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