# Newton a fraud? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [January 5, 2022, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newton-a-fraud/957280 "2022-01-05T20:49:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Pardel-Lux](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pardel-lux/32/20182_2.png) [@Pardel-Lux](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pardel-Lux)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2022, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newton-a-fraud/957280/21 "2022-01-08T11:14:40Z")
A bit off topic perhaps, but as your question seems to have been answered I would like to point out that when someone confuses [speed and velocity](http://www.untrans.eu/english/words/speed-and-velocity.html) in English it is often due to ~~a problem of~~ sloppy translation, mostly from a Latin language (French, Italian, Spanish…) or Latin itself. As an example: the proper tranlation of _the speed of sound_ into Spanish is _la velocidad del sonido_, but the right translation of _la velocidad del sonido_ into English is **not** the _velocity of sound_. ---
**Author:** ![GreenWyvern](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/greenwyvern/32/2834_2.png) [@GreenWyvern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreenWyvern)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2022, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newton-a-fraud/957280/22 "2022-01-08T12:05:23Z")
In Newton’s time many measurements and values of constants were inaccurate and/or disputed. It seems – as best I can make out from a quick skim of parts of Westfall’s book – that in certain cases Newton chose only the specific data values that suited him, and then used them in calculations to ‘prove’ the accuracy of his theories. It wasn’t that he was falsifying data, or even omitting data, it was that he was not taking into account the large margins of error in the data. He was claiming a degree of accuracy that he had no right to claim at the time. (Of course, it turned out that he was right!) ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2022, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newton-a-fraud/957280/23 "2022-01-08T14:02:55Z")
> [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > What Newton called dotted x (standard tex is \dot{x}, but markdown doesn’t do it right), Leibniz called \frac{dx}{dt}. Hmm, \dot{x}—\dot{x}—seems to work fine for me? (On the other hand, quoting posts with embedded MathJax doesn’t work for shit…) > [@GreenWyvern](#): > > If anyone is interested in the history of mathematics, I found this engrossing and excellently presented video the other day, about the invention of imaginary numbers. > > There’s a lot about the solution of the cubic equation in the 16th century, and the geometric approach to what we would call algebra, before modern algebra was invented. > > Don’t be put off by the graphic or the title – this a quality video. That story is also told very well in _The Quantum Astrologer’s Handbook_ by Michael Brooks, a scientific biography of Cardano / introduction to some elementary concepts that went into the creation of quantum mechanics (mainly the probability calculus and imaginary numbers) ---
**Author:** ![Son\_of\_a\_Rich](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/son_of_a_rich/32/5439_2.png) [@Son\_of\_a\_Rich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Son_of_a_Rich)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2022, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newton-a-fraud/957280/24 "2022-01-08T17:03:51Z")
He gets credit for being the first person ever to realize apples fell straight down. All of physics is built upon that observation. ---
**Author:** ![neiltyson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5f8ce5/32.png) [@neiltyson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/neiltyson)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2022, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newton-a-fraud/957280/25 "2022-01-08T17:41:36Z")
Read the whole thread. Just some observations… Newton’s “dot” notation for calculus is still used today in physics, just as he invoked it – to identify derivatives with respect time. Of course for all other applications of the calculus, we lean towards Leibniz’s more elegant notations. I’ve seen no study on scientists who have falsified data in support of what turned out to be a correct hypothesis. For all we know, it’s the majority of correct new ideas. You can imagine the thinking: “I’m quite sure my idea is correct, but these data need my adjustments to help reveal this fact.” Agreed: “the velocity of sound” is an unforgivable phrase for an elite, highly degreed biographer of a physicist. Lastly, for the NYTimes Guest Essay to cite Newton in an opening sentence and in the same discussion as Elizabeth Holmes is nothing short of clickbait. And we’ve all created a vibrant thread because of it, so I guess it’s working. The author could have chosen among many, much better examples that span centuries to illustrate the comparison. Such as Cold Fusion. N-Rays, Piltdown man, Vaccines & Autism. The list goes on and on. Respectfully Submitted Neil deGrasse Tyson, NYC ---
**Author:** ![TroutMan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/troutman/32/6721_2.png) [@TroutMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TroutMan)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2022, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newton-a-fraud/957280/26 "2022-01-08T17:45:29Z")
Who’s this guy?? 😄 Welcome, Neil! Thanks for joining, hope you stick around! ---
**Author:** ![GreenWyvern](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/greenwyvern/32/2834_2.png) [@GreenWyvern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreenWyvern)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2022, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newton-a-fraud/957280/27 "2022-01-08T18:14:27Z")
> [@neiltyson](#): > > Agreed: “the velocity of sound” is an unforgivable phrase for an elite, highly degreed biographer of a physicist. The term ‘velocity’ was used by Newton himself, and throughout the first English translations of the Principia. The Latin word that Newton used was ‘velocitas’, and the English translations simply followed that, using the English equivalent. At the time, the term (in either English or Latin) did not imply a vector. It was interchangeable with ‘speed’. The OED gives the earliest use of velocity specifically defined as a vector quantity as 1847. Perhaps it’s natural that a biographer of Newton, immersed in the documents, letters, and books of his time should follow the usage of the time. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2022, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newton-a-fraud/957280/28 "2022-01-08T18:25:01Z")
Watch out, we got a badass over here! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![neiltyson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5f8ce5/32.png) [@neiltyson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/neiltyson)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2022, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newton-a-fraud/957280/29 "2022-01-08T18:37:10Z")
Happy to grant a hall-pass to Westfall on those grounds. -NDTyson ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2022, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newton-a-fraud/957280/30 "2022-01-08T18:55:14Z")
> [@Crafter\_Man](#): > > And he invented calculus at about the same time as Leibniz. Several years earlier. > **[Newton and Leibniz](https://xkcd.com/626/)** > > YEEEEEEAAAAAAHHHHHH! ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2022, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newton-a-fraud/957280/31 "2022-01-08T19:29:10Z")
> [@neiltyson](#): > > I’ve seen no study on scientists who have falsified data in support of what turned out to be a correct hypothesis. Well, Neil, I hate to contradict you, but let me introduce you to a book called _Fabulous Science: Fact and fiction in the history of scientific discovery_, by John Waller, a historian of science and medicine, published by the Oxford University Press (2002). You may be surprised, Neil, that the entire first half of this book carries the section heading _Right for the Wrong Reasons_. The second half carries the section heading _Telling Science as it [really] Was_. Which gives you some idea of where this book is headed, and suggests you may find there some of what you’re looking for. Here, Neil, take a look at this summary on Amazon: > The great biologist Louis Pasteur suppressed ‘awkward’ data because it didn’t support the case he was making. John Snow, the ‘first epidemiologist’ was doing nothing others had not done before. Gregor Mendel, the supposed ‘founder of genetics’ never grasped the fundamental principles of ‘Mendelian’ genetics. Joseph Lister’s famously clean hospital wards were actually notorious dirty. And Einstein’s general relativity was only ‘confirmed’ in 1919 because an eminent British scientist cooked his figures. These are just some of the revelations explored in this book. Drawing on current history of science scholarship, _Fabulous Science_ shows that many of our greatest heroes of science were less than honest about their experimental data and not above using friends in high places to help get their ideas accepted … > > … distortions of the historical record mostly arise from our tendency to read the present back into the past. But in many cases, scientists owe their immortality to a combination of astonishing effrontery and their skills as self-promoters. ---
**Author:** ![neiltyson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5f8ce5/32.png) [@neiltyson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/neiltyson)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2022, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newton-a-fraud/957280/32 "2022-01-08T19:47:52Z")
Thanks. I was thinking more of an academic/statistical study of the phenomenon, which I’ve never seen. But the Waller book is an excellent start – which I had clearly missed. Thanks. -NDTyson. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2022, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newton-a-fraud/957280/33 "2022-01-08T20:32:25Z")
I feel I should add a general comment for the sake of clarity. Neither my previous comments nor the book I referenced should be interpreted in any way as a criticism of the tremendous success of the modern scientific method and peer-review protocols. That would be totally the wrong interpretation. What it says, rather, is that we tend to see distant historical events through the prism of hindsight and subsequent developments, and this is not always an accurate lens through which to view these distant events and the people behind them. In science, as in politics, we tend to venerate transformational pioneers to an extent that is often not justified. Our great scientists of the past, just like some of our nation’s founders and great national leaders, are often elevated by history to the status of infallible sanctity, whereas in fact in many respects they were just flawed people like everyone else, made mistakes like everyone else, and were sometimes motivated by less than honourable intentions. This broad historical perspective is not meant to be a criticism of the amazing progress and successes of modern science. ---
**Author:** ![TroutMan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/troutman/32/6721_2.png) [@TroutMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TroutMan)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2022, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newton-a-fraud/957280/34 "2022-01-08T20:32:48Z")
> [@neiltyson](#): > > I was thinking more of an academic/statistical study of the phenomenon, which I’ve never seen. How would you know the results of such a study were accurate? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2022, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newton-a-fraud/957280/35 "2022-01-08T20:48:19Z")
How do romance languages distinguish between “velocity” the vector, and “speed” the scalar? And Liebnitz’s notation is definitely more useful than Newton’s, but I’m not sure to what extent one can describe the “methods”, outside of the context of the notation. ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2022, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newton-a-fraud/957280/36 "2022-01-08T20:55:35Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > How do romance languages distinguish between “velocity” the vector, and “speed” the scalar? In French, speed is vitesse and velocity is vélocité. I assume they had the same meanings as scalar and vector. I accept that Newton used the Latin cognate of velocity, but that is no excuse for a modern writer to. As an aside, this reminds of an argument I had with a friend over whether it was correct to translate the Latin word probare (to test) by the English cognate prove. It is not. ---
**Author:** ![neiltyson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5f8ce5/32.png) [@neiltyson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/neiltyson)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2022, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newton-a-fraud/957280/38 "2022-01-08T22:12:20Z")
Two or more independent studies that align with the original results is all that’s required here. The risk is that if the results of the first study are obvious or expected or not interesting, it doesn’t attract other researchers to verify it. That happens too. -NDTyson ---
**Author:** ![GreenWyvern](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/greenwyvern/32/2834_2.png) [@GreenWyvern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreenWyvern)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2022, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newton-a-fraud/957280/39 "2022-01-09T05:26:28Z")
> [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > this reminds of an argument I had with a friend over whether it was correct to translate the Latin word probare (to test) by the English cognate prove. It is not. But the exception proves the rule! 😁 ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2022, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newton-a-fraud/957280/40 "2022-01-09T05:56:14Z")
> [@neiltyson](#): > > Agreed: “the velocity of sound” is an unforgivable phrase for an elite, highly degreed biographer of a physicist. This post would be even better if Chuck Nice were cracking gags around it. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2022, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newton-a-fraud/957280/41 "2022-01-09T06:27:14Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > John Snow, the ‘first epidemiologist’ was doing nothing others had not done before. I have it on good authority that he knew nothing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newton-a-fraud/957280.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/newton-a-fraud/957280.md?page=3)