<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Jacob &amp; Stewart &#8211; Practical Matter: Newton&#8217;s Science in the Service &#8230;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/4235.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/4235.html</link>
	<description>Some Chicago Boyz know each other from student days at the University of Chicago. Others are Chicago boys in spirit. The blog name is also intended as a good-humored gesture of admiration for distinguished Chicago boys including those pictured above.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2010 03:43:58 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: John</title>
		<link>http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/4235.html/comment-page-1#comment-20904</link>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Jul 2006 18:52:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www390.pair.com/chicagob/blog/004235.php#comment-20904</guid>
		<description>Jim - I jsut thought of this because I&#039;m working on a post about a related personage, but one of the reasons why we didn&#039;t adopt the rigid German system is that when we were building up our research system, we populated it with refugees from that system who didn&#039;t like it much. It didn&#039;t sit well with the American mindset, either.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jim &#8211; I jsut thought of this because I&#8217;m working on a post about a related personage, but one of the reasons why we didn&#8217;t adopt the rigid German system is that when we were building up our research system, we populated it with refugees from that system who didn&#8217;t like it much. It didn&#8217;t sit well with the American mindset, either.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John</title>
		<link>http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/4235.html/comment-page-1#comment-20903</link>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Jul 2006 18:46:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www390.pair.com/chicagob/blog/004235.php#comment-20903</guid>
		<description>Jim - I don&#039;t think it unrelated that Watt and Maxwell were Scottsmen. Some of the finest British scientific minds have not been English, due to the realtive weakenss of the caste system outside England proper.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jim &#8211; I don&#8217;t think it unrelated that Watt and Maxwell were Scottsmen. Some of the finest British scientific minds have not been English, due to the realtive weakenss of the caste system outside England proper.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim Bennett</title>
		<link>http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/4235.html/comment-page-1#comment-20902</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Bennett</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Jul 2006 02:06:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www390.pair.com/chicagob/blog/004235.php#comment-20902</guid>
		<description>It is true that Oxford and Cambridge remained focused on classics and predominantly attended by the upper classes through most of the 19th century.  However, the Scottish universities had always been substantially more meritocratic, and the end of the nineteenth century saw substantial reform even at the Oxbridge universities, and the founding of other universities.  Meanwhile the US adopted the German innovations of the research university (alongside the domestic innovation of the &quot;agricultural &amp; mechanical&quot; university) without adopting the rigidities that you accurately noted.  The high-water mark of the Germanosphere leadership of university research was probably between 1880 and 1930; after that the Anglosphere systems regained the lead.  Of course the Nazis chasing out many of their best researchers accelerated the process substantially.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is true that Oxford and Cambridge remained focused on classics and predominantly attended by the upper classes through most of the 19th century.  However, the Scottish universities had always been substantially more meritocratic, and the end of the nineteenth century saw substantial reform even at the Oxbridge universities, and the founding of other universities.  Meanwhile the US adopted the German innovations of the research university (alongside the domestic innovation of the &#8220;agricultural &amp; mechanical&#8221; university) without adopting the rigidities that you accurately noted.  The high-water mark of the Germanosphere leadership of university research was probably between 1880 and 1930; after that the Anglosphere systems regained the lead.  Of course the Nazis chasing out many of their best researchers accelerated the process substantially.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John</title>
		<link>http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/4235.html/comment-page-1#comment-20901</link>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Jul 2006 09:56:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www390.pair.com/chicagob/blog/004235.php#comment-20901</guid>
		<description>&quot;Also, whether the German chemical industry arose due to state-sponsored education and research and how that process occurred.&quot;

Britian lost her advantage in part due to her caste system. Germany, for a time, opened the doors to the scientific academy for all to enter. Britain relied on her upper classes to fill her institutions of higher education (for the most part), and those people still valued a Classical education over a technical one. The Germans surged ahead in physics and chemistry in the late 1800s and early 1900s, but were later hampered by the hierarchical pyramid of their university system, that allows one professor to control the research direction for an entire insitute (a practice that the Soviets &lt;a href=&quot;http://tpwithpagenumbers.blog-city.com/soviet_science_redux.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;copied&lt;/a&gt;). As the German campuses ossified into warring camps, innovation slowed, as Hayek would have predicted.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Also, whether the German chemical industry arose due to state-sponsored education and research and how that process occurred.&#8221;</p>
<p>Britian lost her advantage in part due to her caste system. Germany, for a time, opened the doors to the scientific academy for all to enter. Britain relied on her upper classes to fill her institutions of higher education (for the most part), and those people still valued a Classical education over a technical one. The Germans surged ahead in physics and chemistry in the late 1800s and early 1900s, but were later hampered by the hierarchical pyramid of their university system, that allows one professor to control the research direction for an entire insitute (a practice that the Soviets <a href="http://tpwithpagenumbers.blog-city.com/soviet_science_redux.htm" rel="nofollow">copied</a>). As the German campuses ossified into warring camps, innovation slowed, as Hayek would have predicted.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James McCormick</title>
		<link>http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/4235.html/comment-page-1#comment-20900</link>
		<dc:creator>James McCormick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Jul 2006 02:03:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www390.pair.com/chicagob/blog/004235.php#comment-20900</guid>
		<description>Michael&#039;s point is a great one, which I skirted as best I could for lack of personal skill. The article on Wikipedia outlines the many historical threads leading to what we know now as calculus, including a strong case for initial development in 14th century India! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerala_School)

Newton&#039;s fame (if not his practical influence) was laced with serendipidity. And Jacob and Stewart do a fine job of making that clear to ordinary mortals in a book that&#039;s very fun to read.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Michael&#8217;s point is a great one, which I skirted as best I could for lack of personal skill. The article on Wikipedia outlines the many historical threads leading to what we know now as calculus, including a strong case for initial development in 14th century India! (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerala_School" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerala_School</a>)</p>
<p>Newton&#8217;s fame (if not his practical influence) was laced with serendipidity. And Jacob and Stewart do a fine job of making that clear to ordinary mortals in a book that&#8217;s very fun to read.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Hiteshew</title>
		<link>http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/4235.html/comment-page-1#comment-20899</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Hiteshew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Jul 2006 01:21:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www390.pair.com/chicagob/blog/004235.php#comment-20899</guid>
		<description>Outstanding post Jim, my hat is off to you. (Or would be, were I wearing one.) Several comments:

&lt;i&gt;And over on the Continent...Mathematicians such as the German Leibniz, who had independently invented calculus...&lt;/i&gt;

I think it a common misconception that whole new philosophies, such as calculus, are suddenly invented from scratch at some moment in history. That&#039;s a rare event indeed when it does occur (if ever). Major philosophies or sciences are built up over long periods of time with each major contributor building upon, refining and adding to the work of their intellectual forebears. Calculus is no exception. The Greek mathemetician Archimedes was on the very cusp of doing integral calculus circa 200 BC and performed the first known summation of an infinite series. (There&#039;s one indicator of how far civilization fell between the end of Greco-Roman society and the Renaissance. From art, philosophy and calculus to the Inquisition. Sheesh! What a death spiral.) The concept of limits, although refined by Newton, was an idea much discussed among philosophers of his day; much as, say, String Theory has been batted around among theoretical physicists for the last thirty years. At a certain point, a coherent theory begins to gel. The person(s) who bring that theory to coherence are often cited as it&#039;s inventors. It was Newton himself who said, &quot;If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants.&quot;

Next, I agree the author is absolutely onto something regarding the link between the publication of the Principia in England and the birth and flowering on the industrial revolution. What I hadn&#039;t realized was the degree of publicity his work received and was fascinated to read that.

On a lighter note, I was recently surprised to see there actually is some truth to the old canard about Newton and the apple. While, according to Newton, it didn&#039;t bonk him on the head, watching an apple fall while sitting on the grounds of his estate did inspire him to wonder if there was some connection between the force which pulled on the apple and the force that kept the moon in orbit around the earth; the moon question being one he had wondered about and been confounded by for a long time.

And there&#039;s no doubt the man was a stunning genius of rare degree.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Outstanding post Jim, my hat is off to you. (Or would be, were I wearing one.) Several comments:</p>
<p><i>And over on the Continent&#8230;Mathematicians such as the German Leibniz, who had independently invented calculus&#8230;</i></p>
<p>I think it a common misconception that whole new philosophies, such as calculus, are suddenly invented from scratch at some moment in history. That&#8217;s a rare event indeed when it does occur (if ever). Major philosophies or sciences are built up over long periods of time with each major contributor building upon, refining and adding to the work of their intellectual forebears. Calculus is no exception. The Greek mathemetician Archimedes was on the very cusp of doing integral calculus circa 200 BC and performed the first known summation of an infinite series. (There&#8217;s one indicator of how far civilization fell between the end of Greco-Roman society and the Renaissance. From art, philosophy and calculus to the Inquisition. Sheesh! What a death spiral.) The concept of limits, although refined by Newton, was an idea much discussed among philosophers of his day; much as, say, String Theory has been batted around among theoretical physicists for the last thirty years. At a certain point, a coherent theory begins to gel. The person(s) who bring that theory to coherence are often cited as it&#8217;s inventors. It was Newton himself who said, &#8220;If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants.&#8221;</p>
<p>Next, I agree the author is absolutely onto something regarding the link between the publication of the Principia in England and the birth and flowering on the industrial revolution. What I hadn&#8217;t realized was the degree of publicity his work received and was fascinated to read that.</p>
<p>On a lighter note, I was recently surprised to see there actually is some truth to the old canard about Newton and the apple. While, according to Newton, it didn&#8217;t bonk him on the head, watching an apple fall while sitting on the grounds of his estate did inspire him to wonder if there was some connection between the force which pulled on the apple and the force that kept the moon in orbit around the earth; the moon question being one he had wondered about and been confounded by for a long time.</p>
<p>And there&#8217;s no doubt the man was a stunning genius of rare degree.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim Bennett</title>
		<link>http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/4235.html/comment-page-1#comment-20898</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Bennett</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Jul 2006 19:10:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www390.pair.com/chicagob/blog/004235.php#comment-20898</guid>
		<description>For an amusing fictional presentation of these themes and developments, including Newton, Leibnitz, and most of the Royal Society as characters, try Neal Stephenson&#039;s Baroque Trilogy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For an amusing fictional presentation of these themes and developments, including Newton, Leibnitz, and most of the Royal Society as characters, try Neal Stephenson&#8217;s Baroque Trilogy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lex</title>
		<link>http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/4235.html/comment-page-1#comment-20897</link>
		<dc:creator>Lex</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Jul 2006 17:26:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www390.pair.com/chicagob/blog/004235.php#comment-20897</guid>
		<description>James, thanks for this.  The book sounds good.  I&#039;m interested to know how much of the machine-making of the early industrial revolution relied on Newtonian mechanics, and how much was empirical and rule-of-thumb.  Your review suggests it was more the former than I had imagined to be the case.  Also, it is interesting that the Continental approach of state-sponsored scientific education began to bear fruit and to outstrip Britain.  It would be interesting to determine how well that state-centered scientific education and research translated into economic growth.  Also, whether the German chemical industry arose due to state-sponsored education and research and how that process occurred.  In a way, it is too bad that the authors stopped in 1851.  A sequel taking it downt to 1951 would be an interesting study in how Britain LOST its scientific and technological lead.  But, I suppose that by 1851 the more general advance of science had swamped the initial &quot;Newtonian&quot; contribution.

Anyway, this sounds like a book I want to read.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>James, thanks for this.  The book sounds good.  I&#8217;m interested to know how much of the machine-making of the early industrial revolution relied on Newtonian mechanics, and how much was empirical and rule-of-thumb.  Your review suggests it was more the former than I had imagined to be the case.  Also, it is interesting that the Continental approach of state-sponsored scientific education began to bear fruit and to outstrip Britain.  It would be interesting to determine how well that state-centered scientific education and research translated into economic growth.  Also, whether the German chemical industry arose due to state-sponsored education and research and how that process occurred.  In a way, it is too bad that the authors stopped in 1851.  A sequel taking it downt to 1951 would be an interesting study in how Britain LOST its scientific and technological lead.  But, I suppose that by 1851 the more general advance of science had swamped the initial &#8220;Newtonian&#8221; contribution.</p>
<p>Anyway, this sounds like a book I want to read.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
