether he's Christian by their own standards. Tsumetai 21:11, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Newton and Falsification

I’ve added the following paragraph (or a version of it) at the end of this article a number of times:

Newton’s Laws stood as “laws” for years after his death, but in 1816 the discovery of Mercury’s anomalous perihelion provided evidence that Newton’s laws did not always correctly predict behavior in the observed, external, world. It was not until 1919, however, that a series of experiments designed to test General Relativity provided the scientific community with enough evidence to replace those laws. Once a theory could better predict the external world than Newton’s Laws, they were fully falsified and replaced as the dominant theory in physics.

The first time it was deleted because I had not sourced it correctly, which is fine. So I sourced it properly and it stood for awhile. Then part of it was deleted because it was to quote the editing comment “Heresy” and “unintelligible”. Since I figured heresy was a bad reason to delete information, especially when properly sourced, I tried to make my comments more intelligible and replaced them. Then part of it was deleted—I am informed because the 1919 experiments have been discredited. But, after researching the matter, I can find no evidence to support this claim (That, of course, doesn’t mean that the evidence doesn’t exist—just that I can’t find it). Even if, however, the 1919 experiments have been discredited that is not, especially relevant to this article, as the 1919 experiments are only important as a turning point in scientific opinion about Newton’s Laws—in particular it marks the date a theory was better able to predict new information than Newton’s Laws could—since then numerous experiments have supported general relativity (though if past is prologue it will soon be on the way out in favor of a better theory itself) but here the only important thing is that it seems to predict better than Newton’s Laws predict and I think it belongs here. However, before I could post this discussion a third contributor deleted the remainder of my paragraph, with only the comment “1816 observation did not falsify Newton”. I’ve linked to two reputable sources for this point, including Dr. Hilary Putnam—second only to Popper himself in the field of philosophy of science—on this point. Whereas the person who deleted the 1816 claim did not provide any evidence to support this deletion—nor can I find any (again, it may be out there, but I can’t find it).

For those reasons, I believe this information belongs in the article—but since it has been repeatedly deleted I’ve chosen to put it on the talk page for now. Can anyone cite a reason to believe this paragraph is false, or explain why it does not belong here? Or can anyone cite to more reputable sources to bolster this paragraph? Or can anyone offer suggested changes that would make it palatable to all parties to this debate?

I do think that it is pretty absurd to say that some 1816 observation of Mercury falsified Newton. It is true that there was no good explanation for Mercury’s anomalous perihelion, but there were possible explanations that did not involve changing Newton's law of gravity.

I also don't think that a 20th century philosopher is a reliable source on this point. If an 1816 observation really falsified Newton, then there should have been physicists in 1817 saying that the observation proves that they should all stop relying on Newton's laws. There weren't then, and there aren't now. Newton's laws are still useful and have not been "fully falsified".

Yes, General Relativity has superceded Newtonian gravitation, but the 1919 observations did not provide the necessary evidence. The 1919 observation was sold as proof to the public at the time, but was actually inconclusive.

On another topic, why is Newton called "Sir"? I wouldn't think that a conservative American encyclopedia would respect some silly British nobility title. RSchlafly 16:21, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

If you read the Putnam (who I find to be an incredibly reliable source when it comes to the history of science, as his job is to study the history of science and draw well reasoned conclusions based on that history, and as he is highly regarded in his field –which he would not be if he made basic errors)article you will see that you are making the exact same point he is—only he draws a different, and, I think, better grounded conclusion. Science is not a monolithic beast, and it does not move quickly. That is why, though the 1816 observations falsified Newton’s Laws (and remember one wrong prediction means the whole theory is falsified and a new theory must be sought to replace it), science was slow to react. Further, Newton’s Laws still were better predictors than any other theory (until relativity hit the scene in 1919) so they were still used—and in fact are still used as they generate the right result for the objects big enough to see on the surface of the earth moving at a speed we can see them—but that does not mean that the laws were not falsified, just that they are still useful.

Of course if you have a better date for when relativity superseded Newton’s laws that is what you ought to add to the article rather than deleting information and replacing it with nothing (For if Newton’s laws were superseded, then they were falsified, and that information belongs in the article). I still have seen no evidence, however, offered that the 1919 experiments were flawed (again, I’m open to the idea that they may be flawed, but would like some evidence of that—especially since I have evidence to the contrary).--Reginod 22:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Putnam is entitled to his opinions, but I just don't see how an 1816 anomaly could have falsified Newtonian gravity. There were other possible explanations for that anomaly, such as an unknown asteroid or an oblateness of the Sun. Those explanations might not have required any change to Newtonian gravity.

Here is a good account of the 1919 eclipse. [4] It says of Eddington's announcement:

The reaction from scientists at this special meeting was ambivalent. Some questioned the reliability of statistical evidence from such a small number of stars. This skepticism seems in retrospect to be entirely justified. Although the results from Sobral were consistent with Einstein’s prediction, Eddington had been careful to remove from the analysis all measurements taken with the main equipment, the astrographic telescope and used only the results from the 4-inch. As I have explained, there were good grounds for this because of problems with the focus of the larger instrument. On the other hand, these plates yielded a value for the deflection of 0.93 seconds of arc, very close to the Newtonian prediction. Some suspected Eddington of cooking the books by leaving these measurements out.

At any rate, this is an article on Newton, not relativity or philosophy. The exact date in which physicists became convinced of a non-Newtonian explanation for Mercury's precession doesn't seem very relevant to me. RSchlafly 02:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for the link, it is most informative (I've not had a chance to read it fully but so far quite informative) but your second point is, I think spot on, I hadn't really realized that that was your objection. I thought the objection was to the claim that Newton's laws had been falsified, not that the exact date was off.--Reginod 11:21, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, here in the USA he's respected for scientific treatments, and we're awfully glad he's been knighted but it doesn't get him called Sir Isaac in American English. --Ed Poor 20:51, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Newton was never falsified. That is nonsense. His laws of motion work perfectly well for slow stuff. They work great for planets in orbit.

Einstein's work simply refined an excellent theory into a brilliant one. We can't aim a spaceship well enough to care whether we use Newton's (simple) laws or Einstein's. The matter crosses the line from engineering into theoretical physics.

Einstein's work led to atomic bomb theory and helped defeat the Japanese in WW2 - which saved a lot of Japanese lives, by the way. Let's try to get all this in perspective. --Ed Poor 20:55, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Inspired Kant

The article says:

Newton is often seen as one of the greatest scientists of all time due to his contributions, which inspired Kant to create the philosophical concepts of the categorical imperative and the synthetic a priori.

Is this a joke? What does Kant have to do with anything? Newton inspired some great science -- who cares about whatever mediocre philosophy he might have inspired? RSchlafly 02:26, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

To "Sir" or not to "Sir"

I have copied the following conversation from RSchlafly's talk page, as I think it makes sense to have a record of it here.--Hsmom 07:50, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I bet Isaac Newton cared about his title of "sir." Not to split hairs. Publicly evaluating a person's legacy based on your opinion of it is a bad idea, and sounds like opinion forbidden by the Commandments.-AmesG 01:02, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Sure, Newton may have cared, in the way that people care about honorary degrees and awards. Maybe he got some privileges from it, I don't know. But nobility status carries no weight with the typical American reader of Conservapedia. Nobody knows what Newton did to get that title, or why the title should make anyone deserving of any respect. It is just stupid and meaningless.

Newton was a great man, and I am not putting him down. He is great for what he did, not because he was friends with some silly king or however he got the title. RSchlafly 01:11, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

'Sir' is a title of respect. Not placing it would be equivalent to removing Doctor from the name of those holding a doctorate. Geo. 01:13, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

It is only a title of respect among fans of British nobility. Besides, encyclopedias do not normally list people with doctorates under the title "Doctor". RSchlafly 01:43, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Okay, can the bold text at least show that he was a peer? Geo. 01:50, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

I assume that you are joking. I don't know what a peer is, except that my dictionary says that it has something to do with British nobility. I think that the average American has very low respect for British nobility. RSchlafly 01:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

A Peer of the Realm is a member of the British nobility. Geo. 03:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

"Nobody knows what Newton did to get that title, or why the title should make anyone deserving of any respect. It is just stupid and meaningless." ... "I don't know what a peer is, except that my dictionary says that it has something to do with British nobility. I think that the average American has very low respect for British nobility." Are you serious? You don't know what Newton did that resulted in his title? I'd guess Calculus? Maybe Gravity? That deserves a heck of a lot of respect. I don't think we need to know the ins and outs of honorary titles in Britain to understand the basics of this one. According to Answers in Genesis, [5] "His country officially recognized his work in 1705 when he became the first person to receive a knighthood for scientific achievement." Surely this is important enough to include his "Sir"? --Hsmom 19:51, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I am serious. No American has any respect for British nobility titles. Apparently you don't know how Newton got the title either, because you are just guessing. You have a source that says that it was for "his work". Okay, that narrows it a little bit. It wasn't for his relatives. RSchlafly 20:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm sorry, I think you misunderstood my comment, as you misunderstood Geo.'s use of the term "peer". I guess we need to back up a bit. In Britian, knighthoods are given for exceptional achievement or service to the nation, much like the USA gives the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal. Newton was the first to be made a knight for scientific achievement rather than prowess on the battlefield. (From doesgodexist.org: "In 1705, Queen Anne knighted him, Sir Isaac Newton. It was the first knighthood for scientific discoveries rather than deeds on the battlefield or in government." [6]) Thus Newton was given his title for his *body of work*, which of course included topics like gravity and calculus. I understand that *you* have no respect for such awards. Indeed, there is some controversy over modern versions, even in Britian (see [7]). However, I think it's simply not true to say that *No* American has any respect for British nobility titles - see Robledo's examples below. Given that Newton's achievements were so great as to be awarded an honor that had previously been given only for military prowess, I think the "Sir" is worth keeping. --Hsmom 21:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Honorary knighthoods (accepted & thus I'm guessing respected...)

• George Bush
• Ronald Reagan
• Colin Powell
• General Norman Schwarzkopf
• Bob Hope

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1091938.stm

Any more sweepingly daft generalisations to make? :P --Robledo 20:16, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

No, you've made it for me. I've never heard any American call any of those men "sir". RSchlafly 21:01, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Naturally....none of them are British citizens. Read the source, son....third paragraph. *sighs* --Robledo 21:26, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

That's because it is inappropriate for an American to use such a title.[8] Newton, however, was not American, thus the use of the title is appropriate. I know this stuff is complicated. --Hsmom 21:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Exactly. To put it in context. "Bono" will never be "Sir Bono" (aside from the fact that his real name is Paul Hewson) because he is not a British citizen. So he can never be a "Sir". However, Newton was a British citizen, or a subject of the queen (or king), if you will. So he should be referred to by his correct title. Airdish 21:33, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

It's a simple matter of respect. "Sir" is his title in his native country and therefore should be the title that he is addressed by whenever he is addressed, wherever he is addressed. Aside from that argument, he is known the world over as "Sir Isaac Newton".Airdish 21:08, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

My students are fond of this song about Sir Issac - it's in MP3 format. [9]--Hsmom 21:32, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I see that someone put "Sir" back in. I disagree with this. In the USA, he is primarily known as Isaac Newton, not Sir Isaac Newton. Even assuming that he was knighted based on the merits of his scientific work, it is no more significant that an honorary degree or receiving some academic prize. No more significant to anyone outside of England, anyway. You wouldn't call someone "doctor" just because he got an honorary degree, and no American would call someone "sir" just because some king gave him some sort of honor. RSchlafly 20:38, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

My my, you disagree with a lot of things. Also, knighthoods are different, and especially back then. I call Isaac Newton Sir Isaac Newton, because he earned it, and he would have wanted himself called that, and we should defer to that as a means of respect-AmesG_yo! 20:43, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I've always refered to him and known him as Sir Isaac Newton, but silly me, I got that from all my physics text books here in America. Jrssr5 11:18, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Changed Leibniz calculus dispute statement

in order to agree with the cited material

'Newton formulated the classical theories of mechanics and optics and invented calculus Eric Weisstein's World of Math years before Leibniz. However, he did not publish his work on calculus Eric Weisstein's World of Math until afterward Leibniz had published his. This led to a bitter priority dispute between English and continental mathematicians which persisted for decades, to the detriment of all concerned.'[[10]]

Newton’s theory invalid

Reginod, I notice that you now say that Newtonian has been "falsified" and is "no longer scientifically valid", based on some opinion of some philosopher. It appears that you justify this based on me citing a philosopher saying that Freud's work was unscientific.

I don't agree with this. First, Freud's work really was unscientific. Newton's work was scientific, and continues to be used successfully by scientists today. Second, Putnam was presumably making some point about how one theory was more accurate than another, but your sentence is very misleading. Third, I cited Popper to show that Freud was never scientific, not that it was superceded by another theory. RSchlafly 19:31, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

This is why I asked you about this issue, because we have been over this before. If philosophers of science are valid on what is science then my support for a claim which is well enough known to be true that it doesn’t really need a reference is a valid one. I think the reference is as valid as you use of Popper (If not more so, since Putnam builds on Popper’s wok and is, probably, closer to the truth than Popper was).

Let me respond point by point.

To your first point: Putnam is clear Newton has been falsified, his theories are no longer good science—it is irrelevant that they were good science—Aristotle’s claims about biology were good science when he made them, and to some extent they can still be used successfully today but we would not say they are good science. Successful use is not the same as good science. Newton’s claims do (and did) not accurately predict the new data that they should have been able to predict if the theory was correct, they are no longer valid science—sure they work and sure they still predict some behaviors, but they do not predict all motion as he clamed they did.

To your second point: that is not Putnam’s point at all. Putnam is describing the process by which formerly valid scientific theories are replaced—Newton’s theory is an excellent case study of this. First a theory is formulated, it describes the available data. If successful it predicts new data. Then, data begins to be collected that falsifies the theory. But, the theory is too well entrenched to be replaced immediately—more data has to be collected before the scientific community accepts that the theory that has worked so well for them is falsified. So, step three is that more data is collected—in small pockets—and the dominant theory is repeatedly modified to account for the new data (think about how complex planetary motion had become before Newton). Finally, a new theory is proposed. It is first rejected because it goes against the old theory and the old theory is too cherished to be easily replaced, then it is discovered that the new theory not only accounts for all the available data (which the old theory couldn’t quite do), it predicts, accurately, new data. So the new theory finally comes to replace the old one as good science.

Additionally, I take your claim that I have misleadingly quoted Putnam very seriously. You have accused me of academic dishonesty and yet given the language of the sentence (“presumably”) you have not even bothered to check the source I have given. I have clearly explained why my sentence is not misleading, what the source was saying, and that shows why my sentence was a reasonable (concise) statement of the source. I expect, therefore, a public retraction of the false attack against my character.

To your third point: “X is not scientific” or “X is not science” is a claim that can be supported by experts in the field of philosophy of science according to what you said on the Freud talk page. The reason the philosopher of science rejects a thing as science seems irrelevant. If they know what is and is not science/scientific, it hardly matters whether or not the thing was science we are taking about what is not what was.--Reginod 09:36, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

I still don't agree. Why don't you also say that relativity is invalid, because of dark energy or quantization? Maybe the reader could read Putnam's book and figure out what he meant, but to just declare that Newtonian gravity is invalid is very misleading. RSchlafly 15:34, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

I refuse to continue any discussion with you until you apologize for your baseless accusations and personal attacks against me.--Reginod 15:43, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

I did not make baseless accusations and personal attacks against you. I did not say that you "misleadingly quoted Putnam"; you didn't even quote him at all as far as I can see. I did not accuse you of academic dishonesty. I did say that "your sentence is very misleading", and that is still my opinion. RSchlafly 16:20, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

You are quite right, I should have said you have accused me of misstating Putnam’s position, as opposed to misquoting (I was loose in my usage there, and if that confusion is all that is keeping you from retracting your attack, I hope I have cleared it up).

However, it is quite clear that you have accused me of academic dishonesty, even if that was not your intent. If I misleadingly referenced a source I am guilty of academic dishonesty, if you are saying that my reference does not support my claim you are attacking my integrity. You have not shown any evidence that you have so much as looked at the source I gave, and yet you say I am misleadingly referencing it. That is a personal attack, and it is unjustified. Please apologize, retract the claim, or support your position.--Reginod 16:33, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Take a chill pill, Reginod. The critique here is over one sentence - it is not about you as a person.

The idea concerns the role of truth and its relation to the scientific method, as well as to how science corrects itself or refines theories.

Let us take a step back and look at the matter at hand:

Are Newton's laws of motion "valid"? Were they invalidated or "disproved" by the Lorentz equations, Einstein's new theories, or Quantum physics?

Can we say that Newton's Laws apply only to "slow-moving" objects (say, less than 10% of the speed of light)?

There is a philosophical question, as well (perhaps in Epistemology or Methodology, if you want to get technical). How well do we actually know anything? --Ed Poor 10:46, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed, if the criticism were not about me as a person, RSchlafly could have easily said, “I’m sorry, you took that as an attack against your person, I did not intend it as such” and then reprased the offending sentence. Instead he chose to repeat the attack verbatim, KNOWING that I found it personally offensive. I think it is highly reasonable to take offense at the repetition of a charge that the person making the charge knows is offensive. If it were not intended to be offensive, he would not have repeated it.

As to your deeper questions, I had, at one point, detailed answers to those questions in the article and was told that they were not relevant to the subject of the article.--Reginod 11:03, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Then write about Scientific method; History of science (or physics or astronomy); Epistemology; or Methodology. The matter you are addressing here might be beyond the scope of the present article. --Ed Poor 11:09, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I’m not really interested in those fields, but I appreciate the offer. When I first got here this article was badly deficient, and I had some knowledge on the subject so I added what I knew and tried to move on (this particular example was a stock example when I was teaching and was pared with one about Darwin and I’m not touching Evolution with a 10-foot pole). What I added was deleted (I seem to recall the reason given was that it was heresy), I restored it. It was deleted again, I added more and better references and restored it. And then it was deleted because philosophers of science aren’t good sources for the sorts of claim I was using them to support. So, I moved on, no need to engage in an edit war. Then it turns out (see Freud) that philosophers of science ARE good sources for the types of claim I was using them to support, so I restored the claim—in a good faith attempt to make this article more closely reflect reality (and I hasten to add that throughout all this not a singe reference has been given for the claim contrary to the one I was making). And for my efforts to improve the site I get attacked. --Reginod 11:34, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Missing items

Why is there nothing in this article about light or about Newton's laws of motion? Why on earth is it locked? --Britinme 17:38, 2 May 2007 (EDT)