Posted on 12/24/2008 11:56:25 AM PST by CE2949BB
Some years ago, the evolutionist and atheist Richard Dawkins pointed out to me that Sir Isaac Newton, the founder of modern physics and mathematics, and arguably the greatest scientist of all time, was born on Christmas Day, and that therefore Newton’s Birthday could be an alternative, if somewhat nerdy, excuse for a winter holiday.
Think of the merchandise! Newton is said to have discovered the phenomenon of gravity by watching apples fall in an orchard. (His insight came after pondering why they always fall down, rather than upwards or sideways.) Newton’s Birthday cards could feature the great man discovering gravity by watching a Christmas decoration fall from a tree. (This is a little anachronistic — Christmas trees didn’t come to England until later — but I don’t think we should let that get in the way.)
All very jolly — but then, ’tis the season. Yet things are not so simple. It turns out that the date of Newton’s birthday is a little contentious. Newton was born in England on Christmas Day 1642 according to the Julian calendar — the calendar in use in England at the time. But by the 1640s, much of the rest of Europe was using the Gregorian calendar (the one in general use today); according to this calendar, Newton was born on Jan. 4, 1643.
Rather than bickering about whether Dec. 25 or Jan. 4 is the better date to observe Newton’s Birthday, I think we should embrace the discrepancy and have an extended festival. After all, the festival of Christmas properly continues for a further 12 days, until the feast of the Epiphany on Jan. 6. So the festival of Newton could begin on Christmas Day and then continue for an extra 10 days, representing the interval between the calendars.
(Excerpt) Read more at judson.blogs.nytimes.com ...
OK, just image what discoveries you and I would have made and given to science if we developed our minds to the same extent as Newton. If only we had devoted our lives to "true science". We would both be geniuses.
That is a very nice fantasy. But unfortunately I never developed my mind to the same extend as Newton. Nor have I ever make any contributions to science. What a shame.
How about you?
Insufficient information? Then I would suggest you pick up a good biography on Newton. I makes very good reading.
GL of Sector 2814 wrote:The pseudoscience of choice for "scientists" these days is "Anthropogenic Global Climate Change." It is quite popular. And about as scientific as UFO studies, astrology and alchemy.
Well, there aren't too many people devoting themselves to alchemy these days. Other pseudosciences such as astrology and UFO studies are flourishing, but I wouldn't call people who study such things "scientists"!
All Nature and Nature’s Laws
Laid hid at Night,
God said, “Let Newton Be!”
And all was Light.
Alexander Pope
Insufficient from a strictly personal perspective. Your suggestion about reading a good biography sounds good.
Since I'm confident that I'm not as smart as Newton, any discoveries I would have made would most likely have been much more minor in nature. I can't speak for you, not knowing you sufficiently.
If only we had devoted our lives to "true science".
I'm curious, why would you put that in quotes?
We would both be geniuses.
Only if we were geniuses to begin with.
That is a very nice fantasy. But unfortunately I never developed my mind to the same extend as Newton. Nor have I ever make any contributions to science. What a shame.
How about you?
I have one real regret about my life; while I majored in physics in college, I never completed my degree. This was entirely my fault (lack of discipline). Had I completed my studies, I might well have become a scientist.
I think it is a shame.
I suggest March 26 as a celebration the the new "Self-Absorbed Egotist Day." We could all send anonymous cards to the total a-holes we know telling them what we really think of them.
Hallmark will just love this idea. In fact, I bet they sell more "Jerk Day" cards than Christmas cards. ;~))
I'm skeptical of anthropogenic climate change myself, it's an unfortunate example of politics influencing the scientific debate.
There’s always money, careers, and status in the current version of Lysenkoism, which today happens to be AGW.
Gubmint science is reliably wrong.
Not always...NASA's astronomical programs are very impressive.
I'm curious, why would you put that in quotes?
I put that in quotes because people don't talk about "true science". They talk about science. Is Einstein's theory of relativity true? No, physicists know it is not true. It contradicts quantum mechanics. So the search is on for a better theory. Are theories ever proven in science? No. All you can do is collect data that supports a theory or contradicts the theory.
When you took a physics lab in college, did you ever state in your lab reports that you proved a theory? No, all you could do is test a theory by collecting data. You took several measurements with some degree of error and arrived at an average with some degree of error. Then you used a discrepancy test with some figure of error to compare the experimental results you obtained with the theoretical predictions. If the two calculations came within some tolerance with stated figure of error, then you could state the the experimental date supported the theory, but you never stated that the experimental results proved the theory. Inductive reasoning is never a proof. So it seemed odd to me that you wrote about "true science".
Only if we were geniuses to begin with.
Exactly. I was waiting patiently for you to say that. Geniuses are born geniuses. How do you explain that with science?
When you took a physics lab in college, did you ever state in your lab reports that you proved a theory? No, all you could do is test a theory by collecting data. You took several measurements with some degree of error and arrived at an average with some degree of error. Then you used a discrepancy test with some figure of error to compare the experimental results you obtained with the theoretical predictions. If the two calculations came within some tolerance with stated figure of error, then you could state the the experimental date supported the theory, but you never stated that the experimental results proved the theory. Inductive reasoning is never a proof. So it seemed odd to me that you wrote about "true science".
Please re-read the thread. You used the phrase "true science" first...not me.
What I did say was this: "Just imagine if he'd devoted his later life to real science, though." I'll stand by that. Newton spent his latter years writing 650,000 words on alchemy. Chemistry has its roots in alchemy, just as astronomy has its roots in astrology. But astrology isn't real science, and neither is alchemy. They are both pseudosciences.
Do you disagree?
Geniuses are born geniuses. How do you explain that with science
The same way I would explain how some people are born with the ability to run more quickly or lift heavy weights...genetics (and training). What other explanation would there possibly be?
For anyone wondering, I think stripes1776 is talking about the "Theory of Everything". (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)
My head starts to hurt when quantum mechanics is talked about. Anything beyond the level of pop sci books by Michio Kaku and I become a blithering idiot.
Theory of Everything (T.O.E.) is one way to think of the theory that will reconcile relativity theory and quantum mechanics. Yes, it's complicated and non-intuitive.
Ouch. That’s gonna leave a mark.
The mention of “real Science” reminded me of a verse in 1 Timothy 6:20 that refers to: “avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called.”
Also I am reminded of: “He is no fool who gives up that which he cannot keep, to gain that which he cannot lose.”
(Jim Elliot, one of the five missionaries killed in 1956)
I must believe Sir Issac Newton was that kind of scientist and christian!
On the first day of Newton, my true love gave to me...
INTREP
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.