Jed Buchwald: Isaac Newton and the Philosophy of Science | Lex Fridman Podcast #214

Buchwald agrees paradigms exist but argues theories often change because new mathematical frameworks and instruments enable novel phenomena and devices, not simply because anomalies ‘falsify’ old theories.

The Newtonian particle theory of light could be patched to explain many effects, but wave optics (e.g., Fresnel) generated new predictions, devices, and experimental avenues that Newton’s framework could only accommodate after the fact.

Buchwald emphasizes that figures like Newton and Einstein build on prior work—correspondence with Hooke influenced Newton’s mechanics, and earlier mathematicians prefigured aspects of calculus—so lone genius is only part of the story.

Early modern scientists like Huygens typically chose a single ‘best’ measurement rather than averaging many; statistical methods and the idea of aggregating noisy readings emerged only later, changing what counted as reliable data.

Using examples from vision (human vs dragonfly, screen pixels vs ‘documents’), Buchwald argues against strong realism: science corrals aspects of nature through devices and math, but we cannot be certain we’ve reached the ultimate ‘bottom turtle’ of reality.

Far from pure mysticism, alchemy involved sophisticated apparatus, repeated manipulations, and coded recipes for amalgams; Newton spent extensive time on such work, which refined ideas about matter and transformation.

Stories of Newton vs Hooke and Leibniz, and Arago vs Biot (using Fresnel as a ‘weapon’), illustrate how jealousy and competition push researchers into new domains, even as they distort credit and relationships.