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

1–10 of 15 posts

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

#6

Post by HPsquared »

ogogmad wrote: post #5
HPsquared wrote: post #2

Full text (I assume this is out of copyright!) https://archive.org/details/bim_eighteenth-century_newtonian...

404. In the UK, mind you. [Edit] Wow, it's actually blocked in the UK for people who don't prove that they're over 18.

That's strange. I'm reading it here, in the UK, with no cookies.

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

#7

Post by OJFord »

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.

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.

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

#8

Post by amelius »

OJFord wrote: post #7
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.

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.

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

#9

Post by AfterHIA »

OJFord wrote: post #7
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.

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.

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

#10

Post by srean »

OJFord wrote: post #7
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.

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.

Turing, Shannon, Neumann definitely but Musk et al ? really ?

I consider their contribution to the body of human knowledge or humanity to be of quite dubious merit. Very smart and successful businessman for sure, very good at enriching themselves, but that's about it. At best they can be compared to Rockefeller, Edison, that too at best.

On the other hand one can argue that a lot of our material welfare (as a product of science and engineering) is a direct consequence of Newton's accomplishments. Of course he did not start the fire all by himself.

Post reply on HN