Talk:Isaac Newton

Infobox

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)

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. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2024

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)

Not done. This is a direct quotation from a note written by Newton, and uses his original (archaic) spelling. See MOS:PMC for the policy: "In direct quotations, retain dialectal and archaic spellings". GrindtXX (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Newton deduced rather than "defined" his Universal Law of Gravitation

In the subsection `Gravity' it is reported that Newton "(..) defined the law of universal gravitation." (my italics).

Likewise, in the opening section it is reported that "In the Principia, Newton formulated the law (..) universal gravitation." (again my italics).

The present text continues: "He used his mathematical description of gravity to derive Kepler's laws of planetary motion (..)".

However, a recent study 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".

So it was the other way around, compared to what is stated in the present form of the article.

As is explained in detail in the above mentioned study, Newton's deduction of his Universal Law of Gravitation has far reaching consequences for the concept of mass.

I kindly propose to edit the article, so as to update it according to these new insights. Reef Lodgeknew (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

That might need wp:secondary sources to demonstrate wp:notability. And regarding "Release Date: 18th September 2024", see wp:recentism. - DVdm (talk) 08:49, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, Cambridge Scholars Publishing is often considered a predatory publisher, 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 reliable sources 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? Remsense ‥ 论 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 Wikipedia pages and to the source that I cited in support of my proposal for an edit of the text of a Wikipedia page, in this particular case. Reef Lodgeknew (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Reef Lodgeknew: Yes, you can believe that, but to be taken on board in an encylopedia such as Wikipedia, the usage and mentioning of a scientific text is judged not by its content, but by its coverage in the literature. That is by design. See wp:primary sources and wp:secondary sources. - DVdm (talk) 16:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Well said here. Remsense ‥ 论 00:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Newton and the Scientific Revolution

Re this edit: 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 MOS:PUFFERY. The last sentence in the paragraph already makes the case for Newton's importance and makes the former phrase somewhat unnecessary. -- Guillermind81 (talk) 06:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@Guillermind81 I understand the caution, and you consider the language to be loaded because it seems to fall under "MOS:PUFFERY", but, the section notes the importance of attribution, which has been demonstrated through the use of two sources listed, such as by Michael R. Matthews, 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." On the other hand, Mark Cartwright of World History Encyclopedia states that Newton is "widely regarded as the single most important figure in the Scientific Revolution". 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)." 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. Reaper1945 (talk) 06:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree that "the single most important figure in the Scientific Revolution" is puffery. Gacggt (talk) 14:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Is a description such as "the culminating figure of the Scientific Revolution of the 17th century" by Encyclopædia Britannica puffery as well? Reaper1945 (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@Reaper1945 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."

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 [this part] 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 [found in them] 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."

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 Wikipedia 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

Budenz, J. (2016). The Principia: The Authoritative Translation and Guide. University of California Press.[1]

Ohanian, H. C. (2009). Einstein's Mistakes: The Human Failings of Genius. W.W. Norton & Company.[2]

Sepper, D. L. (2003). Goethe Contra Newton: Polemics and the Project for a New Science of Color. Cambridge University Press.[3]

-- Guillermind81 (talk) 05:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

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. Reaper1945 (talk) 05:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)