So Newton and friends evaluated the reliablity of data sources, a necessary procedure for having an 'information order' in the first place. It is not that surprising that the Principia not only covers the general principles and conclusions, but also the hard data and information on how the data was collected (and by who), on which the principles are based. Without a good theory of mechanics (the principles of motion), the data itself would not have been as meaningful; the 'inverse square law of gravity' could not have been possible without the preliminary theoretical development of motion principles. Science is always the rather difficult (even intuitive) intellectial process of the interpretation of data and theoretical mathematical developments. Newton was brilliant at this, and he created 'an information order' that stands to this day. The very same 'information' procedures are valid today, we can apply these to the information of the internet. What is reliable data and what isn't, can we conclude something or even find a new and general principle? All this can be done from our living room nowadays. I am glad Newton is pictured in the right day light by Dr. Schaffer and colleques, many thanks!
A meteoric journey of the force we have come to expect from Professor Schaffer. All the more forceful for demonstrating how questions concerning the historicity of science (and technology) are ever renewed on themselves even without moving (away from a text, from a period). The historicty of the text becomes a magnet in Professor Schaffer's hands around which political eonomy and imperialism begin to hinge. One of the most attractive paths budding from this fugue of a presentation that I would like to pursue is the British preoccupation with Japan around the time of the publication of the New Atlantis.
I'm surprised (though, should I be?) that the negative comments levelled at a speech aimed at savants be of such stunning uselessness, neither constructively adding nor destructively critiquing any element. I found it an interesting, if not slightly whimsical and ultimately narrow in scope, biographical eye-opener.
I can make an analogy between the "Mathematical Prinicples of Natural Philosophy" and "The Origin of Species"...Both Newton and Darwin had to source information from "a wide range" of places to support their ideas about the world. Not that surprising, to say the least.
Not that surprising to someone that can extend their internet tentacles to circumnavigate the information globe at basically the speed of light. To use a different analogy, the information order of the "Empire on which the sun never sets" was like the arrival of the internet to the general public in the 1990's or maybe the first decade of the 21st century. One could sit at home chitchatting with someone halfway around the globe and wade through literally thousands and even ten thousands of web pages of unknown credibility. If someone in 2019 wants to know if Blue Boobies really exist, one can just Skype a person near the Gulf of California or view a TH-cam video. One need not travel to Mexico or board a ship for the Galapagos Islands. In order to fully understand Sir Newton one does need to understand the zeitgeist of the times in which he lived.
Wasn't exactly exhilarating but if you came here solely for entertainment rather then educational conquest you're surely to be let down. Otherwise I think it was a good talk
I've heard many math and science people who are bad at history. Here's a historian who is bad at math and science. One example: Newton certainly understood observation error (question at 1:12:00). He was wrong on many things, but he wasn't an idiot.
Wow! The ideas presented in the lecture are fascinating but I strongly dislike and feel insulted by Mr. Schaffer's use of vocal emphasis to seemingly attempt to micromanage the reception of his lecture. A transcript of this lecture would be full of bolded words, underlines and italics. It's worse than reading something by Buckminster Fuller.
Question: How could Newton, the Christian that he claimed, be such an "irritant" to Leibniz? Newton tortured the man intellectually, and almost physically, to death. BTW, according to the "authority" Wikipedia, Newton did not believe in the Trinity. He did not believe that Jesus was equal to the Holy Spirit and God the father, at the same time. Don't get me wrong, I'm not making a personal religious statement here, I'm just citing history as derived from Wikipeda, which I do give some respectible credit to. I can understand why Newton had issues with the "Trinity". I'm Catholic, and I believe in the Trinity, but that's not important. However, I can understand why Newton did not. The "Trinity" has been a basis for religous argument since its inception. I won't go any further at this point other than to state that the above are alledged to be facts in the life of Newton.
he is right.........god does not child. God does not need to have three form. Fake is Fake. Scientist is always rght because their thinking has logic and proof. God exists but he has imminent power. why does god need such form?
lecture starts at 5:45
Thanks.
Thank you!
Thank you I am flattered
So Newton and friends evaluated the reliablity of data sources, a necessary procedure for having an 'information order' in the first place. It is not that surprising that the Principia not only covers the general principles and conclusions, but also the hard data and information on how the data was collected (and by who), on which the principles are based. Without a good theory of mechanics (the principles of motion), the data itself would not have been as meaningful; the 'inverse square law of gravity' could not have been possible without the preliminary theoretical development of motion principles. Science is always the rather difficult (even intuitive) intellectial process of the interpretation of data and theoretical mathematical developments. Newton was brilliant at this, and he created 'an information order' that stands to this day. The very same 'information' procedures are valid today, we can apply these to the information of the internet. What is reliable data and what isn't, can we conclude something or even find a new and general principle? All this can be done from our living room nowadays. I am glad Newton is pictured in the right day light by Dr. Schaffer and colleques, many thanks!
Thank you, that was an excellent summary.
A meteoric journey of the force we have come to expect from Professor Schaffer. All the more forceful for demonstrating how questions concerning the historicity of science (and technology) are ever renewed on themselves even without moving (away from a text, from a period). The historicty of the text becomes a magnet in Professor Schaffer's hands around which political eonomy and imperialism begin to hinge. One of the most attractive paths budding from this fugue of a presentation that I would like to pursue is the British preoccupation with Japan around the time of the publication of the New Atlantis.
Excellent talk. I really like Simon.
Some of this seems like speculation. Very informative and well presented. Thank you Hist. Schaffer and Standford.
I'm surprised (though, should I be?) that the negative comments levelled at a speech aimed at savants be of such stunning uselessness, neither constructively adding nor destructively critiquing any element. I found it an interesting, if not slightly whimsical and ultimately narrow in scope, biographical eye-opener.
I can make an analogy between the "Mathematical Prinicples of Natural Philosophy" and "The Origin of Species"...Both Newton and Darwin had to source information from "a wide range" of places to support their ideas about the world. Not that surprising, to say the least.
Not that surprising to someone that can extend their internet tentacles to circumnavigate the information globe at basically the speed of light. To use a different analogy, the information order of the "Empire on which the sun never sets" was like the arrival of the internet to the general public in the 1990's or maybe the first decade of the 21st century. One could sit at home chitchatting with someone halfway around the globe and wade through literally thousands and even ten thousands of web pages of unknown credibility. If someone in 2019 wants to know if Blue Boobies really exist, one can just Skype a person near the Gulf of California or view a TH-cam video. One need not travel to Mexico or board a ship for the Galapagos Islands. In order to fully understand Sir Newton one does need to understand the zeitgeist of the times in which he lived.
Fascinating and insightful talk, and useful for my work, thank you!
Hip Mustache. Hip music. Hip Glasses. One thing is true, you do not know how to integrate the simple function tanx dx.
Great lecture! Thanks for sharing. Hello from Texas, U.S.A.
Wasn't exactly exhilarating but if you came here solely for entertainment rather then educational conquest you're surely to be let down.
Otherwise I think it was a good talk
I've heard many math and science people who are bad at history. Here's a historian who is bad at math and science. One example: Newton certainly understood observation error (question at 1:12:00). He was wrong on many things, but he wasn't an idiot.
This guy looks like Austin Powers.
ko hieu lam
Delightfull mind and divine thunderstorm in The Jails of Tabous... like a devastating Nuke V2 lounched on "The New (World Order) Jerusalem"...
Wow! The ideas presented in the lecture are fascinating but I strongly dislike and feel insulted by Mr. Schaffer's use of vocal emphasis to seemingly attempt to micromanage the reception of his lecture. A transcript of this lecture would be full of bolded words, underlines and italics. It's worse than reading something by Buckminster Fuller.
Question: How could Newton, the Christian that he claimed, be such an "irritant" to Leibniz? Newton tortured the man intellectually, and almost physically, to death. BTW, according to the "authority" Wikipedia, Newton did not believe in the Trinity. He did not believe that Jesus was equal to the Holy Spirit and God the father, at the same time. Don't get me wrong, I'm not making a personal religious statement here, I'm just citing history as derived from Wikipeda, which I do give some respectible credit to.
I can understand why Newton had issues with the "Trinity". I'm Catholic, and I believe in the Trinity, but that's not important. However, I can understand why Newton did not. The "Trinity" has been a basis for religous argument since its inception. I won't go any further at this point other than to state that the above are alledged to be facts in the life of Newton.
he is right.........god does not child. God does not need to have three form. Fake is Fake. Scientist is always rght because their thinking has logic and proof. God exists but he has imminent power. why does god need such form?
ohhhhhh myyyyyyy goooooooddddddd,...... they're sooooooooooo boriiing...... who gave these guys this job??
I don't mean the subject's boring, or i wouldn't have clicked on the video :P, i just dislike the speaker.
I'm sorry I managed 15 mins, but this is pathetic.