Abstract
THE exposition of the Newtonian laws as given by Thomson and Tait has unfortunately been taken as the basis for the treatment of the laws of motion by all elementary text-book writers in the English tongue since the publication of the great “Treatise on Natural Philosophy.” When that exposition is attacked we are told that Newton introduced a qualifying context which has been omitted from the exposition. In other words the current statement of elementary dynamical principles is thrown overboard in favour of Newton pure and simple. On the other hand when Prof. Tait uses an expression which is totally opposed to that principle of the “subjectivity of force” which C.G.K. claims that Prof. Tait was the first, or among the first, to propound, we are told that this expression was obviously suggested by “Newton”s own anthropomorphic language.” C.G.K., I take it, admits that the Newtonian Laws of Motion are illogical and unphilosophical when stated by Thomson and Tait without Newton's modifying context. I propose therefore to shortly publish a criticism of the laws of motion as accompanied by that context of Newton's which does not appear in Prof. Tait's textbooks. I trust C. G. K. will not then turn round on me and say, “ Oh, yes, but this has nothing to do with Prof. Tait; it is Newton's own anthropomorphic language.”
Article PDF
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
PEARSON, K. The Grammar of Science. Nature 46, 247 (1892). https://doi.org/10.1038/046247b0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/046247b0
This article is cited by
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.