On 2007-12-03, Russ P. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
To paraphrase Bertrand Russell, Newton was too successful. Over-veneration of Newton was eventually an impediment to progress--this was not, of course, his fault. -- Neil Cerutti -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list