undefined | Better HN

0 pointswolverine8762y ago0 comments

Fine, but then why talk about Newton if you are aware you know nothing about them? Talk about what you know.

0 comments

It's not as if I haven't been exposed to his laws of motion in physics courses. I just think of them as more math (or heck, even philosophy) than science.

wolverine876OP2y ago

I'm always interested in unique perspectives, but at the same time, English has a meaning outside any individual's concept of it.

> Newton was ... not a scientist.

That has a meaning, and its false. Whatever you personally think of it, Newton was a scientist. I don't love a wild goose chase.

anonymouskimmer2y ago

I guess so. It's hard for me to think of anyone prior to about the mid 1800s as a scientist, but sure, he qualifies by the standards of the day.

I still don't understand why people view Linnaeus' classification as scientific though. I guess maybe because it functioned as a hypothesis of common descent later on?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

anonymouskimmer2y ago

It's not as if I haven't been exposed to his laws of motion in physics courses. I just think of them as more math (or heck, even philosophy) than science.

wolverine876OP2y ago

I'm always interested in unique perspectives, but at the same time, English has a meaning outside any individual's concept of it.

> Newton was ... not a scientist.

That has a meaning, and its false. Whatever you personally think of it, Newton was a scientist. I don't love a wild goose chase.

anonymouskimmer2y ago

I guess so. It's hard for me to think of anyone prior to about the mid 1800s as a scientist, but sure, he qualifies by the standards of the day.

I still don't understand why people view Linnaeus' classification as scientific though. I guess maybe because it functioned as a hypothesis of common descent later on?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse