Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

An Interesting Question About History

Rate this topic


Bob G

Recommended Posts

I have collected three little historical points about well known historical figures that few people know. I think that they are interesting because these little points also tell us something about the time and events. I’m not saying that they are hugely insightful, only interesting if you’re already into the history.

Certainly, some of you know the answers to these questions. Let me ask anyone who is a professional historian or academic to let others try their hand before you come in and give the answer. Of course, most if not all of this is on the internet somewhere.

I will do these one at a time. I will begin with the question that has the most parts and widest impact. Actually, it will have several sections.

This is a question about Isaac Newton. His most famous work, Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, was published in 1687.

The question is: Newton included an extensive section on vortexes. Why was that subject included by Newton in his magnus opus?

To be complete, your answer should include why that subject, the person Newton had in mind, and, in specific terms, why Newton thought that he needed this subject connected with the other two books.

I had to edit the question. I should have double checked my memory before posting! Sorry.

Edited by Bob G
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that didn’t go well. Was this not interesting? Boring? Or was it that nobody had any connection to the subject. I’m not complaining. I had hoped that this might be entertaining.

For anyone interested, here is the answer.

The person that Newton was interested in was Rene Descartes. At least when I went to school, most graduate students were reading only what you might call Descartes’ “philosophical” writings. However, Descartes wrote a considerable amount about what was called natural philosophy. He had developed an extensive physics and world view. He wrote about the scientific method. His influence was immense. By Newton’s time, textbooks based upon Descartes’ physics were being used in many schools throughout Europe and Great Briton. Newton saw that if he was going to displace Descartes he would have to not only present his views but also show that Descartes’ view was untenable.

Descartes’ world began as a solid block of stuff. He did not hold with vacuum, following Aristotle. This solid block was created by God, who sort of hit this block, like with a tuning fork or something, and the block fractured and went into motion. The primary motion of stuff was a vortex. Thus Newton, in Principia, demonstrated that vortex motion could not explain the effects of gravity.

Descartes’ scientific method is interesting in a historical sense. His view was that proposed scientific theories could be disproved by the discovery of evidence that conflicted with the theory. But, Descartes says, such evidence could be found anytime in the future, therefore no theory could be considered true. Evidence could support a theory. A theory could be considered useful, but it could never be called true.

Does Descartes’ scientific method sound familiar? It might. I think that it is nearly identical to Karl Popper’s brand of falsification. I never saw that Popper ever gave credit for this idea.

So Newton published his great treatise and the world did change, for the good, I think. However, there were critics, mostly on the continent. The foremost critic was a near genius with weird ideas whom we seldom hear of today. I have heard it suggested that he has been influential in physics, especially on the Continent.

I think that some of the criticisms leveled against Newton’s version of gravity are worth considering.

Which brings me to another series of questions.

Anyone know what the criticisms were? Anyone interested? Also, who was this opponent and critic? This man also vied with Newton over the authorship of a major mathematical creation, and in a sense prevailed over Newton. In addition, this man was ridiculed by a major figure in the French Enlightenment in a well-known book. What was the book? Who wrote it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting about the Descartes-Popper connection. Is there a book or essay that develops that idea more fully?

I know of Leibniz, but not much of him. I, at least, want to know the story you have to tell.

Indeed please do tell! I have been reading 3 of Poppers nonsensical books in order to be able to better deal with his minions.Certain physicist I communicate with are entrenched with his garbage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know of no book or article that mentions or even notices the connection between Descartes and Popper. I take full credit for the observation (that was by way of a HaHa). I am going to be even more disappointing because I do not remember the book in which Descartes discusses his views. I lost my much of my philosophy and history and philosophy of science library several years ago. Descartes was unequivocal about his views, though. I just looked at Wikipedia. I would suggest looking at The World and Discourse on the Method.

Grames, you are correct in singling out Leibniz. He is a fascinating person. His philosophy is interesting if you do not take it seriously. I will do another post to talk about his criticisms of Newton's theory of gravity, but I will cover some of the other stuff here.

Both Newton and Leibniz invented calculus at about the same time. They and their supporters argued about who should get credit for a long time. I suppose that they both should. Today, I think that if they know anything, most people think Newton invented it. Yet, it is Leibniz’s version that we use. Newton's approach was very cumbersome, from what I understand. It was sort of like doing multiplication with Roman Numerals.

But then along came Voltaire. He was a supporter of Newton and didn't like the German Leibniz. He wrote Candide. The hero wonders the world getting into one disaster after another, natural and human. After these events he tends to say that it's okay because we live in the best of all possible worlds. This statement, "the best of all possible worlds", is Leibniz explaining that God created this one as the best. Leibniz’s solution to the problem of evil was inventive, I've always thought, even though it is such nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were lots of criticisms leveled at Newton after Principia was published. The ones that I will mention are ones that I think have some import, either by way of science or history. Also, I am sorry to say, we are limited in this discussion by the limits of my memory. The classes I took in graduate school were many years ago and my texts and notes are lost.

Criticism:

Newton has given us numbers and mathematics, not a description of what gravity is.

Newton has produced a new phenomena not used before, action at a distance that is

attractive. This is unexplained.

Newton has not given us a good explanation because god intervenes.

Comments:

People during that era wanted and expected descriptions. I do not think that they were unreasonable. Yet, they did miss an important point. The math that Newton offered was important and useful. The lack of a description of gravity was a failing because man didn’t actually know what gravity was. That, I think, was an advance that Einstein did offer mankind.

To have a new type of force was very upsetting to many. Newton basically ignored these complaints. As I said before, to have the math was important. But a mysterious force that attracts at a distance is not very helpful in the long run.

After Newton, the “Newtonians” worked for over a century to remove god from physics. Newton, as I hope you know, actually wrote (but did not publish) more on god than he did on physics or science. So he wasn’t hesitant to bring god into his physics. He used him frequently. If I remember correctly, there were four important points that Newton injected god into the Principia. I haven’t been able to remember all of them.

One important spot that Newton used god was in the grand scheme of things. At this point in time remember, the universe consisted of our solar system. Newton’s computations resulted in the planets being all out of position after a period of time. My memory is that the period was 17,000 years. When the solar system ran amok, god would step in and put everything back where it should be, and off it would go again. God was good to have around.

Hope to hear from some people.

I have two more little history questions that I think are interesting. Neither has such an extensive impact as this one on Newton. I will start a new thread next week with a question on Einstein.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

I think I still agree with Descartes' solid block of stuff idea, though I never read him. Has that been totally disproven?

In Dr. Harriman's book, "The Logical Leap", starting on page 212, leads up to where he cited:

As on one historian of science has noted: "Descartes left nothing untouched. . . . The Principles was a triumph of fantastic imagination which happens, unfortunately, never once to have 'hit upon' a correct explanation."

The term you seek is 'discredited' in lieu of 'disproved'.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...