Nature of astrophysics (II) - science and scientists

[Nereid]

Think of your friends, relatives, colleagues, acquaintances; would you say any are kind? cruel? generous? mean? Does at least one cheat on their taxes, cheat on their corporate expense account, even cheat on their spouse? Maybe a couple are the very paragons of moral rectitude? Do some sometimes fly into jealous rages? or mabybe they are vindictive, spiteful gossips, meek, warm and supportive, optimistic, pessimistic, ....?

Scientists too are people, just like your friends, relatives, etc. Halton Arp, for example, is reputed to be the perfect gentleman, while Fritz Zwicky apparently used the term "spherical bastards" (because they were bastards no matter which way you looked at them) rather a lot.

What, if anything, can we learn about astronomy and physics by studying the personality of astronomers and physicists? Did Zwicky's robust (shall we say) form of social interaction mean the observations he made and the papers he wrote are less (or more!) reliable, as science, than if he'd had a personality more like Arp's?

Going further, were the observations made by Caroline Herschel any more (or less) valid, as astronomical observations, if they were reported as having been made by her brother?

Futher still, if an astronomer is deeply religious, does that make astronomical observations she (or he) makes (and/or reports, in published papers) any less (or more) valid, as astronomical observations, than those of a colleague who is not the least bit religious?

And what about hypotheses, models, theories, conjectures, etc in physics? Once published, how differently should any such be viewed - as physics - depending on the personality, social status, religion, etc of the person(s) who developed and wrote them?

Put this another way; if the actual names of the people who made (and published) observations, hypotheses, etc were removed from the primary documents (mostly papers) and replaced by random strings of letters, would the scientific content of those documents be any different?

[jjohnson]

I'd love to think that science papers and science theories (or even hunches and ruminations) could be published in the blind and allowed to be judged on their merits. In many ways, as I have come to think of ways science should work and work effectively, this dispassionate contemplation of ideas is, well, ideal.

As you point out, we all, scientists and non-scientists alike, are human, and we respond as much or more with passions and preconceived convictions and biases as we do with critical, careful and dispassionate thought and consideration.

Those who, like Fred Zwicky, can be highly passionate and biased, and rough on those around them without appearing to care too much for their ignorant or wrong fellows, may attract the admiration of some people, command the attention of others, and possibly even force their ideas on those who are too timid to speak their objections in the face of overpowering personality. Others may prefer to remain almost anonymous and be indifferent as to how well received their work is, confident internally that it is their best effort.

Science is the result of a lot of human interactions as well as individual internalization and thinking. Einstein discussed his ideas on walks with those whom he had grown to know and respect the best, yet I think he must have thought his Gedankenexperimenten in the quiet of his study, unfettered for a while with other human contact.

Science is also highly influenced by aggregate human organizations that find that to promote their own corporate interests (making money, garnering respect, getting grants, improving a profession, defending one's country - the list seems almost endless) they push "their" science, their agendas, and fund what helps their aggregate interests. This can lead to more funding of some areas of research in science and less in others that are less popular or that promise little financial gain. This is hardly limited to astronomy and physics.

Regarding whether one should consider the gender or personality or religious preference of the scientist who presents a paper or an opinion, I would say no to all of that. If that science is pushing some anti-social agenda, I would draw the line there, in that I think ethically most scientists want science to be used for "good" things, not for "bad things". As with society in general, the definition of what is "bad" and "good" is always in a state of flux and debate, and I don't care to get into that complex end of things here.

If the names were taken off published documents, I think that they should stand or fall, scientifically, on their content more than the name(s) on the first page. But people are funny that way. If a really widely-known "bad" Nazi scientist's name had appeared on the first paper submitted on special relativity, instead of Einstein's, where would we be today? (Rhetorical - no response needed.)

I did note that you stated, "...people who made (and published) observations, hypotheses, etc....". The "and published" opens up a can of discussion right there, as I read fairly frequently about complaints about the power wielded by the peer review system. It is so important to "be published" in science and education that if you can't meet the vetting requirements, or have simply made a reviewer mad at you, I understand that you might post to viXra as a last resort, or move to Germany and take a post with a more tolerant European research agency. Every system can have abuses. I wish scientists could better identify and correct such abuses within their own systems. Luckily, I am immune from all that because I do not publish, but it can be tough on those who need to for their livelihood.

What are your answers to your own questions, and do you find that you look at the names of people who express ideas about the electric universe and find that their names are a turn-off and that you filter out their written ideas and concepts as being less valid than those that you are used to seeing (who normally do not get involved in hypothetical scenarios such as the EU)? Would EU ideas be any more or any less intriguing or plausible or even reprehensible to you if they did not have "names" associated with them?

I have observed here before that the EU ideas are not yet theories in the conventional formal sense used in science. It's hard to get multi-disciplinary groups to talk with one another, much less find broad areas of agreement. I think that a lot of the mathematical formalism will develop from plasma physics, with the caveat that Alfvén warned about in his Nobel lecture that MHD is not a complete or accurate descriptor of how space plasmas work, based on his years of observations.

There is still a long way to go to see if this dark horse even gets out of the starting gate. It is interesting enough in broad-brush strokes and many details to give it a go, in my judgment, but minority science ideas will apparently always find it an uphill battle against the large and powerful body of existing research and vested interests. That may be as it should be, but on the other hand, an awful lot of the big steps made in science have been initiated by individuals who had some good ideas that only later were validated. I think that still happens, but it is getting easier for uninterested or dismissive and powerful people and groups to quash such adventurism, and keep the boat safely on course.

Jim

[JaJa]

Hi Nereid

What, if anything, can we learn about astronomy and physics by studying the personality of astronomers and physicists?

Is it really a study of personality or a forming of opinions based on what the astronomer and physicist writes/publishes and the manner in which it has been reported by the media? If for example, an astronomer or physicist continually added theoretical postulations to maintain a position against falsifications then that would ring alarm bells for me. I don't think you need me to point out examples in science where this has been claimed, there is plenty of such claims in this forum alone.

In answer to your question I think a lot can be learned by peoples actions and behaviour especially if it dubious, for example, I referred to an alleged Penrose quote about "nothing" existing prior to a singularity. This quote featured on Wikipedia and whether it was rightly or wrongly used by the author there was NO explanation of why it had been edited out, i.e. Sir Roger Penrose never said this, or his view has changed, we made a new discovery etc - therefore it told me that I couldn't really trust the author of that article, or anything else he had written on Wikipedia for that matter.

Futher still, if an astronomer is deeply religious, does that make astronomical observations she (or he) makes (and/or reports, in published papers) any less (or more) valid, as astronomical observations, than those of a colleague who is not the least bit religious?

Isn't it reasonable to say that everyone is entitled to an opinion, be it religious, spiritual or material based. I think it is the "reporting" of the observations which should be done in a completely unbiased fashion, this is what seems to be lacking. Everyone adds a spin that appears to be relative to their own beliefs...

Put this another way; if the actual names of the people who made (and published) observations, hypotheses, etc were removed from the primary documents (mostly papers) and replaced by random strings of letters, would the scientific content of those documents be any different?

In an ideal world it would be very nice to see an independent multi-disciplined organisation that was responsible for reviewing and publishing hypothesis/observations etc across many disciplines. Such an organisation would be represented by a wide selection of ballet-voted members, where each member was able to cross-reference and verify work in multiple disciplines so that no member could be accused of having a favourite. I don't think removing the identity of someone in a bid to make the process more valid is fair - just plain and simple fairness would make the whole process more valid imho.

JJ

[kiwi]

Futher still, if an astronomer is deeply religious, does that make astronomical observations she (or he) makes (and/or reports, in published papers) any less (or more) valid, as astronomical observations, than those of a colleague who is not the least bit religious?

isnt the peer review system in place to make sure personal bias is eliminated ..... I guess it depends on who makes up the review panel, and who chooses the "reviewers"?.... are "their" personal belief systems taken into account when making the choices?...

as for the specific example quoted above,... to be "deeply-religous" would infer to me that the scientist in question assumes an awful lot prior to offering his/her observations,.. and I would be wary of the possibillity they will be leaning toward making those observations fit their core belief.... it is a bit of a contradiction to me that a person can claim belief of an all powerful god with no scientific basis, yet be capable of formulating observational theory from a totally empirical and neutral stand point

interesting thread Neried ... and one that does not require a phd to participate in ...

[Nereid]

Interesting and thoughtful posts, thanks all!

One quick comment: I do intend, in a later thread, to address the "and published" part; in this thread I deliberately wrote that so the discussion would be focussed on what's actually available, for all to read (well, it might be difficult to get hold of a particular publication, or expensive - or both! - but that's but a detail).

Also, the question of where a physicist or an astronomer gets the ideas from, that later apprear as published theories, models, hypotheses (or even observations; after all astronomers have to make decisions of what to observe, with what, when, etc!) is a fascinating topic (but beyond the scope of this thread).

Too, questions such as 'if Dirac hadn't published his papers on quantum mechanics, would Feynman have been able to develop QED?' or 'could Planck/Lorentz/Poincaré/[insert your fave names here] have developed Special Relativity if Einstein had never been born?' can be interesting (though I myself has no interest in alternate histories, so I'd want to couch the questions in somewhat different ways).

[Nereid]

What are your answers to your own questions

Thanks for asking!

Q: What, if anything, can we learn about astronomy and physics by studying the personality of astronomers and physicists?
A: Nothing

Q: Did Zwicky's robust (shall we say) form of social interaction mean the observations he made and the papers he wrote are less (or more!) reliable, as science, than if he'd had a personality more like Arp's?
A: Neither more nor less reliable

Q: were the observations made by Caroline Herschel any more (or less) valid, as astronomical observations, if they were reported as having been made by her brother?
A: Neither more nor less valid

Q: if an astronomer is deeply religious, does that make astronomical observations she (or he) makes (and/or reports, in published papers) any less (or more) valid, as astronomical observations, than those of a colleague who is not the least bit religious?
A: Neither more nor less valid

Q: Once published, how differently should any such [hypotheses, models, theories, conjectures, etc in physics] be viewed - as physics - depending on the personality, social status, religion, etc of the person(s) who developed and wrote them?
A: They should be viewed in exactly the same way; the personality etc of the authors should have no bearing on them, as physics

Q: if the actual names of the people who made (and published) observations, hypotheses, etc were removed from the primary documents (mostly papers) and replaced by random strings of letters, would the scientific content of those documents be any different?
A: No. However, the replacements would have to be appropriate; for example, nearly all papers contain references, so an author's name would need to be replaced by a random string consistently (e.g. 'Aiguo Wang' -> 'ijbasrfuihg' in every paper with Aiguo Wang as author, and in every reference to papers with Aiguo Wang as author (it's a made up name by the way)).

and do you find that you look at the names of people who express ideas about the electric universe and find that their names are a turn-off

No.

and that you filter out their written ideas and concepts as being less valid than those that you are used to seeing (who normally do not get involved in hypothetical scenarios such as the EU)?

No.

Would EU ideas be any more or any less intriguing or plausible or even reprehensible to you if they did not have "names" associated with them?

Jim

Neither less nor more intriguing or plausible or even reprehensible.

[jjohnson]

Thank you Nereid for your prompt and complete respnse to my question for you.

From your answers you seem to be, or try to be, an amazingly unbiased and fair observer. I think I am not, no matter how hard I try to be. I try to be skeptical of it all, just to be safe,but then again, I want something that works. -at least reasonably well for now. I think in my heart I am less interested in the theory (which is a crucial component nonetheless) than in the engineering applications, which is actually a long way from astronomy in general, but not so far from astronomical instrument purposing and construction, or in human exploration in person when possible.

Anyway, as you are participating on this forum, I am being presumptuous that you are interested about the subjects here, and possibly whether or not any of it might work, in part, in finding improvements or thinking regarding some of the aspects of thinking more along the lines that energy transport via large, charge-separated plasma filaments and stellar formation, high-energy phenomena observations, and so on which the EU model claims to have a valid model for. I for one appreciate your unbiased interest if that is really what it is; that can only be helpful. I understand your enquiries asking for a more rigorous discussion and asking for valid sourcing of information, such as papers.

Probably unfortunately, from the outside (really outside), it appears that almost no papers in support of concepts which lend credence to models or hypothesizations, that might be construed to be EU related, seem to get to first base in the publication sequence. (I can see you smile and thinking,"Now why would that be? ) This may be partly due to there not being anybody working in astrophysics who holds such ideas or who might want to consider pursuing them with rigor and care. Or, it may be because it is not yet possible for any paper to point to EU references that have been published because there aren't any - circular logic.

I think, from a response I got from someone on Starship Asterisk, after asking a simple question, that it is felt by astronomers that charge separation in cosmic conditions is rare and weak, at best, and therefore of no physical interest to them; it had already been shown to be wrong in a net neutral universe, and that was that. Dismissive end of discussion. That view may be correct, for all I know, but I am not convinced that enough measurements of the right kind and in the right places have yet been made. Humans have been at this for a very short period of time, so far. I hope that the view here is simply that the Standard model might not be altogether correct, and is worth looking at more carefully, from a constructive, scientific and, as you would agree, as objective a standpoint as possible. (Along the lines of how we think we know what we do, a very interesting small book titled, On Being Certain, by Robert Burton, M.D. is instructive and fascinating. I think you'd enjoy it if you haven't read it.

I like the organization of your threads and your trying to stick to one or two points. We have a tendency here to digress to the point that someone might think the discussion has nothing to do with the original title at all. —and might be right in that conclusion more often than not. Press on; as a laymen I am interested in winkling things out. Your contributions could be very helpful in various ways. I trust we will consider seriously what you have to say.

Jim

[tayga]

This is a very interesting subject. I am a working researcher myself and I battle with the peer review system every time I try to publish a paper or secure funding. I am familiar with the resistance to shifting a mindset even at the smallest scale.

It is not hard to accept that an author adopts a position in the discussion and conclusions in his papers, this is the nature of argument, after all. But if the data is massaged or treated to bury inconvenient facts then science is corrupted.

An honest observation should be divorced from the observer’s preconceptions (or those of his peers or seniors) but is it? It is hard to dissociate a person (and hence their name) from their preferred ideas, models or paradigms so it would be easy to infer a bias in an author’s writing even if it weren’t there.

Halton Arp is convinced that raw data that contradict the red shift/distance correlation are deliberately suppressed or statistically buried. I’ve read that one of the institutions attempting to falsify cold fusion experiments deliberately suppressed results which supported it and I have met opposition to the publication of results that senior scientists ‘don’t believe’.

I’m not as convinced as Nereid that human nature doesn’t impinge on science. My own experience is that that the majority of scientists, like the majority of people, are willing to be wrong when confronted with the facts, some more easily than others. But some people will call black white and even pant it so rather than be wrong.

[Nereid]

Thanks for all those kind words, jjohnson/Jim!

I think, from a response I got from someone on Starship Asterisk, after asking a simple question, that it is felt by astronomers that charge separation in cosmic conditions is rare and weak, at best, and therefore of no physical interest to them; it had already been shown to be wrong in a net neutral universe, and that was that. Dismissive end of discussion. That view may be correct, for all I know, but I am not convinced that enough measurements of the right kind and in the right places have yet been made.

Well I think it would be well worth having a discussion on what the limits on what can/could be detected and what can't/couldn't are today (and what they might be in future) ... however, not in this thread please!


tayga, most of what you wrote might be more appropriate in the "up to publication" thread I intend to write, later (I think I was reasonably clear that in this thread I was writing only 'post publication', so to speak).

Halton Arp is convinced that raw data that contradict the red shift/distance correlation are deliberately suppressed or statistically buried.

Did you get a chance to read the Arp's wish has been realised? thread (it's in the Electric Universe section)? It's pretty difficult to suppress raw astronomical data, at least from facilities that have US public funding (well, Federal government at least), as there is a clear mandate to make it all available (albeit after a year or so)! In astronomy, those facilities include many of the big guns, such as the Hubble Space Telescope, Chandra, and Fermi. Besides, a large proportion of the time, money, and effort put into astronomical observations goes into surveys, and the whole point of an astronomical survey is to make the results as widely (and freely) available as possible.

I’m not as convinced as Nereid that human nature doesn’t impinge on science.

Me neither (and I'm Nereid!) ... it would be crazy to think that human nature did not impinge on science; after all, the only science we know of is done by humans.

What I am trying to explore in this thread is a rather carefully defined subset of the relationship between science and humans ...

[Solar]

Welcome to the forum Nereid.

I don't think I've ever really thought about such a thing. "Personality", to me, is very distant to the work and interpretations dispensed via science because its something totally separate insofar as I have seen. However, I'm not connected and/or related to individuals who's life work revolves around science. I suppose that would be different because then I would be privy to someone's "personality" directly. When I think of "personality" it is something one experiences while loitering at a local pub or so i.e a 'social' feature. Something one only acquires a sense of through extended social contact unrelated to one's work.

It seems to me that a more appropriate term for this would be the sense (or quality) of 'Character.' In other words 'Intent.' What is the 'standard' of the 'intent' of individuals and/or institutions regardless of field when actualizing their work. The notion (more properly 'Goals') of "objectivity", dispassion etc is oft cited as that towards which the work of science strives. These qualities seem to be (or should be) distant and distinct from "personality."

When intermingled (as with riends, relatives, colleagues, acquaintances) I still don't see how one would not be unable to distinguish the quality of 'Character' or 'Intent' with regard to an effort - or work - unless one was, or is, being purposefully misleading. Any number of people can, and do, regurgitate the purposefully misleading doctrine of supposed "Global Warming." Do many of them know anything regarding the actual so called science behind it? Probably not. The Public Trust was taken advantage of and few are allowed to see the "personalities" behind the scenes that perpetuated this. Subsequently, we (the public) don't know (or aren't allowed to see) if those "personalities" are more "robust" (you were awfully kind with that) as with your Zwicky reference.

When considering "objectivity" as an unspoken and seeming generally agreed upon goal - to me, it is the scientific equivalent of the Doctor's Hippocratic Oath. Obviously, as with Global Warming, the actual 'Intent' can be hidden and tucked away for quite some time. The longer this occurs the more painful it becomes when the "Truth" of 'Intent' (once revealed) begins to assess the 'Character' of the participants. We (the public) only ever see 'frontmen' or 'representatives' who's job it is to convince via speeches and overly generalized media announcements. It takes a monumental amount of time and effort for someone such as myself to find and research what information might be available in order to try and independently asses some of these things.

The only thing I have to go on is point; counterpoint - not from the 'frontmen' i.e the talking heads and media darlings (these form the 'personas' and/or "personalities") - but from those who actually do the gritty work and can substantiate their claims with data that is readily available. Zwicky may have been "robust" and his data and observations may have been objective but I know who I would gravitate towards ( be magnetized towards(?) - difficult to avoid a pun there eh? - anyways) with regard to having established a sense of quality with regard to 'Character.'

Subjective(?), yes I know; but there you have it with such a tenuous thing.

[Nereid]

Thanks for the welcome, Solar!

With respect to physics and astronomy, how could character impact the actual science (post-publication)?

[Solar]

Thanks for the welcome, Solar!

With respect to physics and astronomy, how could character impact the actual science (post-publication)?

Hello. Some thoughts:

‘Character’ may have an impact on any endeavor not just those you've mentioned methinks.

NASA, rather quietly, revised flawed temperature data and 1998 is no longer to be the warmest year etc, etc .. It just went on and on, for years. NASA seemed to once embody the pinnacle of physics and astronomy. Was James Hanson just a rogue element in a rogue department of an organization so large that one hand didn’t know what the other was doing? There are lawsuits just to get access to, of all things, data?!? There actually has to be a lawsuit to get access to data gathered from what would presumably have been the “actual science?”

Sure, one could assume that protection of processing techniques, software copyrights, maybe a few trademarks (?) night be the impetus for refusing but... this is doubtful.

Would the construction of data, the obstruction of data, the selection of data, the interpretations of data, the manipulations and machinations of Global Warming fall under the heading of ‘physics’, or was it ‘science’? Was it both? Either? What was it supposed to be? Is astronomy immune to such things pre, and/or post, publication?? Or, does astronomy have its own unique brand of politics, media, and money that isn’t so public? Would it be too idealistic to consider astronomy as immune to those factors?

As sweeping as it was Astronomy *seems* to be the only area unscathed in all of it. Yet, this forum, some of its members, and EU/PC in general have had encounters with astrophysicist for whom the sense of ‘Character’ carried with it just such agenda driven motives. Would the obvious agenda affect the “actual science” done by such individuals? Not in terms of the “the scientific method” i.e. a set of ideals attempting to insure either ‘Objectivity’ and/or ‘Integrity’ with regard to the ‘Character’ of the work imho. Problem is; I wouldn’t care to find out as a result of the quality of ‘Character’ (or lack thereof) displayed in such instances because bias could be rather obvious (or subtle) either technically, interpretively, and/or both (Chapman v/s Birkeland & Alfven for example).

Is all hope lost? Far from it! One has to discern as best they can via contrasting "models", techniques, theories, the literature etc and through (hopefully) constructive discourse.

Cheers

[Nereid]

Thanks Solar.

I'm afraid I still can't see any impact of character on the actual science (post-publication).

If you apply the test I sketched at the end of the OP ("if the actual names of the people who made (and published) observations, hypotheses, etc were removed from the primary documents (mostly papers) and replaced by random strings of letters, would the scientific content of those documents be any different?"), where's the impact of character?

That character has an impact pre-publication is certain, and clear, and I covered this in part in Nature of astrophysics (7) - getting to publication.

[Goldminer]

Brian Wallace's book, The Farce of Physics covers much of Neirid's topics here on the "Future of science" category here at Thunderbolts Forum. It's a good read.
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm

This chapter covers Isaac Newton's, and Alert Einstein's transgressions:

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/FP_C3_MM.HTM

The incomprehensibility of gravitation Newton considered a divine dispensation. The Almighty had denied man ultimate insight into the mystery of His Creation. A Christian must be able to reconcile himself to this fact and Newton was a devout Christian...

With regard to Newton as the role model for the corrupt politics of modern physics, we find on page 185:

In his mid-fifties there came a radical change in Newton's way of life. He was appointed master of the Royal Mint, an office equivalent to what would now be governor of the Bank of England. He exchanged his modest lodgings at Cambridge for a palace in London, entered society, kept horses, carriages, and servants. His income shot abruptly from sixty to five hundred pounds a year, besides various perquisites; he was able to indulge his taste for philanthropy. He was knighted, and became an influential personage at court. Most important of all, he became president of the Royal Society.

This celebrated association of scientists was about the same age as Newton himself. At the time he was given his professorship, the society became "royal," and was provided with special privileges, robes of state, a mace, and a seal bearing the motto: "Let no one's word be law." But the motto went by the board once Newton was elected with absolute regularity to the presidency. His word was sacred. An excellent model for a cannon was unanimously rejected because Newton declared: "This diabolic instrument will only multiply mass killing." In London the Royal Society was generally known as Sir Isaac's Parliament.

This parliament became the platform for Newton's world fame. But it also embittered the closing days of his life by its frenetic partisanship, in connection with his fourth great contribution, the calculus of fluxions, which has become the core of modern mathematics. This time, however, Newton was not the sole discover of the method. It was simultaneously developed, under the name of the differential calculus, by the German philosopher Leibnitz...

Most of the technical terminology of modern mathematics derives from Leibnitz. All of Europe learned the differential calculus from his textbook. He described the new art of reckoning in such lucid terms that a veritable race began among mathematicians, each trying to outdo the other in elegant solutions of hitherto unsolved problems. Mathematicians posed each other riddles, and sent each other the results in code to be sure that no one copied. The period immediately after Leibnitz was an exciting and glorious era in the history of mathematics. And all the newest discoveries were made by means of Leibnitzian differential quotients. No one had ever heard of Newton's counterpart, his fluxions. Newton had created the method for his own private use, and hesitated to publish it because it was so difficult to grasp. For his Principia he therefore invented a less difficult, more geometrical method of proof...

The most remarkable aspect of the whole barren struggle was this: no participant doubted for a moment that Newton had already developed his method of fluxions when Leibnitz began work on the differential calculus. Yet there was no proof, only Newton's word. He had published nothing but a calculation of a tangent, and the note: "This is only a special case of a general method whereby I can calculate curves and determine maxima, minima, and centers of gravity." How this was done he explained to a pupil a full twenty years later, when Leibnitz's textbooks were widely circulated. His own manuscripts came to light only after his death, and then they could no longer be dated.

Though Newton's priority was not provable, it was taken for granted, while Leibnitz was always asked to prove that he had not plagiarized - a charge as humiliating as it was absurd. This grotesque situation demonstrates most vividly the authority Newton enjoyed everywhere. He was truly the monarch of all he surveyed, a unique phenomenon. To Western science he occupied the same place that had been held in classical antiquity by Pythagoras - whose disciples were wont to crush all opponents with the words: "Pythagoras himself has said so."

[Nereid]

Brian Wallace's book, The Farce of Physics covers much of Neirid's topics here on the "Future of science" category here at Thunderbolts Forum. It's a good read.
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm

This chapter covers Isaac Newton's, and Alert Einstein's transgressions:

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/FP_C3_MM.HTM

As a person, Newton may have been a very nasty piece of work (to use a modern expression), or not. There may also be some doubt as the to priority of certain ideas (though the dates on which various works were, in fact, published surely isn't , is it?).

However, if you remove Newton's name from his published work, does it change, as physics?