Adam+Mistretta+week+4

In J.J. O’Conner’s biography of Newton, he starts by discussing Newton’s very early life and childhood. I find significance in his mentioning of how Newton was an average student, particularly how, “His school reports described him as 'idle' and 'inattentive'.” For just the one person it is nothing more than an amusing detail, but it may have some significance when considering the fact that many scientific greats were also average or below average, most notably Einstein. This relates to our previous discussions about the “Magical Myth of Science,” in which I stated that I believe that there is no super rational plane of thought on which science is carried out. However among the greatest it appears that this may not be entirely true, to research science and experiment may be something which can be done with everyday methods, but Newton’s era was different. He had to generate his theories about gravity and optics, and derive his equations, partially from primitive experiments, but mostly from his own ability to use his ability to pull a rational explanation out of thin air. I see Newton as someone who actually did think in another dimension than most humans, perhaps his mediocre skills in grade school basics were what gave him the ability to derive things like the gravitational constant and the fundamental theorem of calculus, from nothing but observations and sheer force of thought. Newton is also the first major scientist who lived in an era recent enough to see detailed recordings of his life. It is clear that he as human as anyone else in the time. To have an insight into how Newton would suffer long bouts of depression and also ultimately choose to simply leave science for a job at the mint, may contradict slightly with my previous theory that was born to do science. Later in his life we see religion come up again, which is fast becoming a recurring theme. I would like to know exactly what the motive is for the King to fill the ranks of scholars with only Catholics who he trusts is. Judges and politicians can be useful assets to a king, but why must he also attempt to rig the field of research. This was not like the time of Galileo when the church and state had to oversee what scientists were and weren’t allowed to publish. I admire Newton’s stance that a University is a place for anyone qualified to learn and do research, and no one should ever get a free degree. I think this logic could be used today to combat other types of discrimination. In William Newman’s article, Newton also walks the line himself at one point, theorizing on God’s role in the realms of science. He makes a bold statement, “His school reports described him as 'idle' and 'inattentive'.” While I know that Newton was a devout Christian, and that this was after the age of the inquisitions, this is a most audacious proclamation. It is also a major step forward for the relationship between science and religion, Newton makes it clear that he believes in god, but he does not blindly kneel to things with no logical foundation. Also in Newman’s article, as well the introduction to “The Chymistry of Isaac Newton,” Newton’s alchemical work is mentioned. Mostly it describes it as a bizarre and childish belief for a scientist of Newton’s stature. It is said, ” [W]as Newton perhaps attracted to the graphic and mysterious imagery of alchemy, with its illustrations of hermaphrodites, couples copulating within flasks, poisonous dragons, green lions, and dying toads?” Personally I consider such ramblings to be a poor way to observe history. In the modern world, alchemy is largely considered to be the stuff of mythology and is given no weight in the scientific community. However, Newton was operating in a realm where so little had been explored, and when things previously considered ridiculous were being proven true. Less than a century before Newton, Francis Drake had shown England that the Earth was truly round, now Newton was aiming to prove other equally bizarre theories, suspecting they may actually be correct. From the perspective of a 17th century scientist, is the notion of turning lead into gold any more absurd than the idea that objects exert some invisible force on one another? Alchemy was merely one of many fields in which Newton’s curiosity led him to experiment and theorize, which certainly does not mean he had some shady or insane background.