| Revision as of 22:18, 30 October 2006 editCarcharoth (talk | contribs)Administrators73,576 edits →Infobox Template Discussion - Keep or Delete?: reply← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 05:30, 16 November 2024 edit undoReaper1945 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers6,965 edits →Newton and the Scientific Revolution: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{skiptotoctalk}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{featured}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{British English}} |
|
{{Mainpage date|December 13|2005}} |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
{{FAOL|Spanish|es:Misplaced Pages}} |
|
|
|
|action1=PR |
|
{{FAOL|Vietnamese|vi:Misplaced Pages}} |
|
|
|
|action1date=22:19, 7 October 2005 |
|
{{oldpeerreview}} |
|
|
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Isaac Newton/archive1 |
|
{{WPCD}} |
|
|
|
|action1result=reviewed |
|
{{V0.5|class=FA|importance=Top}} |
|
|
|
|action1oldid=25009879 |
|
{{HistSci}} |
|
|
{{philosophy}} |
|
|
{{WPBiography|class=FA|priority=Top|core=yes}} |
|
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
|
*Selected on ] (may be in HTML comment) |
|
|
*'''Archives:''' ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action2=FAC |
|
==Family== |
|
|
|
|action2date=05:32, 19 October 2005 |
|
|
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Isaac Newton/archive1 |
|
|
|action2result=promoted |
|
|
|action2oldid=25836522 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action3=FAR |
|
Any heirs to Newton to mention? Any family? |
|
|
|
|action3date=01:03, 14 March 2009 |
|
|
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Isaac Newton/archive1 |
|
|
|action3result=removed |
|
|
|action3oldid=276860533 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action4=PR |
|
See ]: |
|
|
|
|action4date=06:21, 21 November 2012 |
|
:Newton died in ] on March 20th, 1727, and was buried in ]. His half-niece, ]{{ref|fn_3}}, served as his hostess in social affairs at his house on ] in London; he was her "very loving Uncle" {{ref|fn_4}}, according to his letter to her when she was recovering from ]. Although Newton, who had no children, had divested much of estate onto relatives in his last years he actually died ]. His considerable liquid estate was divided equally between his eight half-nieces and half-nephews (three Pilkingtons, three Smiths and two Bartons (including ]).{{ref|fn_25}} ] passed to his heir-in-law, a John Newton ("God knows a poor representative of so great a man"), who, after six years of "cocking, horse racing, drinking and folly" was forced to mortgage and then sell the ] before dying in a drunken accident. |
|
|
|
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Isaac Newton/archive2 |
|
--] <sup>]</sup> 08:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action4result=reviewed |
|
|
|action4oldid=523920979 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action5=GAN |
|
==Removed from article== |
|
|
|
|action5date=14:29, 18 August 2014 |
|
:From His work in decoding the bible he found that the world would end in 1948 using not the skip letter code but rather the code being used by the lords witnesses today.(http://www.truebiblecode.com/press1.html) |
|
|
|
|action5link=Talk:Isaac Newton/GA1 |
|
Useful? -- ] 12:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action5result=listed |
|
::No. His best estimate was 2060. See |
|
|
|
|action5oldid=621778484 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|maindate=December 13, 2005 |
|
==Newton’s theory of chemical affinities== |
|
|
|
|currentstatus=FFA/GA |
|
Does anyone know where I can find information on Newton’s chemical affinity theories? I keep reading about these in many places, for example: . Is there a good book on Newton’s alchemy? Or does anyone know some good links? If anyone is knowledgeable in this area, he or she should put it in the article. Thanks: --] 17:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|topic=Physics and astronomy |
|
|
|otd1date=2017-03-20|otd1oldid=771161909 |
|
|
|otd2date=2021-03-20|otd2oldid=1012897895 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=GA|vital=yes|living=no|listas=Newton, Isaac|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|core=yes |politician-work-group=yes |politician-priority=Mid |s&a-work-group=yes |s&a-priority=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject History of Science|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Physics|importance=Top |bio=yes }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Astronomy|importance=Top }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Mathematics|priority=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=High |metaphysics=yes |science=yes |philosopher=yes |modern=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=Top |anglicanism=yes |anglicanism-importance=Mid |theology-work-group=yes|theology-importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject England|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom|importance=Mid }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Lincolnshire|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject London|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Copied|from=Isaac Newton's tooth |to=Isaac Newton#Fame |diff=http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Isaac_Newton&diff=554808287&oldid=554660380(20 articles)|topic=People|class=GA}} |
|
|
{{WPUKIR10k}} |
|
|
{{Annual readership|days=180|scale=linear|color=red}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
|
<!--- Auto archiving configured by ] --->{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|algo = old(60d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Isaac Newton/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
|counter = 9 |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{tan}} |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Infobox == |
|
::Important books on Newton's Alchemy are: |
|
|
:::* Dobbs, Betty Jo Teeter. ''The Foundations of Newton's Alchemy: or, "The Hunting of the Greene Lyon"''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975. ISBN 052120786X |
|
|
:::* Dobbs, Betty Jo Teeter. ''The Janus Faces of Genius: the Role of Alchemy in Newton's Thought''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. ISBN 0521380847 |
|
|
:::The excerpt from ''Janus Faces'' at includes a discussion of the historiographical issue of Newton's alchemy and footnotes that provide a starting bibliography on Newton's alchemy. Dobbs's work came to an end with her untimely death in 1994. --] 02:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The "Political party" line in his infobox under personal details should be moved to be under his parlamentary posstion. ] (]) 19:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
::::Thanks a bunch! I have Newton's ''Principia'' (1687) and ''Opticks'' (1704) and there is a little bit there. I’ll check into the books you recommend. I also recently bought Trevor H. Levere’s 1971 book ''Affinity and Matter – Elements of Chemical Philosophy 1800-1865'' and it has lot of Newton stuff in it as well as many other affinity theories. I'll add your suggestions to ]. Thanks again. --] 12:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:The info box considers political party personal data, so it moves it to the bottom. I got it in by just using direct markup rather then template fields. ] (]) 20:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2024 == |
|
== Possible transmission of Kerala mathematics == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Isaac Newton|answered=yes}} |
|
I noticed that my addition of the "possible transmission of Kerala Mathematics to Europe" link was reverted. So I thought I'd clarify the doubts of ] here. <br>I believe the title of the article itself justifies the fact that the article is based on speculation that in turn is based on circumstantial evidence. Here are a few links that discuss of this transmission , , (this one contains a list of seminars and conventions held worldwide to discuss the possible transmission), . The opinions on this theory are greatly divided. Some take to the ], while others hang on to the ]. Since this is a disputed and widely debated possibility, it should not be omitted from the page (written in ], of course). If such a theory is proved, it could have disastrous impacts on Newton and other mathematicians' careers. Also, its omission would mean the article lacks comprehsiveness — thereby falling out on the criteria for featured status.<br> |
|
|
|
In the second paragraph of "Personality" section, where "woemen & by other means" is written, there is a spelling mistake for the word "woman". It is written "woeman" and must be changed into "woman" or maybe"women". ] (]) 15:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
I'd like to hear the thoughts of other wikipedians. Comments, anyone?--]<sup>a.k.a.D<font color="green">]</font>epu<font color="white"> </font>Joseph |<font color="green">]</font></sup>15:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Not done. This is a direct quotation from a note written by Newton, and uses his original (archaic) spelling. See ] for the policy: "In direct quotations, retain dialectal and archaic spellings". ] (]) 15:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
:I think the key phrase here is "if such a theory is proved." If such a theory is proved--or even substantiated with some amount of evidence rather than speculation--then of course it should be included in Misplaced Pages. If that happened, I don't think anyone would fault WP for waiting until there was some evidence and not going forward based on speculation. There's no requirement that encyclopedias have to guess right about future facts. ] 19:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Newton deduced rather than "defined" his Universal Law of Gravitation == |
|
I agree. I also think that this idea that the significance of a scientist, discoverer etc lies in 'being first' is childish and false. Newton's significance as a pioneer of modern science is assured whichever giant shoulders he stood on.--] 06:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the subsection `'''Gravity'''<nowiki/>' it is reported that Newton "(..) ''defined'' the law of ]." (my italics). |
|
==World-machine== |
|
|
] is an orphaned article. I have tagged it to be merged with this one, but I am not comfortable inserting it. I leave that up to the caretakers of this article. ] 19:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Likewise, in the opening section it is reported that "In the ''Principia'', Newton ''formulated'' the ] ]." (again my italics). |
|
:Looks like it should be linked with ],which is an older concept than Newton. I shall unorphan the article. --] <sup>]</sup> 19:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thanks ] 19:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Tag removed -- but I've just noticed that there ''is'' a ] article! :-) --] <sup>]</sup> 19:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The present text continues: "He used his mathematical description of ] to derive ] (..)". |
|
== Footnotes == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However, a recent of the ''Principia'' -- which includes a detailed reconstruction of Newton's reasoning as developed and documented in the ''Principia'' -- demonstrated that Newton actually ''deduced'' his Universal Law of Gravitation, in all detail, from, among other ingredients, Kepler's laws. In this sense Newton lived up to his credo "hypotheses non fingo". |
|
Why are the footnotes not in numerical order? Why don't we use the <nowiki><ref></ref></nowiki> format, which numbers them automatically? ] 13:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Some editors dislike the ] system, mostly i think because the <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tags are inserted directly into the text, sometimes making editing confusing. I've also seen the opinion that citations are not really appropriate for an encyclopedia article, and all the references should be on a separate page; there was some talk of software support for this idea but i don't know what the outcome was. Mostly as an experiment, i've started a fact checking page for this article (]), but am only making slow progress.] 14:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::I found the out of order footnotes a real pain -- the <nowiki><ref></ref></nowiki> format I find easier. --] <sup>]</sup> 15:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I'm not objecting to <nowiki><ref></nowiki> (can't really because i haven't actually edited the article) and also find that format much easier to use. If there are no objections, then in a week or so i'll switch everything to Cite.php.] 15:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So it was the other way around, compared to what is stated in the present form of the article. |
|
::::No objections from me. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As is explained in detail in the above mentioned , Newton's deduction of his Universal Law of Gravitation has far reaching consequences for the concept of mass. |
|
:::::Great idea Eric, thanks for taking on the task. --] 01:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I kindly propose to edit the article, so as to update it according to these new insights. ] (]) 21:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
I've added the <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tags, later i'll go through and check what i can and clean up the citation templates, but for starters the Lagrange quote(footnote 3) seems to be incorrect. The cited work is : "aussi M. Lagrange, qui le citait souvent comme le plus grand génie qui eût jamais existé, ajoutait-il aussitôt: ''et le plus heureux; on ne trouve qu'une fois un système du monde à établir''." If babelfish is correct, this is the author partialy paraphrasing and partialy quoting Lagrange.] 17:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: That might need ] to demonstrate ]. And regarding "''Release Date: 18th September 2024''", see ]. - ] (]) 08:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
Also, shouldn't footnote 1 read: The remainder of the dates in this article follow the '']''? ] 17:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:Additionally, ] is often considered a ], and when it's not it's still known to lend little editorial oversight pre-publish and attract little academic interest post-publish for its authors. I wouldn't consider most of its publications to be ] for verifying claims with, unfortunately. Thus, this would need some additi. |
|
|
:Moreover, while it's interesting to engage with, I suppose I don't quite see the profound conceptual difference the OP does here—does anyone really believe what amounts to the whole essence of the "apple eureka" anecdote, that Newton jotted this part of the ''Principia'' down with inspiration ''ex nihilo''? Whether one strictly deduces or defines on paper, there's surely a bit of both in most peoples' internal processes, no? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 09:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::I believe a scientific text should be judged by its ''content'', and by nothing else. I believe that applies both to the text on Misplaced Pages pages and to the source that I cited in support of my proposal for an edit of the text of a Misplaced Pages page, in this particular case. ] (]) 13:44, 3 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::: {{rto| Reef Lodgeknew}} Yes, you can believe that, but to be taken on board in an ''encylopedia such as Misplaced Pages'', the ''usage and mentioning of'' a scientific text is judged not by its content, but by its coverage in the literature. That is ]. See ] and ]. - ] (]) 16:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Well said here. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 00:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Newton and the Scientific Revolution == |
|
==Disenchantment of Christianity?== |
|
|
The following statement, though cited, is I think highly suspect and debateable. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re : not trying to take away from Newton's accomplishments but using the phrase "the single most important figure in the Scientific Revolution" seems too close to the textbook Dylan example in ]. The last sentence in the paragraph already makes the case for Newton's importance and makes the former phrase somewhat unnecessary. -- ] (]) 06:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
:The perceived ability of Newtonians to explain the world, both physical and social, through logical calculations alone is the crucial idea in the disenchantment of Christianity. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:@] I understand the caution, and you consider the language to be loaded because it seems to fall under "]", but, the section notes the importance of attribution, which has been demonstrated through the use of two sources listed, such as by ], who states that Newton "was the towering figure of the scientific revolution. In a period rich with outstanding thinkers, Newton was simply the most outstanding."<ref>{{Citation |last=Matthews |first=Michael R. |title=The Pendulum in Newton’s Physics |date=2000 |work=Time for Science Education |volume=8 |pages=181–213 |url=http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-94-011-3994-6_8 |access-date=2024-11-14 |place=Dordrecht |publisher=Springer Netherlands |doi=10.1007/978-94-011-3994-6_8 |isbn=978-0-306-45880-4 |author-link=Michael R. Matthews}}</ref> On the other hand, Mark Cartwright of ] states that Newton is "widely regarded as the single most important figure in the Scientific Revolution".<ref>{{Cite web |last=Cartwright |first=Mark |date=2023-09-19 |title=Isaac Newton |url=https://www.worldhistory.org/Isaac_Newton/ |access-date=2024-11-14 |website=] |language=en}}</ref> Also, the textbook titled "Western Civilization: A Concise History" by Christopher Brooks states that "Perhaps the single most important figure of the Scientific Revolution was Sir Isaac Newton, an English mathematician (1642 – 1727)."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brooks |first=Christopher |title=Chapter 10: The Scientific Revolution |url=https://pressbooks.nscc.ca/worldhistory/chapter/chapter-10-the-scientific-revolution/ |access-date=2024-11-15 |website=]}}</ref> On top of that, while yes, the last sentence of the paragraph acknowledges the absolute fundamental importance of Newton to the creation of modern science, it does not necessarily imply his "supreme", so to say, status or importance in the Scientific Revolution itself. I don't think it's a radically different sentence that differs from the general consensus. ] (]) 06:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
Is this from a poll or study on people who have stopped being Christians or just the author's opinion? Newtonian physics and worldview has certainly not disillusioned the more than 2 billion Christians living today, nor really in any great numbers the followers of any other religion, nor even Newton himself. One might say the Newtonian worldview gave certain people, especially certain intellectuals, disillusionment about Christianity or religion in general, but that's a different statement altogether. ] 20:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:For what it's worth, I agree that "the single most important figure in the Scientific Revolution" is puffery. ] (]) 14:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Is a description such as "the culminating figure of the Scientific Revolution of the 17th century" by '']'' puffery as well? ] (]) 14:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
:The line puts forward the disenchantment of Christianity likes it some sort of established fact. If it is I'm sure we have an article somewhere noting this important fact. If not it's POV. ] 21:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:@] It's not a matter of citing sources but of tone. Although more obscure, I can cite sources that don't paint Newton's accomplishments in such a positive light: |
|
|
|
|
|
:Sepper (2003, p. 103), citing Goethe, says "Newton's theory poses an extraordinary complex of scientific and historical problems, because it fails to account for all the relevant phenomena and to discriminate properly between what is interpreted and the interpretation. Its astonishing historical success was more due to the negligence of those who followed Newton than to the intrinsic merits of the theory." |
|
I can see why some people might become disenchanted with Christianity but to say that Christianity itself has become disenchanted doesn't make any sense -- Christianity is neither enchanted nor disenchanted nor can it be. Thus there can be no such thing as the disenchantment of Christianity. -- ] | ] 05:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:Truesdell, as quoted in Budenz (2016, p. 162), states that little of Newton's work on resistance of motion and fluid mechanics from the ''Principia'' "has found its way into either texts or histories" as much of it "is false" which is why "historians and philosophers, apparently, tear out from their personal copies." |
|
|
|
|
|
:Ohanian (2009, pp. 71-72), similarly states that "A careful examination of Newton's writings revealed that some of the errors were deliberate and dishonest attempts to mislead Newton faked some theoretical calculations and he engaged in flagrant cherry-picking of observational data Newton's fraud did not receive wide attention because the ''Principia'' was much admired but little read, and its influence on the development of physics was indirect." |
|
:I think the sentence is meaning to say "disenchantment with Christianity"; I believe this is the meaning under question here. The statement is POV -- I never liked it, but never had time to challenge or change it. Roy is correct. Not only that, but Newton himself considered his "Natural Philosophy" to be positive proof of a rational Creator -- just the opposite of what this statement proposes. This statement is POV and incorrect, and should thus be changed. ] 14:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:However, I'm not trying to pit sources against sources or enter into the pissing contest that often accompanies the Scientific Revolution. My understanding is that the intro should provide a brief overview of what the rest of the Misplaced Pages entry is about, in as plain language as possible, which is why it's preferable to avoid loaded language. There's plenty of praise, much deservedly so, of Newton in the Legacy section. Perhaps the sources you cited can be better quoted there. I just don't think that wording belongs to the intro but I'm open to what others have to say. |
|
|
|
|
|
:'''References''' |
|
::I understand that Newton disagreed with the dogma of the Trinity. He did however keep this hidden from public knowledge as it would have caused serious problems from him. Having issues with the Trinity does not imply that he was disenchanted with Christianity at all nor that he disbelieved in a creator. In fact, Newton, through his studies, seemed to become more convinced of a creator. |
|
|
|
:Budenz, J. (2016). ''The Principia: The Authoritative Translation and Guide.'' University of California Press. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Ohanian, H. C. (2009). ''Einstein's Mistakes: The Human Failings of Genius.'' W.W. Norton & Company. |
|
::] 03:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:Sepper, D. L. (2003). ''Goethe Contra Newton: Polemics and the Project for a New Science of Color.'' Cambridge University Press. |
|
|
|
|
|
:-- ] (]) 05:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Evidence? == |
|
|
|
::Considering his influence, which usually is considered that Goethe's theory to be more incorrect than Newton's, which is fine, the sourcing and the information of text is fine. ] (]) 05:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
Was/has there been any evidence that Newton lived a Homosexual life style? ] 22:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:No. --] <sup>]</sup> 09:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Newton's comment at the Parliament of England == |
|
|
|
|
|
In the article, the only recorded comments were to request that the window be closed. But I've seen on the web many times that the request is to open the window, as well as to close it. My colleague suggests there is "to open" in Asimov's ''Book of Facts''. Can anyone comment to this? And what is the actual record for this? ] --] 09:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The anecdote is from the Convention Parliament 1689-90: "According to a story that rests solely on anecdotal authority, he spoke only once; feeling a draft, he asked an usher to close a window." (Westfall 1980, p. 483) But Westfall also states that none of the surviving accounts contain any record of his participation. |
|
|
:For his participation in 1701: "As before in the Convention Parliament, he was not prominent in any respect. The one division of the House that a contemporary recorded in print saw him vote in support..." (Westfall 1980, p. 623)] 18:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Problems with style == |
|
|
|
|
|
"Newton played a major role in the development of calculus, sharing credit famously at time with Gottfried Leibniz (and later with Archimedes and Madhava)." |
|
|
|
|
|
What is this supposed to read? Sharing credit famously at THE time, or credit OF the time? I don't know enough history to be able to say whether Leibniz or Newton aknowledged each others work. |
|
|
|
|
|
--] 20:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Evidence for Bipolar Disorder? == |
|
|
Is there any evidence that Newton had bipolar disorder? If there is, should it be included in this article? |
|
|
|
|
|
-- 20:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Not that I know of. But if we have a reliable source that says so, we should put it in ] 04:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
This has been previously discussed. Along with autism, poisoning etc. There is some evidence that Newton had a psychotic episode but diagnosis a few hundred years later is unreliable - particularly as no one knows what "bipolar disorder" is.--] 10:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Counterfeiters== |
|
|
|
|
|
"Despite this, convictions of the most flagrant criminals could be extremely difficult to achieve; however, Newton proved to be equal to the task." Is this a typo? Should it read "...convictions of '''even''' the most flagrant criminals ..." or "...convictions of '''all but''' the most flagrant.." As it stands it make little sense. I suspect the former but could someone clarify please? |
|
|
|
|
|
] 10:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:"Despite this" doesn't make sense either.--] 00:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm hoping to get some feedback on my attempt at fact-checking. Is this a useful format, any suggestions for improvement?] 14:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Removed from article== |
|
|
Unsourced. Google search for Pater rotae yields nothing, and there is no reason to use an accurate value of pi to contruct round objects. -- ] 09:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
<blockquote> |
|
|
Probably his most underrated contributed to modern science is his correction to the wheel design. Due to an incorrect calculation of ] by ] of ], the wheels used in Europe were not perfectly circular and would often buckle after continuous use. However Newton’s calculations introduced a new level of accuracy and meant that the wheels produced in ] were now of international repute. It is for this reason he has been given the title ‘Pater rotae’, Latin for ‘Father of wheels’. |
|
|
</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
The two full dates given in the article, 5 July 1687 for publication of ''Principia'', and 20 March 1727 for the date of Newton's death are both dates in the ]. Furthermore, when months are give in the article i presume they are taken from source text which give old style dates. For instance, for Newton's early exit from Grantham the article states: "by Oct 1659 he was to be found at Woolsthorpe"; the origin of the statement most likely being a document dated 28 October, which would be ''November'' in the ]. Some effort would be required to verify that the months, and to a lesser extent the years, are still valid under the new calendar.] 20:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Anime reference == |
|
|
I feel that the reference to an anime cartoon is not apropo to the subject, and is not even a significant use of his image in art. We mine as well just add "my 12 year old kid wrote a play where Isaac Newton is satan." I've removed this reference. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Fair enough. For an historical figure of Newton's age, I think it's probably reasonable to expect that cited fictional references be of age sufficient to be sure that they're memorable. --] 17:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Science and Religion== |
|
|
"He also was a devout Christian, studied the Bible daily and wrote more on religion than on natural science." Seeing as how Newton contributed so much to modern science and scientific thought, shouldn't this particular quote be cited, or explained upon? <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 14:55, September 19, 2006 (UTC{{{3|}}})</small> |
|
|
:You must provide citations for anything you quote, but minding that, yes, you can contribute. There is already a section here and a separate article on Newton's religious views--] 23:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
--] <sup>]</sup> 08:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Early life deletion== |
|
|
I don't see the logic for deleting the text: |
|
|
|
|
|
:According to ] and H. Eves: |
|
|
|
|
|
::Newton began his schooling in the village schools and was later sent to ], where he became the top boy in the school. At ] he lodged with the local ], ] and eventually became engaged to the apothecary's stepdaughter, Anne Storer, before he went off to ] at the age of 19. As Newton became engrossed in his studies, the romance cooled and Miss Storer married someone else. It is said he kept a warm memory of this love, but Newton had no other recorded "sweethearts" and never married.<ref>{{cite book |last=Bell |first=E.T. |origyear=1937 |year=1986 |title=Men of Mathematics |publisher=Simon & Schuster |location=New York |edition=Touchstone edition |pages=pp. 91-2}}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
:However, Bell and Eves' sources for this claim, William Stukeley and Mrs Vincent (the former Miss Storer - actually named Katherine, not Anne), merely say that Newton entertained "a passion" for Storer while he lodged at the Clarke house. |
|
|
|
|
|
Which seems well balanced. Is it a correct quote from Bell or not? --] <sup>]</sup> 01:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:It's an accurate paraphrase of Bell (tho he refers to Miss Storey not Storer), but not a quote. The relevant text from ''Men of Mathematics'' is on ]. The passage could be quoting Eves ({{cite book |last=Eves |first=Howard |year=1961 |title=An Introduction to the History of Mathematics}}) but this seems doubtful. I removed the text because: it was formatted as a quote but was not, the last sentence would be very difficult to verify (Bell for one does not mention any sources) and neither of these sources are a Newton biography. Wouldn't we do better having some text on "Quaestiones" and the ''Anni Mirabiles'' instead?] 03:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::There's no reason for not mentioning them all. Certainly the stay at the apothecary's should be mentioned (especially given Newton's later alchemical work), along with Miss Storer's later claim. Thanks for reminding me about ] -- looks like a good job you've done there. --] <sup>]</sup> 08:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Hey, thanks, it's nowhere near complete tho. I put the passage back in the article, but think it needs some clean-up. While on the subject of quotes, the latter: "His genius now begins to mount upwards apace..." is not from Stokes or a Grantham teacher, but , describing his return to the school and not the completion of his education at Grantham. I was going to delete it, but maybe we should fix the quote and attribute it to Conduitt?] 13:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Star Trek== |
|
|
Is the Star Trek reference really necessary? Frankly, I'm not a fan of "in popular culture" sections for serious topics, and I wouldn't mind the entire section here removed. Newton would naturally make appearances in countless cartoons, books, and movies- allowing the star trek bit to stay is just asking for a huge mound of cruft on this article. ] 03:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
I've started an approach that may apply to Misplaced Pages's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on ''in popular culture'' information. I started that last year while I raised ] to ] when I created ], which has become a ]. Recently I also created ] out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, ''']''' 15:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I think the Pope epitaph (Nature and Nature's laws...) should stay in the main article (or appear in both). It is one of the most famous quotations about Newton. ] 05:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::I reinserted it more in context. ] 05:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Was Newton homosexual? == |
|
|
|
|
|
I think I saw a video about this and that his 'intense relationship' with the young Swiss was sexual. Enlighten me. ] 11:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Infobox Template Discussion - Keep or Delete? == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Infobox_Scientist |
|
|
|name = Isaac Newton's |
|
|
|image = GodfreyKneller-IsaacNewton-1689.jpg |
|
|
|caption = Sir Isaac Newton at 46 in ]'s 1689 portrait |
|
|
|birth_date = {{OldStyleDate|4 January|1643|25 Dec. 1642}} |
|
|
|birth_place = ], ], ] |
|
|
|death_date = {{OldStyleDate|31 March|1727|20 Mar.}} |
|
|
|death_place = ], ] |
|
|
|residence = ] ] |
|
|
|nationality = ] ] |
|
|
|field = ], ], </br>], ], </br> ] |
|
|
|work_institution = ] |
|
|
|alma_mater = ] |
|
|
|doctoral_advisor = ] |
|
|
|known_for = ], ], </br>], ] |
|
|
|prizes = ] |
|
|
|religion = Prophetic ] |
|
|
|footnotes = Note that Newton did not have a ], however ] is considered by ] authorities to be the equivalent of his doctoral advisor in terms of mentorship.}} |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Delete.''' I've just read the discussion ], and I came here hoping this article, about one of the most famous scientists of all time, didn't have a biographical infobox. Sadly, I see it does. I think it looks awful, with the England flags and the misleading "doctoral advisor" bit (even with the corrective note at the bottom of the infobox), and the "fields" and "known for" and "religion" bits oversimplifying stuff that ''has'' to be presented as well-written prose to communicate the concepts to the reader. Anyone reading the infobox would then start reading the article in totally the wrong frame of mind. The correct way to present the information is as a well-written article that introduces the relevant points at the correct moment, and builds up a picture of Newton and his times and his scientific works, and places it all in context. This is what the infobox miserably fails to do. ] 03:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Delete.''' I agree, the infobox should go. The information presented is misleading, and it attracts cruft. ] 04:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Keep.''' It's standard and in already >250 scientist biographies. I personally find it useful. An infobox is a summary, and by definition it simpliflies things. In the same way the article is a condensed simplification of a full-blown biography of Newton. Let's not fall into the trap of dictating to the reader how he/she should approach the article...the average reader does have the intelligence to seek expansion of summarised facts...to think otherwise would be patronising. ] 23:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Delete.''' The proper place to summarize the article is in the lead section. It does not make sense to have a summary in the lead section and a summary in the infobox just next to the lead section. -- ] (]) 02:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:'''Comment.''' I agree the article should be summarized in the lead section. True. However that is no reason to exclude an infobox. It still makes sense to have an infobox. There are many reasons why they are still useful, even if repeating some info in the lead. That's why there are tens of thousands of infoboxes on the 'pedia. Your argument is general to all bio infoboxes and not specific to this article. Infoboxes make it easy for the reader to make comparisons between articles (for example). When thinking about an infobox, one has to think beyond the immediate article. Also remember it is now the WPBIO: policy to start all biographical articles with an infobox. ] 12:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::'''Reply.''' I agree that there are some reasons why infoboxes are useful. However, there are also reasons why they're harmful (mentioned in my comment below). Weighing them against eachother, my conclusion is that the infobox here should be short. As you say, WPBIO policy is to start the article with ''an'' infobox, but it says nothing about the length (as far as I know). -- ] (]) 08:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Keep.''' as per ]'s reasons: it's standard and in already >250 scientist biographies. It's a summary, like the rest of the article. If you have an objection to the contents then change them. --] <sup>]</sup> 08:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:'''Comment.''' On the other hand, there are more than a thousand bios in which it's not. What is so good in any case about its being standard? It's detracting, it takes up space, it clutters the view, it repeats information, and it's a bad way to summarize the article. Is it that important to know that he was born in England, is English, lived in England, studied in Cambridge, and worked in Cambridge? I can live with ], as is in the article now (though I find the occupation row strange), but the ] being discussed here has too many problems. -- ] (]) 08:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::'''Reply.''' The place to argue general principles is not in each and every bio. --] <sup>]</sup> 09:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::'''Reply.''' What? I'm saying that ''this'' infobox is bad for ''this'' article, and I'm using general arguments like readability for it. Surely, there's nothing wrong with that? How otherwise are we suppose to come to a conclusion? Now, if there were a guideline like the ] for this, then I can imagine that this is given some weight. But in this case, the template itself is controversial so we have to discuss it article by article. -- ] (]) 09:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::'''Reply.''' Discuss it at: ] --] <sup>]</sup> 11:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::'''Reply.''' ] is where I'd discuss it if I'd change the template. For instance, changing "alma mater" requires an edit to ] and hence should be discussed on that talk page. On the other hand, putting a template on this article requires editing this article, and should thus be discussed on this talk page. -- ] (]) 08:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Keep.''' The infobox looks fine to me. To summarize things in an infobox is indeed an art, but it can be done with a bit of creativity. Just because sometimes it can be a challenge is no reason to throw the infobox out with the bathwater. Please be specific about which fields are a "problem" and why. We can then collaborate to creatively alter them by concensus. I personally do not as yet see any such problem in this case, so please explain the points at issue. ] 11:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::'''Comment.''' The infobox that is in the article presently is fine. The one shown on the talk page has too many things (in small print that nobody is going to read); one-three core points in a caption is a general rule in writing. One should never put paragraphs in captions. Extra information is good, but it should go into the article somewhere? --] 11:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::'''Reply.''' The small font you are referring to is the footnote field. It is not a caption. It is standard to all bio infoboxes and is there by consensus. ] 12:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::'''Reply.''' My point was that, having read several theories with regard to online reading I am very aware that attention spans are severely limited. The more easily accessible information is the more people will tend to read it. Spend a few weeks reading articles on web-page design tips and it will change your perspective. Many people can't read small font. Just an opinion. Later: --] 12:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::'''Reply.''' Those people whose attention span is so short that they can't read an infobox are unlikely to read the main article in the first place :-) Let's not sweat small stuff. Sorry, the awful pun was irresistable. ] 12:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::'''Reply''' to "please explain the points at issue": "residence" is implied by place of birth, alma mater, institution, place of death and hence superfluous; the flag at "nationality" does not look nice; "fields" is implied by "known for"; having both "alma mater" and "institution" is too much, I think; "doctoral adviser" is both misleading and of little use; knighthood is not that important; "religion" is misleading. If it seems like I'm putting every word under a magnifying glass, that's because I am. The top of an article is the most important part, that's why every sentence in the lead section of an important article is discussed and every word has to prove its mettle. -- ] (]) 08:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::'''Response.''' The trick is to see this template with a wider vision than just this page. There are many readers who will use these infoboxes to make quick comparisons between different scientists. So if you leave out a field, it makes comparison difficult and spoils the unformity of an infobox in a biography project. Fields can be left out sometimes----yes----but this should not be overdone as you appear to propose. It is far better to creatively work out the best wording in each field. Now let me go thru' your points (i) Residence is not implied by birth...you can be born in one country and move. A reader encountering Newton for the first time may not know he always stayed in one place. The infobox makes this clear for all scientists in a very structured and uniform way. (ii) "Known for" is more fine-grained than "Field"...again you have to assume a reader might only be just starting to learn physics and may not be at your level. (iii) "Alma mater" and "Institution" are different things. It happens to be the same for Newton, but the new reader will not know that and the infobox makes it immediately clear. (iv) The anomalous case of "Doctoral advisor" is taken care of in the footnote field. That's what footnotes are for! Note that ] is selected by the authorities on such matters (v) "Knighthood" ---- I agree, please delete it :-) (vi) "Religion" ...hmmmm...Michael Price is the expert on that one. Please ask him his justification for that label. I do not claim expertise on that one and defer to his superior knowledge on that score. ] 10:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Keep.''' - except for the non-English "Alma mater", see also ]. Such infoboxes give a handy first impression. ] 12:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::'''Comment.''' If you want "Alma Mater" changed to "Studied at" you need to propose it on the talk page of the template. Not here. ] 12:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Comment.''' ''"There are many readers who will use these infoboxes to make quick comparisons between different scientists."'' - quoted from a post by bunix above. My response here would be that this is metadata, which is all well and good, but this risks having areas of Misplaced Pages looking like a database, rather than an encyclopedia. There is a good reason why metadata such as "Persondata" (I think) is hidden and not directly displayed. People reading a database of tables will learn less than if they read a series of article on a subject. At worse, the database of tables being used to compare different scientists will be misleading, or require clumsy footnotes. In essence, the lead, infobox and main article are different ways of presenting information. At the moment, they can conflict can cause problems. I totally agree with those that say that Misplaced Pages, being based on modern technologies, can do new things, but it needs to be carefully thought out, widely discussed, and valid objections addressed. Organic growth, as seen on a wiki, works well for editing article text, but trying to organically grow a metadata system without careful planning could end up a mess. ] 11:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Reply.''' It has been widely discussed on the Talk Page of the the template. The planning was careful. The present structure has been determined by concensus. Your above points are not specific to Newton, but are general. So your discussion is innappropriate here. If you are concerned, do an RfC or take it to the Village Pump. But personally I believe your comments are not well thought out as they apply to 1000's of infoboxes...not just this one. You need to define more clearly the specifics of this case. Also note that all bio infoboxes have a footnote field. Its standard. ] 21:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I do understand what you are saying about how some discussion should be at the template talk page, and some at the article talk page, but inevitably there will be a large degree of overlap, as you have to use examples to illustrate what is being discussed. As a matter of fact, I am already discussing these issues on the talk page of the template. I'd be interested to hear what you think, over there, as not many people are participating yet. I really would be interested in an in depth discussion of this, using examples of many different infoboxes and trying to reach consensus on some of the common mistakes made when designing and implementing infoboxes. Consensus can change, and there is always room for improvement. Are you up for a discussion like that? You could show me examples from the 1000s of infoboxes that that you consider to be good examples of how an infobox should be presented to the reader, and what advantages they have. ] 22:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Origionality == |
|
|
|
|
|
Newton's laws of motion were not brand new ideas. Descartes expounded them before, and before him Beeckman. You can actually see in the origional manuscripts (of Newton's works) where Newton crossed out references to Descartes. I think this should be included in the article since very few people are aware of this. ] 00:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Do you have a source? ] 02:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::The original manuscripts of Newton's works? :-) Seriously, pictures of the original works would be very nice (does Wikisource have them?), and a reference to a scholarly paper or book about this, is what we need. ] 09:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Newton's Laws of Motion are rightly attributed to Newton himself -- this is the established historical fact -- anything else would amount to original research. He was the one, among all others, who came up with the radical and history-changing idea of ''Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy''. Galileo, for that matter, had already, through experimentation, established the notion of intertia, but only Newton was able to abstract the idea into a physical theory comprised of a self-consistent set of generalized mathematical postulates. ] 12:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::LotR, actually no. He was influenced greatly by Descartes and literally expounged him from his own works ... and, ergo, exounged him from the Newtonian mechanics of motion. Rightly, it would be attributed to Beeckman (he was persuaded by Descartes not to publish). I will try to compile something in the next few days. If anyone actually does any research on the topic, he/she should find something similar. ] 16:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Furthermore, it was not until much later that the mathematical equations were so focused (ie F=ma). Newton did not like calculus in physics, but rather much prefered geometry. ] 16:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::This is the first time I have heard such claims. Even if he was influenced by Descartes, that's all it amounts to: He was influenced. If you look at most of the great physicists, they were all "influenced" by someone before them. I would have no problem with a statement such as "Newton was influenced by Descartes," but it would have to be verifiable. |
|
|
:::::All my textbooks on the matter credit Newton for the Laws of Motion. Newton himself was a brilliant mathematician who independently developed calculus to achieve his goals. His Natural Philosophy was the first mathematical abstraction of physical theory -- he invented what we now call physics. That is why he is considered by many to the be the greatest figure in science history. ] 17:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:It is not well known, LotR, but that means nothing. It was more than influenced ... Newton actually copied aspecs of his laws of motion verbatim. I have dispatched an e-mail to a professor I recently spoke to about this e-mail. I assure you, I will post evidence when I have time. ] 23:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::An email from a professor will be original research. We need documented veriable sources. Newton was infuenced by Descartes' erroneous vortical theories of planetary motion, but abandoned them when he realised they didn't work. This is documented extensively by all of Newton's biographers (e.g. Westfall's ''Never at Rest'', pg 88-100). Descartes was all the rage at the time -- Newton progressed by moving beyond him (and Aristotle, Plato etc). --] <sup>]</sup> 08:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
The "Political party" line in his infobox under personal details should be moved to be under his parlamentary posstion. Felixsj (talk) 19:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
In the second paragraph of "Personality" section, where "woemen & by other means" is written, there is a spelling mistake for the word "woman". It is written "woeman" and must be changed into "woman" or maybe"women". Zahra Galeshi (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
So it was the other way around, compared to what is stated in the present form of the article.
level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
