Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2014 7:37 pm Post subject: Newton Reading - How did Light change science?
Post your thoughts about how the work of each scientist might help in answering the project question: What is Light?
“The search for an answer to the question “what is light?” profoundly changed the discipline of science”
So to start off I think the question of "What is light" divided and discouraged the scientific community on a single issue but it led the way to further research and development of methodology. I think that the argument between Hooke and Newton showed the cutthroat nature of research and the desire to be more intelligent.
On the other hand I think that the debate over the larger question lead to the development and acceptance of new research methods. Newton showed mixed creativity with the scientific method to develop his theory. This might have led to both the acceptance of Faraday's "thought experiment" method as well as Maxwell's mathematical ideas.
Newton also managed to inspire younger scientists (Grimaldi and Young). Young also took it a step further and actually used Newton's research to prove his own theory.
Project statement: The search for an answer to the question "what is light?" profoundly changed the discipline of science. True or no?
Sure. Newton's revelations on light (not pure, methods of refraction) led to the creation of a much clearer telescope with much larger images, and his quest to answer this question gave rise to the modern scientific method by focusing heavily on hypothesis and experimentation - sort of an extension of Galileo's method. Theories are rad, but you've got to have experimental data for it to really be of any use. Changing methodology = changing discipline.
I'm not too sure how Faraday and Maxwell relate to this question. Maxwell ended up making discoveries about light, but he hadn't set out to actually explore it - the discovery just arose on its own in the study of electromagnetism.
The thing that stood out to me the most in terms of how studying light changed science is Newton's invention of the scientific method. Before him, there were a few scientists before him who really believed in experimentation, including Galileo, but Newton was the first to stress the importance of experimentation along with a final hypothesis. This seems super important to me because from like 6th grade all the way through high school, teachers stress the importance of the scientific method and of forming a hypothesis over all other forms of doing science.
Ironically, he wanted the hypothesis to be proceeded to "more slowly," as in not the first thing you do. So I wonder where we got the idea that you come up with a hypothesis first and then see if you're right?
Post your thoughts about how the work of each scientist might help in answering the project question.
Newton: Newton’s search for the answer to this question directly lead to the creation of the scientific method, replacing the foundation of Aristotelian philosophy. This in turn lead to the invention of much better telescope. As news spread of his successful instrument, Newton was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society. Under this title he published his first physics paper. If one holds casualty in high esteem, it sees that the original cause was the desire to understand light beyond Aristotle’s flawed view.
Faraday: Those following Newton established their own scientific paradigms, with Faraday's concerning lines of magnetic/electric force. He also explained light through the vibrations of these electric lines.
Maxwell: Maxwell's equations based off of electricity/magnetism represent "the greatest scientific step forward since the time of Newton" (112)
Newton was one of the first scientists to use experimentation in his scientific research. His experimentation differed from Aristotle and Descartes, for example, because he did not just observe, he set up structured experiments. "Descartes, for example, thought about the way in which light might be transmitted from a bright object to the eye, but he did not carry out his experiments to test his ideas (P. 102)" This quote is very "pooped in,” it contrasts Newton with his predecessors. I am not sure if it was the search for "What is light?” that changed the direction of science. I think it has much more to do with Newton’s particular genius. Likely his intuition, as driven by is genius, was the impetus behind this new way of testing ideas and hypotheses. Had someone else with a different sort of genius gone in search for the answer, they may not have created this new applied science. Perhaps Aristotle’s methodology, based on observation, would have continued to reign. However, what Newton did was change the standard for what "accurate science" was.
Last edited by hcooper2015 on Wed Apr 16, 2014 8:34 pm; edited 1 time in total
Newton and his official invention of the scientific method were groundbreaking. He had real evidence from experiments to back his ideas up. Faraday and Maxwell both established their ideas and they also very important, like Newton's ideas. I guess that instead of focusing on what Newton actually thought of light, the fact that he discovered/created the scientific method while searching for the answer of light proves the statement for the project. He also inspired other scientists to follow his ideas. He also made the telescope and really changed the course of science (while calling Hooke short).
Joined: 31 Mar 2014 Posts: 9 Location: United States
Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2014 8:35 pm Post subject:
I think that the question of “what is light” not only lead to a better understanding of light and how it works but it also changed science in a larger way as well, it helped change some of the sciences methodologies. The answering if this question is an excellent example of the dialectic process and many things that we use today came out of it, such as the scientific method from Newton.
As Naomi stated, Newton was one of the first ones to really stress the importance of experimentation and proof, something that is an essential part of practicing science today. I also think that this question inspired a lot of different scientists and information could be passed on from one to another, each gathering more information than the next. In this sense it was almost like a collaborative process which is something that was not seen much before this question was posed.
I think that Newton's scientific methodology when studying light was new to the scientific world. "Newton was the first person to express clearly the basis of what became the scientific method." (p.102) I think that this set method being established did change the discipline of science.
Young did not do to much to change the discipline of science other then carrying out the method of accurate experimentation set by Newton, in his scientific studies.
I'm not sure if Faraday changed the discipline of science with his study of light, although he defiantly had an impact on science (not as a discipline)
I think that Maxwell changed the discipline of science by showing the significance of mathematical equations to explain how the world works. I see this as a semi aristotelian way of explaining the world, it is simple and orderly and everything fits together.
Well, I think the more general way in whcich the question 'what is light?' affected the trajectory of science lies in Newton's redefining of the scientific method. Although I have a hard time in understanding how Netwon's assertion that "Hypotheses should be employed only in explaining the properties of things, but not assumed in determining them" differs all that much from what Galileo said about judging things on the basis of observation as opposed to being ultra-credulous and slack-jawed in the face of already-established thinkers and ideas (though perhaps Galileo was not as specific as Newton). Anyway, it seems that again the importance of minute observation is seen as the best means to objectivity or some larger sense of Truth or whatever.
In all honesty, I had a hard time understanding Faraday and Maxwell in relation to the big overarching question. However, a this specific sentence struck me as pertinent even if I can't effectively explain why: "Instead of regarding atoms as tiny lumps of solid, impenetrable matter, he said, we should regard them as the centers of concentrations of forces -- no more, and no less"(109). Despite my inability to understand a lot of the science in the reading, I found this notion to be interesting, and maybe somewhat relatable to what we learned about microhistory today (the "no more, and no less" bit, at least).
I think my observations in relation to Newton and Faraday hold some similarities. However, what I was able to get out of Maxwell is a little different, I think; what intrigued me about his method -- or what was being said about his method, rather -- was that it was predicated on certain axioms that Faraday didn't believe to be true. This sparked the question in my head: Is the effectiveness of a method more dependent on its axioms, or what it does with those axioms? Depending on what answer you give, how does that affect the way one thinks about Science (or any discipline, for that matter)?
I will now dump off this quote from good old reliable Flann O'Brien: "It is a curious enigma that so great a mind would question the most obvious realities and object even to things scientifically demonstrated... while believing absolutely in his own fantastic explanations of the same phenomena."
Light is so normal and we can see it everywhere, but before newton, there are wrong theories about what is light. In the reading,after Newton found the white light was consisted of 7 different light, he invented telescope. With his telescope, his way of learning science was accepted by people. All those great progress started from a simple thing, light. So I think the more common an object it, people can find more from it. Newton gives out the scientific method of doing experiment on light. Young shows that Math is necessary. Faraday and maxwell approach the light form electricity and magnetism, which are really similar to light because they are not touchable objects. They exist with a form different form gas, liquid and solid.
Each scientist in the reading, while not addressing the mechanics of light directly, each in some way influenced the boundaries of how we think of light. Newton first set the domino run in motion when he discovered that a rainbow of colors is not the effect of disturbing a pure white light, but rather the component colors of white light itself. Young brought up the "incomprehensible" theory that light acted like a wave when it traveled through slits creating an interference pattern, and also that our eyes pick up 3 combinations of light: red, green, and blue. Faraday explored the idea of not only particles and waves making up the universe, but also "lines of force" as well. All of these scientists were not only challenging how light works mathematically, but also the significance behind each theory. From telescopes to radio waves, the applications of knowing how light worked were boundless. So when we ask "what is light" we must not limit ourselves to the Truth of light, but also how we as humans can use light, symbolism it holds in our culture, technological advances that can now be made thanks to our understanding of light, etc.
I think the search changed science by bringing Newton and his scientific method into the light (We will never escape the puns). Although Newton was already a well known and respected scientist, the search for light really brought his ideas about scientific method into the forefront of conversation. All the scientists working after that are putting their experiments in a much weightier place in their arguments, even when their experiments go against all common sense. When Newton conducted the prism experiment and his completely unexpected results pushed him so forward in his thinking, he elevated experimentation to a much higher role in science.
I agree with Max- I think the struggle of finding out what light was made of made this time period a very difficult time period to be a scientist. The community went through a number of theories, with waves and particles and ether, and each change in theory must have been met with resistance. There must have been a lot of debate on the topic.
However, at the same time, I'm not sold on the idea that the debate on this question changed the discipline of Science. Newton was really the first to outline the scientific method, and he was one of the first to theorize what light was made of. After that, it seemed like Science didn't change too much- everyone was doing experiments and making hypotheses and theories. Maybe it's just me, but I feel like how Science is done hadn't changed that much.
What is light? Newton did experiments with the color in light and learned how to manipulate the light to give off different color. I think it's interesting that he ended up helping create a better telescope with this method of essentially just playing with light. His process felt much more experimental than scientific though I see how it is scientific. Now, this is how we discover new things. We play around with what we know and we move toward new understandings by doing things we don't understand.
Not sure how to tie Faraday and Maxwell in, but Newton set up the study of light to be done in different ways later by Faraday and Maxwell.
Last edited by Noah Bartel on Wed Apr 16, 2014 10:00 pm; edited 1 time in total
The scientific method as we know it was, it seems, a byproduct of the search for information about light (p. 102 and 104). If that's not "the search for an answer to the question 'what is light?' profoundly changing the discipline of science," I don't know what is.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
