Re: more squiggly lines

["Gunnar Tomasson" <gunnar.tomasson@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mason:

Re. the following:

> >Newton's Equations were, are, and will ever remain
> >DESCRIPTIVE - that is, NON-EXPLANATORY - of observed orbital mechanics.
>
> It may be a problem of definition of the bold words, but I'll add
> more bold words:  NO science "explains."  Science ONLY
> describes.  Theology explains.  The quarreling here about
> Newton is supercilious.

Two brief comments.

First.  This is how David Hume - arguably the sharpest philosophical mind
that Britain ever produced - put your point:

"While Newton seemed to draw off the veil from some of the mysteries of
nature, he shewed at the same time the imperfections of the mechanical
philosophy; and thereby restored her ultimate secrets to that obscurity in
which they ever did and ever will reamain."

Substitute "ultimate explanations" for "ultimate secrets" and Alan Isaac's
point reduces to the proposition that Newton's Equations give us oxymoronic
"pen-ultimate explanations."

Second.  As for Newton's grasp on philosophical issues, the record speaks
for itself.  And, as I expect to elaborate in a brief response to Alan's
latest message, the record supports E. A. Burtt's conclusion that, as
philosopher, Newton was "second rate."

Gunnar

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mason Clark" <masonc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 4:37 PM
Subject: Re: more squiggly lines