Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Newton for Ladies (1737) – Newtonianism vs. Cartesianism

whipplelib.hps.cam.ac.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–15 of 15 posts

Re: Newton for Ladies (1737) – Newtonianism vs. Cartesianism

#11

Post by OJFord »

AfterHIA wrote: post #9
OJFord wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Progress today seems typically more industrial, but I'm sure you could likewise look back in the future and say Good heavens! Musk, Bezos, Altman, Jobs, Ive, Knuth (or extend the period for Turing, von Neumann, Brooks bros.)! The 'Great Man' fallacy no doubt applies as well to Galileo et al. as it would more obviously be someone's objection to my contemporary list.

If you compare our predecessor Turing to people like Musk or Bezos ever again I'll have you chemically castrated.

I started by saying progress today seems more industrial (vs. academic) - if you fall down the same trap of naming a single figurehead, then yeah, that is people like Musk & Bezos. I too have more respect for Turing.

Re: Newton for Ladies (1737) – Newtonianism vs. Cartesianism

#12

Post by geye1234 »

srean wrote: post #3

Cartesianism may be highly injurious to the ladies' dog. Quip aside, the history of science of that period just overwhelms me. What a time ! Galileo, DesCartes, Barrow, Leibnitz, Huygens, Newton, Halley, Hooke.

I recommend "The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science" by E.A. Burtt if you're interested in that period. It discusses both the science, and the different philosophies of physics that were informing and perhaps influencing them. The book is a hundred years old but very readable.

Re: Newton for Ladies (1737) – Newtonianism vs. Cartesianism

#13

Post by AfterHIA »

OJFord wrote: post #11
AfterHIA wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you compare our predecessor Turing to people like Musk or Bezos ever again I'll have you chemically castrated.

I started by saying progress today seems more industrial (vs. academic) - if you fall down the same trap of naming a single figurehead, then yeah, that is people like Musk & Bezos. I too have more respect for Turing.

I know mate I was just razzin' you. Rave on.

Re: Newton for Ladies (1737) – Newtonianism vs. Cartesianism

#14

Post by OJFord »

amelius wrote: post #8
OJFord wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Progress today seems typically more industrial, but I'm sure you could likewise look back in the future and say Good heavens! Musk, Bezos, Altman, Jobs, Ive, Knuth (or extend the period for Turing, von Neumann, Brooks bros.)! The 'Great Man' fallacy no doubt applies as well to Galileo et al. as it would more obviously be someone's objection to my contemporary list.

You named some people who don't belong in the same sentence.

My first sentence explained the shift. My last sentence anticipated your complaint.

Re: Newton for Ladies (1737) – Newtonianism vs. Cartesianism

#15

Post by srean »

geye1234 wrote: post #12
srean wrote: post #3

Cartesianism may be highly injurious to the ladies' dog. Quip aside, the history of science of that period just overwhelms me. What a time ! Galileo, DesCartes, Barrow, Leibnitz, Huygens, Newton, Halley, Hooke.

I recommend "The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science" by E.A. Burtt if you're interested in that period. It discusses both the science, and the different philosophies of physics that were informing and perhaps influencing them. The book is a hundred years old but very readable.

Thanks for the reference.
Post reply on HN