Does this cause anyone else to be more suspicious of Newton's achievements and the history books, given that he at one point had accrued enough power to have his rivals drawn and quartered?
Now, I have less respect for Newton than ever before. That essay repeats the details of the smear job against Newton's rival in earnest, and parrots his praises, with zero sense of irony or context with respect to how history is formed. Reminds me strongly of Thomas Edison, prominent scientist with suspiciously high political standing and personal fortune.
No one can contest this now, the histories are 300 years old. What no one can contest in good faith is that, "The winners write the history books".
I don't think this is a reasonable understanding of the story. Chaloner cannot be called “Newton's rival” in any usual sense of the word: he was born destitute, turned to various horrifying crimes from a young age, was barely educated, was arrested multiple times even before his story overlapped with Newton's in any way, etc. He died only because his crime was a serious one, falling under the category of “high treason”. And for his part, Newton hardly had accrued enough power despite all his mathematical and scientific achievements — this job was obtained with great effort late in his life, and his (small) fortune came from his job's salary.
Regarding “context with respect to how history is formed”, I think this is best done by reading more primary sources, and not forming a quick opinion (as you seem to be doing, from a blog post). This is what the author of the book has done. From his article at http://www.executedtoday.com/2009/03/22/1699-william-chalone... —
> Some historians, notably Frank Manuel, have speculated that Newton pursued this work with implausible eagerness, out of a kind of frustrated blood lust born of his abandoned and unhappy childhood. This seems to me to be nonsense. The specific historical context matters here: Newton did not author the bloody code, nor did he send everyone he could to the gallows. Rather, the record of his depositions shows him to be simply a relentless practical man doing his job. He used little fish to catch big fish, and at least some of those low on the ladder received their escape from the gibbet. What you can see here, surprisingly, is the birth of a modern idea of a civil service. The Warden -– even Isaac Newton — was simply a man in a job doing the functions of that job, which included organizing the investigation and prosecution of counterfeiters.
> […] Newton did not expect as Warden to have to chase crooks; when he found out that was part of the job he wrote a rather whiny letter to the Treasury to see if he could wriggle out of the duty. When he found he could not, he responded as he always had to the job at hand.
If you study the details of his youth, etc, you will learn that he lived in obscurity for many, many years, toiling alone on the most difficult questions of the time.
His "political standing" was a result purely of his scientific achievements and a general consensus of his high ability within scientific circles. He took great pains to reduce the number of acquaintances he had rather than increase them.
I think Newton was more right than wrong in the beliefs he took seriously (even outside the narrow confines of "science"). He was anything but naive. This doesn't mean he never lied; it just means that he lied way less compared to average standards for humanity.
One should always be suspicious of achievements in history books!
Newton could be an unmitigated shit. He has feuds with lots of people, including Hooke, Leibniz & Flamsteed. Not to mention that he rounded up the poor and convicted them of counterfeiting for possession of coins, rather than making them.
he also had a heretical secret life, properly into alchemy and other (for the time) wildly fantastical beliefs. Ones I suspect, but cant prove, he would have exploited should they have belonged to his rivals.
For that matter no one's respect really means much however you look at this particular excerpt, not sure what you trying to say with this line of argument
What a weird criticism. This story, well amusing, is a funny footnote at best. It could be 100% a fabrication and it wouldn't really affect newton's story at all.
That's not to say i disagree about history being written by the winners and all the potential pitfalls that entails. This story just isn't relavent to what newton is known for.
Sorry, Foucault was an ignorant quack. Everything is about power, only in the mind of a pathological psychopath. Someone leading a long, prestigious and rich life is evidence of competence.
Besides, the historical record when it comes to Newton is pretty clear. His personal abilities could hardly have been faked, and he had a personality pretty much opposite to a con man.
Now, I have less respect for Newton than ever before. That essay repeats the details of the smear job against Newton's rival in earnest, and parrots his praises, with zero sense of irony or context with respect to how history is formed. Reminds me strongly of Thomas Edison, prominent scientist with suspiciously high political standing and personal fortune.
No one can contest this now, the histories are 300 years old. What no one can contest in good faith is that, "The winners write the history books".