/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16937817]

>Newton himself was well aware of this situation. He realized that the philosophers objected to his theory of gravitation because it "explained" neither gravity nor inertia. In a letter addressed to Leibnitz in a Journal, Newton writes:

>To understand the motions of the planets under the influence of gravity without knowing the cause of gravity is as good a progress in philosophy as to understand the frame of a clock and the dependence of the wheels upon one another without knowing the cause of the gravity of the weight which moves the machine is in the philosophy of the clockwork.

>Newton regarded his theory of gravitation as analogous to the description of a clockwork that keeps the planets moving. He agreed that the derivation of the theory from a more general and intelligible principle would contribute to philosophical progress; but as far as "modern science" was concerned, Newton claimed that progress had been made if observable motions could be derived from a law, even though the law were not "intelligible." This is what he meant by his famous statement, '' I don't invent hypotheses." He preferred less intelligible laws which agreed with the facts to highsounding hypotheses which did nothing much to "save appearances."

Philosophers btfo

[Anonymous No.16937854]

>>16937817
>Fallibilism isn’t a philosophical position
You ok, op?

[Anonymous No.16938138]

>>16937817
>Philosophers btfo

Your text was written by a philosopher
>Philipp Frank
>was a physicist, mathematician and also a philosopher
> He was a logical-positivist, and a member of the Vienna Circle.

[Anonymous No.16938165]

>>16937817
The issue is that "problem solving" in science is a recursively futile attempt. Each discovery only pushes the question of "how does it work" one step further, endlessly. So it's silly to say "I'd like to derive it from a more general principle" because then, where do you derive that general principle from?

[Anonymous No.16938219]

>>16937817
Too bad he engaged in philosophy in asserting Jesus wasn't God but the son of God privately

[Anonymous No.16938292]

>>16937817
I always preferred Liebniz and headcanon Gottfried as the O.G. inventor of calculus (you can tell by his notation he clearly understood it better). Newton was pretty full of himself, but he was also supposedly a virgin his whole life so he was probably a based autist.

[Anonymous No.16938977]

>>16938292
He even bragged about it on his deathbed.