Credulous skeptics

[Augustus]

So are you saying that the OP is just quote mining when it comes to Tyson? That appears to be the case quite often. Darwin did say that. But of course that phrase was taken out of context. He was not advocating for that action, he was predicting and lamenting that action.

And AG was using maths to refute an unscientific argument.

Tyson does not appear to be doing that with AG. You keep ignoring the fact that he got that idea from what appears to be most of the historians that cover this matter. And if you rea AG's work about science after his change they sound a lot like Ken Ham discussing "historical and observational science". As usual when it comes to history you appear to have it backwards.

And you keep ignoring that a) it's not most, you just made that up out of thin air, and b) the handful who say this are not specialists on Islamic philosophy and do so based on an obvious misrepresentation of AGs occasionalism as meaning nature was unpredictable and thus not worth studying. AG literally ridiculed such an argument otherwise: a man who left a book in his home would have to say, 'I do not know what is in the house now, and the extent of what I know is only that I left a book in the house, and perhaps now it is a horse.'

I explained the fallacious reasoning in your Ken Ham analogy before and why it is nonsensical for multiple reasons:

This is Presentism: distortion of the past by applying anachronistic modern ideas to a situation to the past that acts as a barrier to understanding.

It is common in discussions of the history of religion as people cannot help but see the issues via the lens of US Protestant fundamentalism even though this makes no sense in a historical context.

Firstly, this is not a "science v religion" dispute, it is a philosophical dispute between AG and specifically Avicennan philosophy. But if AG is Ken Ham, then the other side must be the 'good guys', perhaps even proto-scientists. In reality, neither of them are scientific positions, although AG uses science to refute an unscientific argument. Note this criticism of the philosophers is similar to that which helped give birth to modern science.

Two, thinking this is like a modern, mass media apologetic tactic couldn't be further from the reality. This is a small scale philosophical debate for the intellectual elites. KH relies on fooling large numbers of non-experts who invest little energy in rational analysis with sophistry. The tactic makes no sense in this environment.

Three, Because of incorrect presentist framing, you have it exactly backwards regarding "weasel words". Science then basically meant 'knowledge" or "branch of knowledge", so many things that wouldn't be science today would fall under that umbrella. Rather than "weasel words" he is actually making a necessary qualification. By noting the exact sciences, he is highlighting those where you get a demonstrably correct result and differentiating them from other subjective areas of knowledge. It's no more a weasel word than making a distinction between natural sciences and social sciences today.

Fourth, the motivation for KH to do this makes no sense when applied to the 11th C. Creationists basically argue against evolution and geology. The sciences then were things like astronomy, optics, medicine etc. The problems for modern creationists didn't exist. The kind of thing he was arguing about was "is the universe eternal or was it created" which had nothing much to do with science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see that there still is no replay on the question about the irrational hatred of Tyson.

 

[Hop_David]

You may be taking his claims out of context, again.

I cite my sources so anyone can examine original context for themselves.

In this case I link to Tyson's video My Man, Sir Isaac Newton:

About 58 seconds into the above video Tyson tells us:

"Then, a friend of his says, “Well, why do these orbits of the planets… Why are they in a shape of an ellipse, sort of flattened circle? Why aren’t… some other shape?” He said, you know, “I can’t… I don’t know. I’ll get back to you.” So he goes… goes home, comes back couple of months later, “Here’s why. They’re actually conic sections, sections of a cone that you cut.” And… And he said, “Well, how did find this out? How did you determine this?” “Well, I had to invent integral and differential calculus to determine this.” Then, he turned 26. Then, he turned 26. We got people slogging through calculus in college just to learn what it is that Isaac Newtown invented on a dare, practically. So that’s my man, Isaac Newton. "

So how am I taking Tyson out of context? He unambiguously states that Newton explained why planets follow elliptical orbits before he turned 26.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I cite my sources so anyone can examine original context for themselves.

In this case I link to Tyson's video My Man, Sir Isaac Newton:

About 58 seconds into the above video Tyson tells us:

"Then, a friend of his says, “Well, why do these orbits of the planets… Why are they in a shape of an ellipse, sort of flattened circle? Why aren’t… some other shape?” He said, you know, “I can’t… I don’t know. I’ll get back to you.” So he goes… goes home, comes back couple of months later, “Here’s why. They’re actually conic sections, sections of a cone that you cut.” And… And he said, “Well, how did find this out? How did you determine this?” “Well, I had to invent integral and differential calculus to determine this.” Then, he turned 26. Then, he turned 26. We got people slogging through calculus in college just to learn what it is that Isaac Newtown invented on a dare, practically. So that’s my man, Isaac Newton. "

/QUOTE]

Are you conflating when he published Principea with when he invented calculus?[

 

[Hop_David]

Are you conflating when he published Principea with when he invented calculus?

Nope. Looks like you need a little help reading. So here it is again with pertinent phrases emphasized. HTH.

About 58 seconds into the above video Tyson tells us:

"Then, a friend of his says, “Well, why do these orbits of the planets… Why are they in a shape of an ellipse, sort of flattened circle? Why aren’t… some other shape?” He said, you know, “I can’t… I don’t know. I’ll get back to you.” So he goes… goes home, comes back couple of months later, “Here’s why. They’re actually conic sections, sections of a cone that you cut.” And… And he said, “Well, how did find this out? How did you determine this?” “Well, I had to invent integral and differential calculus to determine this.” Then, he turned 26. Then, he turned 26. We got people slogging through calculus in college just to learn what it is that Isaac Newtown invented on a dare, practically. So that’s my man, Isaac Newton. "

So am I being too literal? Tyson didn't really claim that Newton explained planetary orbits before he turned 26? 26 is Tyson's figurative way of saying 42?

For a somewhat more accurate history see Thony Christie's Why doesn't he just shut up?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope. Looks like you need a little help reading. So here it is again with pertinent phrases emphasized. HTH.

About 58 seconds into the above video Tyson tells us:

"Then, a friend of his says, “Well, why do these orbits of the planets… Why are they in a shape of an ellipse, sort of flattened circle? Why aren’t… some other shape?” He said, you know, “I can’t… I don’t know. I’ll get back to you.” So he goes… goes home, comes back couple of months later, “Here’s why. They’re actually conic sections, sections of a cone that you cut.” And… And he said, “Well, how did find this out? How did you determine this?” “Well, I had to invent integral and differential calculus to determine this.” Then, he turned 26. Then, he turned 26. We got people slogging through calculus in college just to learn what it is that Isaac Newtown invented on a dare, practically. So that’s my man, Isaac Newton. "

So am I being too literal? Tyson didn't really claim that Newton explained planetary orbits before he turned 26? 26 is Tyson's figurative way of saying 42?

For a somewhat more accurate history see Thony Christie's Why doesn't he just shut up?

Dude, your sources are bogus. Find a real source that refutes him.

 

[Hop_David]

Dude, your sources are bogus. Find a real source that refutes him.

So you're telling me the Halley/Newton encounter occurred before Newton turned 26?

Oddly enough Britannica agrees the meeting occurred when Newton was in 40s. As does virtually every other Google hit.

The only source saying it occurs before Newton turns 26 is Tyson.

Duuude, have you heard of this website called Google?

 

[Hop_David]

I see that there still is no replay on the question about the irrational hatred of Tyson.

People get upset when Tyson uses falsehoods to support his anti-theist polemics. Imagine that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

People get upset when Tyson uses falsehoods to support his anti-theist polemics. Imagine that.

No. People get upset when you use bogus sources. Find a real source based just upon history. If it is by someone else attacking Tyson it is of no use in supporting your claims. There is no reason to include an attack on Tyson in a history piece.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you're telling me the Halley/Newton encounter occurred before Newton turned 26?

Oddly enough Britannica agrees the meeting occurred when Newton was in 40s. As does virtually every other Google hit.

The only source saying it occurs before Newton turns 26 is Tyson.

Duuude, have you heard of this website called Google?

LOL! Yes, Google will lead you to articles that tell you that Newton developed calculus when he was about 26. I do not see Tyson saying that he was having a discussion with Halley. At least not in any of your sources.

EDIT 24, which I guess is roughly 26:

How Isaac Newton Changed the World with the Invention of Calculus.

" He began work on this right way, incorporating planetary ellipses into his theory too to try to explain the orbit of the planets. He found that by using calculus, he could explain how planets moved and why the orbits of planets are in an ellipse. This is one of Newton's break throughs: that the gravitational force that holds us to the ground is the same force that causes the planets to orbit the Sun and the Moon to orbit Earth."

So how was Tyson wrong? If he said "Halley" was the person then he may have been. But that is an extremely minor nit pick.

 

[Hop_David]

No. People get upset when you use bogus sources. Find a real source based just upon history. If it is by someone else attacking Tyson it is of no use in supporting your claims. There is no reason to include an attack on Tyson in a history piece.

Again, here's Brittanica's article on Halley.

Thony's claims are easily verifiable by anyone who can use Google. *staff edit*

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, here's Brittanica's article on Halley.

Thony's claims are easily verifiable by anyone who can use Google. *staff edit*

I was adding to my above post. You m ight want to check it out. It looks like Britannica is wrong (as is your spelling). Endless sources will tell you that Newton invented calculus when he was 24.

when did newton invent calculus - Google Search

 

[Hop_David]

LOL! Yes, Google will lead you to articles that tell you that Newton developed calculus when he was about 26.

Tyson also says Newton explained elliptical orbits before he turned 26. Are you choosing to ignore the part I put in red? Or do you have 4th grade reading skills?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Tyson also says Newton explained elliptical orbits before he turned 26. Are you choosing to ignore the part I put in red? Or do you have 4th grade reading skills?

You mean like the part of the article that I quoted that specifically makes that claim about orbits?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I prefer Wikipedia. It is superior because anyone can correct an error. They also have links to their sources. Yes, Newton and Halley did meet when they did. But guess what? I will let you read for yourself:

Halley's visit to Newton in Cambridge in 1684 probably occurred in August.[54] When Halley asked Newton's opinion on the problem of planetary motions discussed earlier that year between Halley, Hooke and Wren,[55] Newton surprised Halley by saying that he had already made the derivations some time ago; but that he could not find the papers. (Matching accounts of this meeting come from Halley and Abraham De Moivre to whom Newton confided.) Halley then had to wait for Newton to "find" the results, and in November 1684 Newton sent Halley an amplified version of whatever previous work Newton had done on the subject. This took the form of a 9-page manuscript, De motu corporum in gyrum (Of the motion of bodies in an orbit): the title is shown on some surviving copies, although the (lost) original may have been without a title.


You might want to read the entire section:


Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica - Wikipedia

 

[Hop_David]

You mean like the part of the article that I quoted that specifically makes that claim about orbits?

That article does not say Newton worked out elliptical orbits before he turned 26. Sorry.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That article does not say Newton worked out elliptical orbits before he turned 26. Sorry.

It specifically said that that was one of the reasons that he developed it. Perhaps you should be putting down your own reading comprehension. You need to be able to read by context too. You are again being overly literal.

 

[Hop_David]

I prefer Wikipedia. It is superior because anyone can correct an error. They also have links to their sources. Yes, Newton and Halley did meet when they did. But guess what? I will let you read for yourself:

Wikipedia is actually a pretty good source. I will put quotes from Wikipedia in blue. Interspersed in red will be Tyson's version along with my comments

Halley's visit to Newton in Cambridge in 1684 probably occurred in August.[54]

Tyson says the meeting happened before Newton turned 26.Which would be before 1668.

Newton was 42 when he Halley asked him the historic question. So again I ask you: Is 26 Tyson's figurative way of saying 42?

When Halley asked Newton's opinion on the problem of planetary motions discussed earlier that year between Halley, Hooke and Wren,[55] Newton surprised Halley by saying that he had already made the derivations some time ago;

In Tyson's version Newton replies "I can’t… I don’t know. I’ll get back to you.” So he goes… goes home, comes back couple of months later,

Which makes it sound like he figured it out in two months because of Halley's question. But Newton had been working on the problem in fits and starts since 1665.

From another Wikipedia article on centrifugal force:

Christiaan Huygens coined the term "centrifugal force" in his 1659 De Vi Centrifuga[2] and wrote of it in his 1673 Horologium Oscillatorium on pendulums. In 1676–77, Isaac Newton combined Kepler's laws of planetary motion with Huygens' ideas and found

the proposition that by a centrifugal force reciprocally as the square of the distance a planet must revolve in an ellipsis about the center of the force placed in the lower umbilicus of the ellipsis, and with a radius drawn to that center, describe areas proportional to the times.[3]
​

So it seems Huygens' 1673 paper was helpful to Newton. It looks like Newton worked out his explanation of elliptical orbits in 1676 -77.

So to review what the Wikipedia articles tell us

Halley did NOT ask Newton the question before he turned 26.
Newton did NOT say "I don't know".
Newton did NOT work out his explanation for elliptical orbits in two months.
Newton did NOT work out his explanation for elliptical orbits because of Halley's "dare".

The Wikipedia articles completely refute Tyson's addled ramblings regarding the Halley-Newton encounter.

Now... onto Tyson's claims regarding Newton's calculus. It is true Newton did his calculus work from 1665 to 1668. But can we agree he wasn't prompted by Halley's "dare" made in 1684?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wikipedia is actually a pretty good source. I will put quotes from Wikipedia in blue. Interspersed in red will be Tyson's version along with my comments

Halley's visit to Newton in Cambridge in 1684 probably occurred in August.[54]

Tyson says the meeting happened before Newton turned 26.Which would be before 1668.

Where? In your source he did not say any names. Why assume that he was talking about Halley?

Newton was 42 when he Halley asked him the historic question. So again I ask you: Is 26 Tyson's figurative way of saying 42?

When Halley asked Newton's opinion on the problem of planetary motions discussed earlier that year between Halley, Hooke and Wren,[55] Newton surprised Halley by saying that he had already made the derivations some time ago;

In Tyson's version Newton replies "I can’t… I don’t know. I’ll get back to you.” So he goes… goes home, comes back couple of months later,

Which makes it sound like he figured it out in two months because of Halley's question. But Newton had been working on the problem in fits and starts since 1665.

From another Wikipedia article on centrifugal force:

Christiaan Huygens coined the term "centrifugal force" in his 1659 De Vi Centrifuga[2] and wrote of it in his 1673 Horologium Oscillatorium on pendulums. In 1676–77, Isaac Newton combined Kepler's laws of planetary motion with Huygens' ideas and found

the proposition that by a centrifugal force reciprocally as the square of the distance a planet must revolve in an ellipsis about the center of the force placed in the lower umbilicus of the ellipsis, and with a radius drawn to that center, describe areas proportional to the times.[3]
​

So it seems Huygens' 1673 paper was helpful to Newton. It looks like Newton worked out his explanation of elliptical orbits in 1676 -77.

So to review what the Wikipedia articles tell us

Halley did NOT ask Newton the question before he turned 26.
Newton did NOT say "I don't know".
Newton did NOT work out his explanation for elliptical orbits in two months.
Newton did NOT work out his explanation for elliptical orbits because of Halley's "dare".

The Wikipedia articles completely refute Tyson's addled ramblings regarding the Halley-Newton encounter.

Now... onto Tyson's claims regarding Newton's calculus. It is true Newton did his calculus work from 1665 to 1668. But can we agree he wasn't prompted by Halley's "dare" made in 1684?

Dude! You are the only one that is claiming that it was Halley. Yes, he met Halley in 1684, but you are ignoring why he invented calculus at the age of 24. He had solved the problem that Hooke claimed to have solved but could not support that claim. When he told Halley that Halley naturally asked for evidence and since Newton could not find the original work he resolved the problem.

You are cherry picking articles.

EDIT: Excessive Green Ink is not a good sign:

Green ink

And one more time, the quote that you ignored:

" When Halley asked Newton's opinion on the problem of planetary motions discussed earlier that year between Halley, Hooke and Wren,[55] Newton surprised Halley by saying that he had already made the derivations some time ago;"

 

[Polymath257]

Tyson also says Newton explained elliptical orbits before he turned 26. Are you choosing to ignore the part I put in red? Or do you have 4th grade reading skills?

Yes. Newton explained the elliptical orbits of planets using his newly discovered law of gravity. he did this during the bubonic plague outbreak when he was about 24 years old.

He didn't publish many of his findings until quite a bit later, though, in Principia.