On Dec 3, 5:23 am, Steven D'Aprano > I'm not suggesting that Leibniz was any more of a scientist than Newton > was, nor am I suggesting that Newton's achievements should be *rejected* > (er, except for those pesky Quantum Mechanics and Relativity things...). > I'm just saying that we should understand Newton for what he actually > was, and not based on the 18th Century revisionism.
Your claim that Newton was "not a scientist" says more about you than it does about him. He is widely regarded -- by physicists and many other scientists -- not only as a scientist, but as the most important one who ever lived. That is obviously a matter of opinion, so it would be rather silly to argue the matter. But the idea that he was not even a scientist is one that I have never heard from anyone but you. Why anyone would hold a personal grudge against someone who lived centuries ago is beyond me. I suspect it is perhaps because you don't care for Newton's theology. As for that "pesky relativity thing," some physicists claim that Newton's physics (as opposed to interpretations, simplifications, and revisions by others) were actually consistent with relativity. I think Newton was smarter than you realize. His name would be a great honor for a programming to have. But, alas, it appears that many in the Python community prefer a snake that is half the name of a comedy team. So be it. As I said before, a name is just a name. It might as well be called "cockroach" as far as I am concerned. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list