text:
Skip to comments.Planned Parenthood Web Site Advises Teens on Porn Use [site tells readers about "Outercourse."....]
Posted on 02/26/2008 3:46:35 AM PST by Sub-Driver
click here to read article
I'll be darned. I thought people just bought Playboy for the articles.
You are just playing the same semantic games planned parenthood chooses to play.
So did the Allies commit a war crime when they firebombed Dresden? Innocent people were the target. Same with the Atomic Bombs.
That's demonstrably untrue. In fact, percieved easy access to abortion ~increases~ teen pregnancy.
reputable link or it doesn't happen.
Reminded me of a friend's girlfriend (don't get me started) who use to have a bumper sticker on her car that read: PORN, IT'S CHEAPER THAN DATING.
Teen birth rate follows pregnancy rate and rises and falls along with sexual activity rate, not inverse to the abortion rate. The abortion rate has been more or less flat since 73 with a slight decline over time.
Teen sexual activity rate rose after Roe v. Wade in 73 through the 70's into the 80's. Fell slightly during the 80's (as abortion was being hotly debated as a moral issue) then rose again until about 93 when it began to fall again and has been until now.
IMHO, abortion has become less popular and less of an option for girls to consider, and this was reflected in the sexual ~activity~ rate, which drives the others.
Many girls first believe that they'll just have an abortion if they get pregnant... so they're somewhat more willing to have sex. When they actually become pregnant it dawns on them what they have, they change their minds and they opt to keep the baby. I don't have data handy for that, but I do have several examples of this happening to acquaintances who've told me exactly that story. It does happen.
But the flip side is those girls know they can have their Uncle Sam pay for the kid without them having to worry about the father. Get rid of welfare, we get rid of teen pregnancy.
How do you figure that? They're in favor of the directly intended killing of the innocent. I'm firmly and unequivocally against it. How does that make me like PP?
"So did the Allies commit a war crime when they firebombed Dresden?"
"Innocent people were the target. Same with the Atomic Bombs.'
Yes. Murder. Whether done by a bomb, abortion, or a baseball bat.
OK, I'm hip to that.
As it would happen, welfare rates ~have~ been declining since the successful welfare reform of the 94-elected congress. That's probably part of the decline in unwed births as well, as you suggest.
So Americans are war criminals?
"Would you rather be subsidizing even more teem moms?"
This stuff is sick.
The way to have less teen moms is for those girls to not remove their pants.
The whole of educating them do do stupid things in a safer way, is a fallacy.
They should just not do stupid things.
If a kid has sex then they are making a baby. They shouldn't make a baby.
Not all Americans. Just ones who commit war crimes.
So Eisenhower is a war criminal? Churchill? Truman? These guys are all war criminals?
They gave the go ahead for the Dresden and Atomic Bombings.
Sex is stupid? You might be doing it wrong.
There would have to be some investigation of their intentions and their actions. But a person-— any person -— who deliberately targets civilians is a war criminal. Yes. City = target is a war crime.
"Sex is stupid? You might be doing it wrong."
It's stupid when 14 year olds are doing it...
You appear to be deliberately misinterpreting Heartland in order to be provocative. The idea is not that "sex is stupid." The idea os that baby-making behavior by people who don't want to make a baby, and who ought not to make a baby, is stupid.
Back in 1969 my family spent a Christmas together up at a beautiful home in White Lake lake, Wisconsin. My brother, as a gag gift from one of his friends, had gotten a puzzle of Playboy's Miss December. He brought it with him.
Now we're a very Catholic family, but everybody had a hand in putting together that puzzle on Christmas day. (She was tastefully presented.)
We still talk about that Christmas.
ROFL... Remembering checking out that copy of "Wifey" with a group of friends in Middle School at the local library. *blush* You could find all the "good" parts of the book very easily, LOL... All dogeared and coming apart at the binding in those sections!
I have to admit it's much easier for kids to get their hands on things like that nowadays through the internet, but it's not anything "new" by any stretch of the imagination!
Ahhh... so a good Motherboard reduces the chance of Motherhood! ;) Good to know. ROFL
"Straw man argument" clean up on aisle 44...
Most excellent! Here's a Margaret Sanger article for you too!
So are you saying even sex with contraception is stupid?
Why are we even having this discussion?
The context is about teenagers and Planned Parenthood doing things to enable them to have sex with each other.
I would hope that you and others on this forum are astute enough to see why that is a very bad thing.
Teenagers are children with adult body parts in some cases, they shouldn't be having sex.
Teenagers are going to have sex with or without planned parenthood. Teenagers had sex before Planned Parenthood was even created, they'll have sex after civilization is wiped out and Planned Parenthood is barely a memory.
If parents actually did their job, we wouldn't need a Planned Parenthood.
We Don't need a planned parenthood regardless.
And absolutely we don't need one on the public dime. In case you wish to try weaseling - we don't need welfare either. Charity isn't charity unless it is voluntary.
The teen pregnancy statistics disagrees with you.
And programs like these send the message that "we know you are going to do it so we will teach you to do it properly."
It tells kid that's it's normal to do and ok to do.
Which causes more kids to do it.
Besides it's just immoral to be accepting of kids doing this.
It's also degrading to kids with morals to assume that they are gutter trash.
I just went through this in my school, and pulled my kid out of a 25 session (yes 25 sessions) course like this.
I will not be part of a school indoctrinating my kids with this kind of crap. Our kids know right and wrong. They learned it from their parents which is how a healthy society is supposed to function.
No they do not. no statistic has EVER showed that persons who get pregnant are entitled by that some how to my or anyone else's money.
Nor do statistics show that teen pregnancy has decreased since planned parenthood began operating. you cah babble all you want philly, but you can't misrepresent the statistics enough to make them say what you are trying to say.
I am under the impression that you subscribe to the "steam valve" theory of human emotions. The theory goes that you have a certain amount of pent-up energy, and it needs to be let out somehow. This theory, however, is far too simplistic. Sexual restraint can be encouraged, as indeed it was before around 1965. People were far more modest in general at that time and sex was not discussed in public. Rates of illegitimacy were far lower than they are today.
Of course people always have sexual instincts, but we're living in a time when the media and the schools are encouraging an absense of them. That's what this article is about.
You do know that 40% of the women gtting abortions are regular contraceptive users, right? You know that every state and every country for which we have the statistics, has seen contraceptive use and abortion go up in tandem, right?
Then there's the problem of the intrinsic ("built for failure") flaws in latex condoms. I researched a bit and found these interesting tidbits.
(Go ahead and makd the effort to click and read it, Nomad.)
Pro-choice: Choose before you screws.
And back before 1965 a man could go to work in a factory and make enough to support a family of five, send the kids to college and take a nice vacation.
Those days are long gone and aren't ever coming back. You can either adapt or die.
So that means 60% of the women getting abortions were too stupid to use contraception in the first place. Now if somebody taught them the advantage of contraception then we wouldn't have had to worry about the abortion in the first place.
And I wonder how many of that 60% were taught 'no-sex' before marriage.
History isn't your strong suit either. The prosperity bubble the US experienced after world war two was hardly endemic of human experience either in this county, or in the world as a whole. Tossing sexual morality benefits economic condition how? The topic your response to beejaa seems entirely disconnected to the substance and topic at hand.
But where there's a high rate of contraception, there's almost always also a high rate of abortion and STD's. Check out mega-contraceptive California's experience.
So you say.
Well the California data is meaningless without comparison to populations without sex ed and access to birth control.
Contraception is constantly being promoted as a way to keep kids "safe" from the effects of sexual behavior. California's disease incidence gives the lie to that argument, unless you want to argue that their epidemic is accepable as an outcome.
The Alan Guttmacher Institute, research affiliate of Planned Parenthood, often announces that contraceptives have prevented so many thousands of pregnancies and abortions. But these are projections based on a flawed mathematical model, not genuine findings.
In 2006, when the Institute issued a report card ranking the 50 states by how aggressively they promote contraceptives, the embarrassing fact emerged that New York, California and other states receiving the highest grades also had some of the highest abortion rates in the country; some states ranked near the bottom for contraceptive services have the lowest abortion rates.
Studies from a variety of countries have shown that contraceptive programs do not reduce abortion rates. In fact, says one recent overview, [m]ost studies that have been conducted during the past 20 years have indicated that improving access to contraception did not significantly increase contraceptive use or decrease teen pregnancy.
Perhaps the most surprising finding is that programs promoting ECs do not reduce abortions. Yet when leading experts who favor EC programs recently summarized 23 studies gauging the effect of such programs, they had to admit that not one of the 23 found a reduction in unintended pregnancies or abortions.
Conclusion: What reduces abortions?
One clue lies in the Guttmacher data mentioned above. Abortions are lowest in heartland states with a more traditional culture of honoring marriage and discouraging premarital sex. New studies show that an increase in the number of teens nationwide who delay initiating sexual activity is responsible for a large part of the reduced abortion rate in recent years.
Second, these and other states place modest legal restraints on abortion, which have a well-documented and significant effect of reducing abortions.
Third, offering life-affirming services to pregnant women and their children, as proposed in federal bills like the Pregnant Women Support Act (H.R. 6145), could make a substantial impact on the number of abortions.
These strategies can reduce abortions without creating any moral or social problems, and could be the true common ground in the abortion debate. Will Congress seize this opportunity?
Richard Doerflinger
The full-length version of this article is posted at
Please take a statistics course, it will do wonders for the both of us.
You can't say anything about the California "study" because we don't know how a control group would work. That number is only descriptive of California. For example, lets say a sports team won 10 games. Did that team have a good year? Well we don't know because we are missing a bunch of other contextual factors. 10 victories is good for a football team, but a disaster for a baseball team.
But if we compare the US to other industrialized countries like France, England, Sweeden and Canada, countries with no shortage of contraception, have a teen pregnancy rate of about 1/3 of the US.
It's like this: if there's some daredevil stunt in your state in which 1/4 to 1/2 of the participants ages 14-25 sustain injuries serious enough to require medical care even when using protective equipment, plus the loss of many lives, would a reasonable conclusion be (a) that's a really inappropriate activity for our 14-25s, or (b)this tells us nothing useful: it may be even worse in Mississippi.
You made no comment on Doerflinger's report in #88. The major findings:
"In 2006, when the [Alan Guttmacher] Institute issued a report card ranking the 50 states by how aggressively they promote contraceptives, the embarrassing fact emerged that New York, California and other states receiving the highest grades also had some of the highest abortion rates in the country; some states ranked near the bottom for contraceptive services have the lowest abortion rates. "
"23 studies gauging the effect of such [contraceptive] programs... had to admit that not one of the 23 found a reduction in unintended pregnancies or abortions. "
What say?
To comment on your reference to contraceptive success in various European countries:
Pregnancy data and abortion rates are not collected and reported the same way in European countries as in the US. For instance, the much-heralded Dutch teen pregnancy, abortion and birthrates used are for all females under 20 years of age (that is, the statistics encompass subjects from birth through 20 years) while ours are for adolescents ages 15 to 19. If you factor in a large number of prepubescent girls, naturally you come up with a much smaller rate of contraception and abortion per thousand.
Moreover, in Holland, there is a strong emphasis on delaying sexual activity. Fetal development is taught in schools, and most Dutch educators report they do not use condom demonstrations. There is little tolerance for teenage pregnancy. Unwed mothers are not subsidized the way they are in the U.S.
Also, Europe has tighter abortion laws. Abortions are typically allowed up to 17 weeks 22 weeks is considered an emergency. Counseling, parental notification, and waiting periods are standard.
One of the biggest reasons the Netherlands and other European countries have much lower abortion rates is that early abortions simply are not counted! If a young girl misses her monthly period and goes to a clinic, they don't do a pregnancy test! They do a "menstrual extraction." No pregnancy is reported (no test) and a menstrual extraction is not recorded as an early D&C abortion, although that's exactly what it is.
In some European countries, adolescent girls are routinely put on hormonal-type contraception, that is, a pill, a patch, a vaginal ring (like NuvaRing) or an implant. These effectively prevent pregnancy, but are worse than useless in preventing STI's since almost nobody will consent to use two contraceptives (hormonal plus condom) which would be necessary to effectively stop both pregnancies and STI's.
All of these countries have catastrophically low birthrates overall, which means that while the desired infertility is obtained in the young, a normal reproductive sexuality is rarely recovered thereafter.
Adolescent sterility isn't followed by historically normal patterns of marriage and childbearing, but in lifelong subfertility. Unless you think that imploding fertility rates, persistent non-family-formation, and civilizational suicide are either a reasonable price to pay, or a desired outcome, this is an outcome worse than California.
"And back before 1965 a man could go to work in a factory and make enough to support a family of five, send the kids to college and take a nice vacation."
It's true that blue collar jobs were more readily available, even for people without a high school diploma, but people didn't have nearly as much stuff, especially high tech stuff. Back then there was no cable TV. Cell phones and
ipods didn't exist. Computers did not exist outside of research facilities.
Mom and Dad today sometimes work in order to be able to afford this stuff, and the average person probably has all of it, but you can cut down in order to raise a family.
It's hard to generalize. Scientists were probably thinking of a nice typical family when they invented the birth control pill back in, I think, 1957. The point is that our highly relaxed standards now produce a whole range of social problems from illegitimate kids growing up in poverty to HIV/AIDS. We would be better off with a more certain set of standards than just "do it if it feels good."
OMG yes, Wifey!!! I was an avid reader of any and everything and my parents rarely looked through my book collection. So I was the one who was able to hide my group's copy, lol. There was also another one that was *really* bad, called 'Hurricane'. Pure, unadultered porn in written form, lol. We walked around for weeks calling 'HURRICANE!' to each other and cracking up. I think my mom caught onto it after overhearing us though because it disappeared from my shelves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.


text:
Winter Retreat
Dec 28, 2015 - Dec 30,2015
Speaker: Kurt Skelly: - Senior Pastor of Harvest Baptist Church
Cost: $60
Ages 12-19
VFC 2015 Winter Retreat
Bible Quizzing:
Ezra 7-10 and Nehemiah 2, 4-13
Mens Retreat
Feb 26-27, 2016
Speaker: David Gibbs:
CLA, Founder and President
Cost: $50
Combo Week 1
June 27th - July 1st
Speakers: Teens - Kirk Copeland
and Bob Holmes
Juniors - Tim Crumpton
Combo Week 2
July 11th - 15th
Speakers: Teens - Tim Ruhl and Scott Pauley
Juniors- David Corn
Welcome To Venture of Faith Website!
Thank you for visiting us today. We hope you enjoy the tour of Venture of Faith Camp; we pray that this may be the camp for you.
We are a Christian camp with standards, conservative music, and strong preaching from the KJV. This is a ministry of Pine Bluff Baptist Church in Albany, GA. We host two teen camps, two junior camps, and a Spanish camp in the summer. We also host a Winter Retreat and Men's Retreat in the winter.
Once again thank you for considering Venture of Faith Camp. If you have any questions at all, please don't hesitate to call (229) 435-4080.
May we together magnify and uplift Christ as we reach others for Him!
Contact us at email@example.com
Evangelize the Sinner: Camp is a great atmosphere for reaching lost young people. Strong, powerful preaching from God's Word penetrates the hearts of teenagers.
Encourage the Saint: VFC is a place where young people can meet Christian friends. We provide a staff who are great leaders to give the young people an example to follow.
Equip the Servant: We desire for every young person to make decisions for Christ and to make a lasting impression on their lives.
Exalt the Savior: Everything we do is centered on magnifying Christ. We desire that everyone who leaves the camp property will see Christ in a bigger way.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
With the cost of a college education in the United States still on the rise, people keep seeking increasingly creative ways to help pay for tuition and other expenses. After doing some legwork, we compiled a list of 10 college scholarships that may have passed under your radar, which your child may be eligible for but may not have considered.
Whether your child's interests are in business or social change or animal rights, he or she may be able to uncover a new or unexpected frontier that could help pay for his or her college education. For starters, here are 10 scholarships to help pay for college, in the areas of fire safety, community improvement, corrective eyewear, livestock, groceries, sandwiches, potatoes, animals, ducks, and … candy:


text:
What happened to that other rapper y'all used to fuck with?
Man, we ain't fucking with that fake motherfucker MC Uh, Whatever
That motherfucker name is, man we got a real crew, we got
Motherfuckers over here rapping for real, eating pussy on records and
Shit, that shit ain't what's happening, we got some real shit
Trying to be like $hort motherfucker, you know what I'm saying?
Dangerous Music got some mack shit for your ass, boy


text:
Chicken Pizza With Avocado Salsa
Total Time
Prep 10 mins
Cook 10 mins
I made this the other week from a new cookbook I just got and it was quick and easy to make and tasted great. My niece especially liked it I made 2 pizza's and just bought a roast chook instead of cooking up a chicken tenderloin. It would also be great to use up leftover chicken from a roast.
Ingredients Nutrition
- 1 (26 cm) pizza crusts, cooked (already cooked from bread section, not the doughy kind)
- 125 g Philadelphia Cream Cheese
- 1 small read onion
- 250 g chicken tenderloins, cooked (read note aboe for other suggestion)
- olive oil flavored cooking spray
- 1⁄3-1⁄2 cup salsa
- 1 avocado, sliced
- Spread the pizza base evenly with the philly then top with onion and chicken. Spray with oil.
- Bake pizza in hot oven 200 degrees C for 10 minutes.
- Top the pizza with salsa and avocado, cut into slices.
- Serve immediately.
Most Helpful
I wasn't sure exactly what this Mexican version of pizza would taste like, but turns out it was fantastic!! I didn't convert from the metric so I have no idea about my measurements, but it was fabulous. I baked with the salsa. I also used store bought Naan bread which really crisped up nicely.
Well 3 of us scarfed the lot, I only used about 3/4 of an avocado (it was large) and 1/4 on a large red onion finely sliced. I used a very low fat philadelphia cheese but only half on the base and dolloped the rest on the top but forgot being low fat does not melt but still very delicious and enjoyed by all. Thank you TFC, made for Make My Recipe - Christmas 2010 edition.


text:
MMA Forum - UFC Forums - UFC Results - MMA Videos (http://www.mmaforum.com/forumindex.php)
- Multimedia Videos (http://www.mmaforum.com/multimedia-videos/)
- - Trying to create a MMA HL Video (http://www.mmaforum.com/multimedia-videos/90372-trying-create-mma-hl-video.html)
Trying to create a MMA HL Video
Hey guys,
Hope all is well, I'm basically trying to create a MMA HL video. However, I seem to be having a problem getting footage for it. I've DL'd torrents, but it doesn't to want to process on my adobe premiere. Any tips would be much appreciated.
Remember to check www.mmaukblog.com for anything that I haven't posted on the forum :)
What format are the videos you're working with? I would convert to uncompressed AVI and work with that in premiere, a lot of the times you DL these fight vids and they end up being so heavily/intricately compressed that they will not work with the programs.
I have a great convertor if you're interested let me know, I'll send it to you through AIM.
I wanted to do a UFC 130 trailer. The file was a AVI, but it just won't work for some reason man. I've been trying all day. Is this converter called MPEG Streamclip at all? I just wonder where all these guys get there footage from to create these HL video's. I'd love to give more to the fans and sport by doing this you know
The convertor I have is riverpast video cleaner.
You're likely working with a compressed AVI file. My advice is to convert it to an uncompressed AVI file. If you downloaded this from anywhere and it's an AVI file I garauntee it's compressed in some way.
Also try installing these codecs and seeing if the files play in premier afterwards http://www.free-codecs.com/download/...codec_pack.htm get the full version. Install, follow instructions, see if after you install this you can use your vid, a lot of the times we don't have the proper codecs installed for our programs to decipher the information in the video so that you can edit it.
It could also be that the file is unusable, it happens from faulty/inconsistent compression, when I made my Silva vid I couldn't use the Maia fight or the Irvin fight cuz they were unreable by all my programs, it sucked :/
As for where people get their vids I dunno, I suppose torrents are a good place, but they have a multimedia section here as well with RS links and whatnot, I used that for my vid. They have a lot of links on this site, look around the multimedia videos section and use the search feature to find what you want.
Thanks man...I'll let you know how I get on with it :)
Importing into premiere results in video & audio tracks not showing?
Try dling & installing codec packs.
Gspot will identify which you need.
Tried getting some files off of the site, but none of the links are working sadly. Bit crazy. I manage to get the audio running again on Adobe premiere once I'd downloaded the codecs, but alas no luck with the video.
Managed to find a version of Henderson Vs Pettis that I'm going to try and DL. We'll see. I'll keep you all updated
|All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:44 PM.
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 , Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2016 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2016 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.


text:
- Admissions
- Academics
- Research
- University Life
- Alumni
- About
Int'l Student / Scholar Svcs
Fax: 202-885-3354
Butler Pavilion, Room 410
ISSS office walk-in advising hours: Mondays: 12:00 noon - 5:00 p.m. Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, Fridays: 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Bakar, Senem S
Director, International Student & Scholar Services
Languages: English and Arabic
Major: Biology (CAS)
Since coming to AU, I've learned a lot more about myself that I didn't know I have in me. First of all in regards to the dorms, I've learned that I'm actually capable of surviving a full semester in a small room with two other roommates. I've also learned that I'm more passionate about learning different subjects that didn't appeal to me in the past, as a variety of courses are available. Most importantly I've learned the great benefits of being independent and not having to completely rely on people. All in all, after being here for just a semester and a half, I feel that I have grown up so much - not only mentally, but also socially and emotionally.
Don't be afraid. Coming to study in a country that is far away from yours might be hard at first but you'll eventually learn how to deal with it. You might find it hard to adapt to the new life style and education system but as time goes by you'll adapt to it without realizing. The lifestyle is different from that back home, so when you first come I advise that you be open minded and interact with people of different backgrounds. As for the educational system, I would recommend that you'd be willing to work hard and stay up many nights in order to complete your work.
One the other hand as to packing and what to bring, I recommend that you don't bring a lot of things with you as you'll probably be going back home during the winter break. Most of all I would advise that you enjoy yourself and have fun. Coming to study in the US is a wonderful experience, even though it might not seem like it at the beginning, just give it time and it will get better.


text:
Malignaggi: Adrien Broner's Team Made a Big Mistake
Paulie Malignaggi and Adrien Broner are good talkers. On Saturday night they have to show how good they are at boxing. Malignaggi is as good with his mouth as he is with his fists; so proficient when talking about the sweet science that Showtime uses him as a commentator when he is not in the ring.
Broner is not a bad talker himself, though much of what he says could not be repeated, even on late night cable. It's his punching that speaks louder. He has developed a reputation as a knockout artist, winning titles at junior lightweight and lightweight and beating everyone put in front of him.
The two meet in Brooklyn, when Broner moves up two weight classes to challenge Malignaggi in his hometown for his WBA welterweight title.
"You always strive to get to fights like this," Malignaggi said this week. "That's what we live for as fighters. You dream of that moment so it's a motivating factor to be a part of something like this."
"In boxing, if it isn't Adrien Broner or Floyd Mayweather, then I don't really see anybody," Broner said. "He (Malignaggi) wouldn't be a world champion if he wasn't somebody, but at the end of the day he's fighting Adrien Broner and I will be the ruler of boxing in about a year or two."
Malignaggi seemed to be on the downside of his career after losses to the likes of Ricky Hatton and Amir Khan, but he revived it when he travelled to Ukraine last April and upset Vyacheslav Senchenko, who was previously unbeaten, with a ninth-round stoppage to win a piece of the welterweight title.
He defended it with a split decision over Pablo Cesar Cano in October; a fight in which he was down in the eleventh round. Now he faces the big punching Broner, who has stopped 22 opponents in winning all 26 his fights.
"He's a little guy and he's going to see how overrated his power is," Malignaggi said. "I think they were better off letting him fight a lightweight or someone below that. He's fighting this bigger guy all in one jump, so I don't think that was the most intelligent move on his team's part."
[QUOTE=-EAGLE-;13493306]Thank you. I have mixed feelings about this fight, Broner jumping up 2 weightclasses and the fact that Pauli has experience. We'll see, should be interesting[/QUOTE] Good luck. I'm staying out of this one myself, but will be pulling for…Comment by Chris Collins on 06-22-2013
[QUOTE=KRAFTSMAN;13493427]Wow. No matter what Paulie says nobody believes him. Have never seen a matchup as mismatched as this one. Even Rees had some people here and there who thought he's going to pull an upset. This one has zero. Who…Comment by latinbrawler316 on 06-22-2013
No one is giving Paulie a shot, I saw the Broner PDL fight again and Broner really lost that fight he has lots of flaws in his game. After the PDL fight Broner looked good showing his speed and power…Comment by KRAFTSMAN on 06-22-2013
Wow. No matter what Paulie says nobody believes him. Have never seen a matchup as mismatched as this one. Even Rees had some people here and there who thought he's going to pull an upset. This one has zero. Who…Comment by ddangerous on 06-22-2013
Broner mentioning Mayweather every time he speaks is getting ridiculous.Post a Comment - View More User Comments (17)


text:
One marine is heading overseas to join a group of maintenance workers in Afghanistan.
Terry Richardson bid his family and friends farewell before boarding a flight to Atlanta.
He's scheduled to work for the Maintenance Center inspecting and repairing military equipment.
Richardson says he expects to be in Afghanistan for one year.


text:
Will grow over 15$ and not fall. Next Friday most important. Get the report on: CTLE.4chk.in
Sentiment: Strong Buy
They were a tiling company before? Colorado Ceramic Tile, Inc. ? Until a few months ago? I can't even find their website
They dont have a web site.
Its a 1 man show. Fulltime employees= (1)
Does this co,have a chance of going to a dollar, should I sell. Terrace
great report!
I do not see this stock going up. Terrace
Can any one post, how many employees CTLE has in its work forcé, Terrace
good info
No one seems to know whether this company has more than one employee or if they have a web site. Do u know. Terrace
Will grow 15$, whats that mean and how will it grow, give some details. Terrace
Sentiment: Strong Sell
Good info
Informative report
I've read alot about this company and I would rather wait to see better news. It has no volume whish scares me and theres a number of stocks that are in the same business, doing alot more. So I'll just watch. Terracde
great one!
Awesome report


text:
"I think Donald just criticized me for preparing for this debate. And, yes, I did," said Hillary Clinton at Monday's debate. It showed.
General Motors and Unifor, Canada's largest labor union, come to terms on a new four-year agreement.
The U.S. Department of Transportation issues a 15-point 'safety and assessment tool' that lets the government evaluate the design and performance of driverless systems.
Google's new app, Google Trips, will help users navigate and plan their vacation with far more ease.


text: If the frequency ratio between two notes one half-step apart in the equal temperament scale is 1.05946, calculate the frequency ration for the following musical intervals in the equal-tempered scale: a major third, a perfect fourth, a perfect fifth, a major sith, and an octave. Using the notes of the overtone series, determine the frequency rations of these same intervals. Using C4=261.63Hz (middle C), determine the frequencise fo the notes E,F,G,A, and C in the octave above middle C using each of these two techniques.


text:
In the Family
Release Date: November 4th, 2011
Not Yet Rated|2 hr. 49 min.
Plot Summary
After his partner dies in a car accident, a gay man (Patrick Wang) must fight for custody of the boy (Sebastian Brodziak) he's come to love as his own son.
Cast: Patrick Wang, Sebastian Brodziak, Trevor St. John, Lisa Altomare, Susan Kellerman, Conan McCarty, Harriet D. Foy, Zachary Sayle
Director: Patrick Wang
Genres: Drama


text:
As an alumna who raised six children while attending Camden County College, Eileen Radetich reaches out to the students she sees struggling in her English classes there, sharing her story and offering encouragement.
For her work inside and outside the classroom, Radetich received the school's highest teaching honor, the 2014 Lindback Award, the school announced this week.
"I frequently tell my students that I was there, especially if it's a nontraditional student . . . especially when they're overwhelmed and they have kids," Radetich said from the Shore, where she was on vacation. "I go, 'Believe me, you can do it. I did it.' "


text:
Local Food Articles
Discover Creston Valley Food Culture >>
Wloka's Fruit Stand – Bringing Fresh Food and Big Smiles to Creston for 35 Years
Like many Creston residents I often find myself playing hostel owner/tour guide/entertainer to a bevy of friends and family in the summer. While I'd like to think my charming personality is at least part of the reason for these trips, the innumerable vistas of this valley in full bloom and the opportunity to sample it's […]
Cherry Pickin' in the Creston Valley – Meet the Folk who Pick Your Fruit
For as long as memory serves me, summers in the Creston Valley have always been a busy and exciting time, in particular the cherry harvest, a frenetic six week window from mid-July to August, requiring the filling of hundreds of short-term jobs to pick, sort, and pack cherries from over 400+ acres of orchards across […]
Follow us on TwitterTweets by @CV_Food_Hub
Share Your Love of Local Food on Social Media
#10MileDiet #AskWhatsLocal
Like us on Facebook
August 30
August 03
July 02
April 01
Creston Valley Food Hub shared Kootenay Employment Services Society's post.
Hey farmers and food folks! The KES LEAP program can help you turn your passion into a viable business. A Simon Fraser University instructor will help you test what it could look like to make your skills work for you. 13-week evening business bootcamp kicks off April 4. Message us today to hold your spot! Check out: https://kes.bc.ca/CMS2/programs/leap
March 19
February 27
Creston Valley Food Hub shared Tarzwell Farms's post.
Making a beef delivery to Cranbrook on Tuesday, March 1st. Variety packages, ground beef, stewing beef, sausages, smokies, hot dogs and more available - check out our product & price list (under the "notes tab" on Tarzwell Farms FB page). Message or phone me at 250 428-4316 to place an order.
February 25
Creston Valley Food Hub shared a post.
Blueberry Patch Farms Harvest CSA Vegetable/Fruit Box $495 - Creston, BC Fresh Fruit & Vegetable Box delivered once per week to Cranbrook, Kimberley, Creston and possibly other towns depending on the demand! Enjoy fresh, nutritional, naturally grown produce direct from the Farm! Check out our Website for more info www.blueberrypatch.ca or view our brochure below.
February 22
February 17
February 14
February 03
Creston Valley Food Hub shared Slow Food Columbia Valley's event.
Slow Food Canada National Summit
January 26
January 23
Creston Valley Food Hub shared Fields Forward's photo.
Welcome to Fields Forward - a new Creston & District Community Directed Funds initiative to support local food and farming in the communities from Yahk to Riondel!
January 21
Fields Forward at Creston & District Community Complex.
January 20
December 03
Creston Valley Food Hub shared Root & Vine Acres's post.
Thank you x 10 for the pumpkins!!! Huge shout out to the people who dropped off their carved pumpkins, Sunset Seed, Truscott Farms and Wolokas Fruit Stand!! ❤🎃🐖❤🐖❤🐖🎃❤
November 04
Creston Valley Food Hub shared Hume Hotel & Spa's photo.
Burger Week is here and we'd like to introduce The Tarzwell - named after the Creston Tarzwell Farms where we have sourced our antibiotic, hormone-free and Hume-anely raised beef. Organic sesame seed brioche bun from the The Kootenay Bakery Cafe Co-op, Gruyere cheese, bacon, sweet onion maple jam, spring greens, beefsteak tomato, pickle and a roasted garlic aioli. It's topped with our own seasoned waffle batter onion rings. Don't forget to vote for your favorite at Nelson Star News
November 02
October 23
September 24
September 12
September 11
August 20
August 11
Creston Valley Food Hub shared Cartwheel Farm's post.
This afternoon curiosity inspired us to run an experiment in comparison shopping. We visited a local super market and tried to pick up the same kinds of organic produce that were included in our standard home delivery today. We went in expecting to find that the store would have cheaper, but less fresh and tasty veg to offer. Here's what we found. -The store did have versions of most things that we were looking for, though the tomatoes at the store were not organic and there was nothing like our small sweet onions. -Most items in the store came from California. Cucumbers, tomatoes, and Italian parsley were BC grown. Nothing was from the Kootenays. -The store's parsley seemed surprisingly fresh, but some other things were sadly old looking - the beets especially... Most of what we delivered this afternoon was harvested yesterday night or this morning. -The bill at the store would have come to $28.32 (no onions!). The price for our veggies was $25.00 including delivery. There was some variation in sizing, but the total amount of produce was pretty similar. We didn't actually buy and eat the store offerings. But we left feeling confident that the produce we sell is not only fresher, yummier, and more beautiful, but less expensive, too. What do you think about that?!
August 01


text:
The process of natural carbonating has always interested me and this project would be an easy segue into making other homemade brews. After mentioning to my 10-year old son that I wanted to make homemade soda, he immediately threw his arms around me thanking me for being such a wonderful mother (Who knew that's all it took?)
Mother Earth News states, "When soda is made with all natural ingredients, you get all the flavor and healthful properties of the herbs and spices in the recipe, which might include ginger, anise, hops or licorice root. Natural sodas also contain yeast, which is a great source of B-complex vitamins. The most important health benefit of making your own soda, however, is that you can control the amount of sugar. Most commercial colas contain the equivalent of 7 to 9 teaspoons of sugar for a 12 ounce soda. When you make your own, you can add sweeteners to taste, and it's easy to brew great-tasting soda with one third less sugar than commercial brands."
The Brewing Process
A quick note from our founder -
Over the past year, my friend Dave at PaleoHacks has been working on a secret cookbook with world-renowned Le Cordon Bleu chef Peter Servold.
Well, today this new incredible Paleo Cookbook is finally available to be shipped right to your door for FREE!
That's right - as a special launch promotion, we're offering our brand new Paleo fat loss cookbook to you for free (Chef Pete lost 60 lbs using these recipes!) - All you have to do is just cover a small shipping cost (international shipping is a bit more).
Get your FREE copy of Paleo Eats Here. (Grab this today, because we only ordered a small batch of these cookbooks for this freebie promotion, and they will sell out FAST!)
With homemade soda, the process is similar to making homemade beer:
1. You add filtered water and sugar together in a pitcher.
2. Add your herbs or extracts and then add yeast.
3. To encourage the carbonation process, the mixture is then added to a bottle and allowed to sit at room temperature for a few days.
4. The yeast will begin eating the sugar and will naturally create the carbon dioxide. Similar to making homemade beer, you should check your bottles of soda daily to ensure the carbonation process is starting.
5. Once the carbonation bubbles appear, move your bottled soda to the refrigerator to slow the carbonation process down. When there is a lot of carbonation present, the carbonation has nowhere to go but out! Tip: Those of you who have had exploding soda bottles, the over-carbonation was probably the culprit.
6. Further, if you are concerned about the alcohol content of homemade soda, rest assured, because of short the fermentation cycle, one glass of homemade soda usually contains less than 1 percent alcohol.
Equipment Needed
Plastic liter soda bottles, washed and sterilized or 16 ounce flip-cap bottles
Measuring cups and spoons
1 gallon pitcher
Large spoon
Labels and a pen
The Preparation Process
The first step to making soda is to sanitize your equipment you plan to use including the vessel(s) the soda will be sitting in during the fermentation process.
An easy way to sanitize your equipment is to soak everything in 1 tablespoon of chlorine bleach to I gallon of water for at least 20 minutes. Then, wash and rinse thoroughly because any leftover bleach particles can kill the yeast. Further, putting your equipment in the dishwasher and set it to the sanitation cycle also helps
Now that the sanitation process is complete, it's time to start making your own brew!
Many of the ingredients used can easily be found in your kitchen pantry. There are many home brewing stores that will carry specialty herb blends, extracts, different yeasts, etc. I wanted to keep things simple for my first try at making soda, so I used brewer's yeast (ale and champagne yeast are also great) and ordered some soda extracts found on www.Amazon.com. However, I have seen many soda recipes calling for regular baking yeast. Next time I make homemade soda, I plan on trying a batch out using baking yeast as well as making my own extracts to get the full process down – I just wanted to start small at first.
A note on yeast: Most yeast is fine to use, with the exception of nutritional yeast. Mother Earth News indications that nutritional yeast will not work because the yeast cells are no longer active, and lager yeast is best avoided for the opposite reason: It can over-carbonate your soda.
One of best aspects of homemade soda is you can decide what type of sweetener and how much of it should go into your mixture. You can use sugar, honey or even no-calorie sweeteners such as stevia.
When using plastic bottles, replace the caps after a few uses because the seals will begin to wear out.
Never use plastic bottles from your recycling outlet because there's no way to know what the bottles previously held, and plastic can absorb toxic substances.
Always open soda bottles slowly, and if in doubt, open them outside.
If you plan to let your soda carbonate in an especially warm room, consider reducing the amount of yeast in the recipe by half because yeast goes crazy in a warm environment.
If your soda isn't carbonating, wait an extra few days to see if carbonation occurs. If it does not, as a last ditch effort, add an additional pinch of yeast to a liter bottle and wait a few days to see if carbonation occurs (My batch took 3-4 days see carbonation).
Home Brew Recipes
Root Beer
1/4 tsp. brewer's yeast
6 oz. warm water
½ gallon water
1 cup sugar
1 1/2 tablespoon extract
1. In a small bowl, mix 6 ounces warm water with brewer's yeast and gently stir until mixed.
2. In a large pitcher, add remaining ingredients and stir well.
3. Add yeast mixture into pitcher and stir.
4. Using a funnel, gently pour soda mixture into sterilized bottles or container.
5. Add and secure cap.
Cream Soda
1/4 tsp. brewer's yeast
6 oz. warm water
1/2 gallon water
1 1/2 cup sugar
1 tablespoon extract
2 teaspoon vanilla (for cream soda)
1. In a small bowl, mix 6 ounces warm water with brewer's yeast and gently stir until mixed.
2. In a large pitcher, add remaining ingredients and stir well.
3. Add yeast mixture into pitcher and stir.
4. Using a funnel, gently pour soda mixture into sterilized bottles or container.
5. Add and secure cap.
Ginger Ale
1/4 tsp. brewer's yeast
6 oz. warm water
½ gallon water
2 cups sugar
2 tablespoons extract
1. In a small bowl, mix 6 ounces warm water with brewer's yeast and gently stir until mixed.
2. In a large pitcher, add remaining ingredients and stir well.
3. Add yeast mixture into pitcher and stir.
4. Using a funnel, gently pour soda mixture into sterilized bottles or container.
5. Add and secure cap.
What soda recipes do you use with your home brews?
By Tess Pennington
More Survival Resources:
- Bullet Proof Home (Amazing Secret Tactics To Protect Your Home Against Looters, Thugs And Thieves)
- Survival MD (Field medical guide to survive any crisis situation)
- #1 muscle that eliminates joint and back pain, anxiety and looking fat
- Famous Chef Sheds 60lbs Researching New Paleo Recipes: Get The Cookbook FREE Here
- US Water Revolution (Generate Your Clean Water Anywhere)
- Survive The End Days (Preparation Tips For TEOTWAWKI)
- Blackout USA - How To Survive An EMP / Long Term Grid Down Situation
- The Lost Ways Of Survival - Ancient Survival Secrets Of Our Ancestors
- Backyard Liberty (Easy and cheap DIY Aquaponic system to grow your organic and living food bank)
- 37 Vital Food Items You Can't Get In The Coming Disaster And May Not Survive Without
Everyone knows green smoothies are healthy, right? However…
Have you heard of a "red" smoothie? If not, check out this story…
=> "Red" Smoothie Helps Alabama Girl Shed 80lbs!


text:
Locke and the Newtonian Achievement
Kirsten Walsh writes…
In the Principia, Newton claimed to be doing experimental philosophy. Over my last three posts, I've wondered whether we can interpret his so-called 'experimental philosophy' as Baconian. In the first two posts, I identified methodological similarities between Bacon and Newton: first, the use of crucial instances; second, the use of Baconian induction. In each case, I concluded that, without some sort of textual evidence clearly tying Newton's method to Bacon's, such similarities don't demonstrate influence. In my third post, I tried a different approach: I considered Mary Domski's claim that Newton's Principia should be considered Baconian because members of the Royal Society recognised, and responded to, it as part of the Baconian tradition. While Domski's argument was fruitful in helping us better to understand what's at stake in discussions of influence, I raised several concerns with her narrative. In this post, I shall address those concerns in more detail.
Let's focus on Domski's account of how Locke reacted to Newton's Principia. Domski argues that Locke regarded Newton's mathematical inference as the speculative step in the Baconian program. That is, building on a solid foundation of observation and experiment, Newton was employing mathematics to reveal forces and causes. In short, Domski suggests that we read Locke's Newton as a 'speculative naturalist' who employed mathematics in his search for natural causes. Last time, I expressed two concerns with this account. Firstly, 'speculative naturalist' looks like a contradiction in terms (I have discussed the concept of 'speculative experimental science' here), and surely neither Locke nor Newton would have been comfortable with the label. Secondly, there's a difference between being part of the experimental tradition founded by Bacon, and being Baconian. Domski's discussion of the reception of the Principia establishes the former, but not necessarily the latter.
We can get more traction on both of these concerns by considering Peter Anstey's account of how the Principia influenced Locke. Anstey argues that Newton's achievement forced Locke to revise his views on the role of principles in natural philosophy. In the Essay, Locke offers a theory of demonstration—the process by which one can reason from principles to certain truths via the agreement and disagreement of ideas. In the first edition, Locke argued that this method of reasoning was only possible in mathematics and moral philosophy, where one could reason from certain principles. Due to limitations of human intellect, such knowledge was not possible in natural philosophy. Instead, one needed to follow the Baconian method of natural history which provided, at best, probable truths. However, Anstey shows us that, by the late 1690s, Locke had revised his account of natural philosophy to admit demonstration from 'principles that matter of fact justifie' (that is, principles that were discovered by observation and experiment).
I now draw your attention to two features of this account. Firstly, Newton's scientific achievement—his theory of universal gravitation—as opposed to his successful development of a new natural philosophical method per se forced Locke to revise his position on demonstration from principles. (A while ago, Currie and I noted that this situation is to be expected, if we take the ESD seriously.) This feature should make us suspicious of Domski's claim that Newton's Principia was taken to exemplify the speculative stage of Baconian natural philosophy. Locke did not see Newton's achievement as a system of speculative hypotheses, but as genuinely empirical knowledge, demonstrated from principles that are justified by observation and experiment. Newton had not constructed a Baconian natural history, but nor had he constructed a speculative system. Rather, Locke recognised Newton's achievement as something akin to a mathematical result—one which his epistemological story had better accommodate. This forced him to extend his theory of demonstration to natural philosophy. And so, by the late 1690s, we find passages like the following:
"in all sorts of reasoning, every single argument should be managed as a mathematical demonstration; the connection and dependence of ideas should be followed, till the mind is brought to the source on which it bottoms, and observes the coherence all along" (Of the Conduct of the Understanding).
Secondly, Anstey emphasises that Locke didn't regard Newton's mathematico-experimental method as Baconian, but only as consistent with his, Locke's, theory of demonstration. (Anstey also claims that Locke never fully integrated the revisions required to his view of natural philosophy in the Essay.) On this blog, we have suggested that, in the 18th century, a more mathematical experimental natural philosophy displaced the natural historical approach. And Anstey has offered a sustained argument for this position here. He argues that the break was not clean cut, but in the end in Britain mathematical experimental philosophy trumped experimental natural history. That this break was not clean cut helps to explain why experimental moral philosophers, such as Turnbull, thought they were pursuing both a Baconian and a Newtonian project, and were quite comfortable with this.
Notice that I've shifted from the vexed question of the extent to which Bacon influenced Newton, to a perhaps more fruitful line of enquiry: how Newton influenced Locke and others. This is no non sequitur. The members of the Royal Society strove to understand Newton in their terms—namely, in terms of Baconianism and the experimental philosophy. Here, it seems that two conclusions confront us. Firstly, we (again) find that Newton was taken as legitimately developing experimental philosophy by emphasising both the role of experimentally-established principles of natural philosophy and the capacity of mathematics to carry those principles forward. These aspects are, at best, underemphasised in Bacon and certainly missing from the Baconian experimental philosophy adopted by many members of the Royal Society. Secondly, we see that Newton's influence on Locke was due, at least in part, to his scientific achievements. Newton did not argue directly with Locke's epistemology or method, nor did Locke take Newton's methodology as a replacement for his own. Rather, Locke took Newton's scientific success as an example of demonstration from 'principles that matter of fact justifie'. This, in turn, necessitated modifications of his own account.
Understanding Newton's Principia as part of the Baconian Tradition
Kirsten Walsh writes…
Lately I have been examining Baconian interpretations of Newton's Principia. First, I demonstrated that Newton's Moon test resembles a Baconian crucial instance. And then, I demonstrated that Newton's argument for universal gravitation resembles Bacon's method of gradual induction. This drew our attention to some interesting features of Newton's approach, bringing the Principia's experimental aspects into sharper focus. But they also highlighted a worry: Newton's methodology resembling Bacon's isn't enough to establish that Newton was influenced by Bacon. Bacon and Newton were gifted methodologists—they could have arrived independently at the same approach. One way to distinguish between convergence and influence is to see if there's anything uniquely or distinctively Baconian in Newton's use of crucial experiments and gradual induction. Another way would be if we could find some explicit references to Bacon in relation to these methodological tools. Alas, so far, my search in these areas has produced nothing.
In this post, I'll consider an alternative way of understanding Baconianism in the Principia. I began this series by asking whether we should regard Newton's methodology as an extension of the Baconian experimental method, or as something more unique. In answering, I have hunted for evidence that the Principia is Baconian insofar as Newton applied Baconian methodological tools in the Principia. But you might think that whether Newton was influenced by Bacon isn't so relevant. Rather, what matters is how the Principia was received by Newton's contemporaries. So in this post, I'll examine Mary Domski's argument that the Principia is part of the Baconian tradition because it was recognised, and responded to, as such by members of the Royal Society.
Domski begins by dispelling the idea that there was no place for mathematics in the Baconian experimental tradition. Historically, Bacon's natural philosophical program, centred on observation, experiment and natural history, was taken as fundamentally incompatible with a mathematical approach to natural philosophy. And Bacon is often taken to be deeply distrustful of mathematics. Domski argues, however, that Bacon's views on mathematics are both subtler and more positive. Indeed, although Bacon had misgivings about how mathematics could guide experimental practice, he gave it an important role in natural philosophy. In particular, mathematics can advance our knowledge of nature by revealing causal processes. However, he cautioned, it must be used appropriately. To avoid distorting the evidence gained via observation and experiment, one must first establish a solid foundation via natural history, and only then employ mathematical tools. In short, Bacon insisted that the mathematical treatment of nature must be grounded on, and informed by, the findings of natural history.
Domski's second move is to argue that seventeenth-century Baconians such as Boyle, Sprat and Locke understood and accepted this mathematical aspect of Bacon's methodology. Bacon's influence in the seventeenth century was not limited to his method of natural history, and Baconian experimental philosophers didn't dismiss speculative approaches outright. Rather, they emphasised that there was a proper order of investigation: metaphysical and mathematical speculation must be informed by observation and experiment. In other words, there is a place for speculative philosophy after the experimental stage has been completed.
Domski then examines the reception of Newton's Principia by members of the Royal Society—focusing on Locke. For Locke, natural history was a necessary component of natural philosophy. And yet, Locke embraced the Principia as a successful application of mathematics to natural philosophy. Domski suggests that we read Locke's Newton as a 'speculative naturalist' who employed mathematics in his search for natural causes. She writes:
[O]n Locke's reading, Newton used a principle—the fundamental truth of universal gravitation—that was initially 'drawn from matter' and then, with evidence firmly in hand, he extended this principle to a wide store of phenomena. By staying mindful of the proper experimental and evidentiary roots of natural philosophy, Newton thus succeeded in producing the very sort of profit that Sprat and Boyle anticipated a proper 'speculative' method could generate (p. 165).
In short, Locke regarded Newton's mathematical inference as the speculative step in the Baconian program. That is, building on a solid foundation of observation and experiment, Newton was employing mathematics to reveal forces and causes.
In summary, Domski makes a good case for viewing the mathematico-experimental method employed in the Principia as part of the seventeenth-century Baconian tradition. I have a few reservations with her argument. For one thing, 'speculative naturalist' is surely a term that neither Locke nor Newton would have been comfortable with. And for another thing, although Domski has provided reasons to view Newton's mathematico-experimental method as related to, and a development of, the experimental philosophy of the Royal Society, I'm not convinced that this shows that they viewed the Principia as Baconian. That is to say, there's a difference between being part of the experimental tradition founded by Bacon, and being Baconian. I'll discuss these issues in my next post, and for now, I'll conclude by discussing some important lessons that I think arise from Domski's position.
Firstly, we can identify divergences between Newton and the Baconian experimental philosophers. And these could be surprising. It's not, in itself, his use mathematics and generalisations that makes Newton different—Domski has shown that even the hard-out Baconians could get on board with these features of the Principia. The differences are subtler. For example, as I've discussed in a previous post, Boyle, Sprat and Locke advocated a two-stage approach to natural philosophy, in which construction of natural histories precedes theory construction. But Newton appeared to reject this two-stage approach. Indeed, in the Principia, we find that Newton commences theory-building before his knowledge of the facts was complete.
Secondly, the account highlights the fact that early modern experimental philosophy was a work in progress. There was much variation in its practice, and room for improvement and evolution. Moreover, its modification and development was, to a large extent, the result of technological innovation and the scientific success of works like the Principia. Indeed, it was arguably the ability to recognise and incorporate such achievements that allowed experimental philosophy to become increasingly dominant, sophisticated and successful in the eighteenth century.
Thirdly, the account suggests that, already in the late-seventeenth century, the ESD framework was being employed to guide, and also to distort, the interpretation and uptake of natural philosophy. By embracing the Principia as their own, the early modern experimental philosophers intervened on and shaped its reception, and hence, the kind of influence the Principia had. This raises an interesting point about influence.
As I have already noted, it is difficult to establish a direct line of influence stretching from Bacon to Newton. But, by focusing on how Bacon's program for natural philosophy was developed by figures such as Boyle, Sprat and Locke, we can identify a connection between Bacon's natural philosophical program and Newton's mathematico-experimental methodology. That is, we can distinguish between influence in terms of actual causal connections—Newton having read Bacon, for instance—and influence insofar as some aspect of Newton's work is taken to be related to Bacon's by contemporary (or near-contemporary) thinkers. Indeed, Newton could have been utterly ignorant of Bacon's actual views on method, but the Principia might nonetheless deserve to be placed alongside Bacon's work in the development of experimental philosophy. Sometimes what others take you to have done is more important than what you have actually done!
Baconian Induction in the Principia
Kirsten Walsh writes…
Recently, I have been looking for clear cases of Baconianism in the Principia. In my last post, I offered Newton's 'moon test' as an example of a Baconian crucial instance, ending with a concern about establishing influence between Bacon and Newton. Newton used his calculations of the accelerations of falling bodies to provide a crucial instance which allowed him to choose between two competing explanations. However, one might argue that this was simply a good approach to empirical support, and not uniquely Baconian. In this post, I'll consider another possible Baconianism: Steffen Ducheyne's argument that Newton's argument for universal gravitation resembles Baconian induction.
Let's begin with Baconian induction (this account is based on Ducheyne's 2005 paper). Briefly, Bacon's method of ampliative inference involved two broad stages. The first was a process of piecemeal generalisation. That is, in contrast to simple enumerative induction, shifting from the particular to the general in a single step, Bacon recommended moving from particulars to general conclusions via partial or mediate generalisations. Ducheyne refers to this process as 'inductive gradualism'. The second stage was a process of testing and adjustment. That is, having reached a general conclusion, Bacon recommended deducing and testing its consequences, adjusting it accordingly.
Ducheyne argues that, in the Principia, Newton's argument for universal gravitation proceeded according to Baconian induction. In the first stage, Newton's argument proceeded step-by-step from the motion of the moon with respect to the Earth, the motions of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn with respect to Jupiter and Saturn, and the motions of the planets with respect to the Sun, to the forces producing those motions. He inferred that the planets and moons maintain their motions by an inverse square centripetal force, and concluded that this force is gravity—i.e. the force that causes an apple to fall to the ground. And, in a series of further steps (still part of the first stage), Newton established that, as the Sun exerts a gravitational pull on each of the planets, so the planets exert a gravitational pull on the Sun. Similarly, the moons exert a gravitational pull on their planets. And finally, the planets and moons exert a gravitational pull on each other. He concluded that every body attracts every other body with a force that is proportional to its mass and diminishes with the square of the distance between them: universal gravitation. Moving to the second stage, Newton took his most general conclusion—that gravity is universal—and examined its consequences. He demonstrated that the irregular motion of the Moon, the tides and the motion of comets can be deduced from his theory of universal gravitation.
Ducheyne notes that Newton didn't attribute this method of inference to Bacon. Instead, he labelled the two stages 'analysis' and 'synthesis' respectively, and attributed them to the Ancients. However, Ducheyne argues that we should recognise this approach as Baconian in spirit and inspiration.
This strikes me as a plausible account, and it illuminates some interesting features of Newton's approach. For one thing, it helps us to make sense of 'Rule 4':
In experimental philosophy, propositions gathered from phenomena by induction should be considered either exactly or very nearly true notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses, until yet other phenomena make such propositions either more exact or liable to exceptions.
Newton's claim that, in the absence of counter-instances, we should take propositions inferred via induction to be true seems naïve when interpreted in terms of simple enumerative induction. However, given Newton's 'inductive gradualism', Rule 4 looks less epistemically reckless.
Moreover, commentators have often been tempted to interpret this rule as an expression of the hypothetico-deductive method, in which the epistemic status of Newton's theory is sensitive to new evidence. Previously, I have argued that, when we consider how this rule is employed, we find that it's not the epistemic status of the theory, but its scope, that should be updated. Ducheyne's Baconian interpretation supports this position—and perhaps offers some precedent for it.
Ducheyne's suggestion also encourages us to re-interpret other aspects of Newton's argument for universal gravitation in a Baconian light. Consider, for example, the 'phenomena'. Previously, I have noted that these are not simple observations but observed regularities, generalised by reference to theory. They provide the explananda for Newton's theory. In Baconian terms, we might regard the phenomena as the results of a process of experientia literata—they represent the 'experimental facts' to be explained. This, I think, ought to be grist for Ducheyne's mill.
Interpreting Newton's argument for universal gravity in terms of Baconian induction brings the experimental aspects of the Principia into sharper focus. These aspects have often been overlooked for two broad reasons. The first is that the mathematical aspects of the Principia have distracted people from the empirical focus of book 3. I plan to examine this point in more detail in my next post. The second is that the Baconian method of natural history has largely been reduced to a caricature, which has made it difficult to recognise it when it's being used. Dana Jalobeanu and others have challenged the idea that a completed Baconian natural history is basically a large storehouse of facts. Bacon's Latin natural histories are complex reports containing, not only observations, but also descriptions of experiments, advice and observations on the method of experimentation, provisional explanations, questions, and epistemological discussions. We don't find such detailed observation reports in the Principia, but we do find some of the features of Baconian natural histories.
So, Ducheyne's interpretation of Newton's argument for universal gravitation in terms of Bacon's gradualist inductive method proves both fruitful and insightful. However, recall that, in my last post, I worried that the resemblance of Newton's methodology to Bacon's isn't enough to establish that Newton was influenced by Bacon's methodology. If Bacon was just describing a good, general, epistemic method, couldn't Newton have simply come up with it himself? He was, after all, an exceptional scientist who gave careful thought to his own methodology. Is Ducheyne's discussion sufficient to establish influence? What do you think?
Crucial Instances in the Principia
Kirsten Walsh writes…
In the General Scholium, which concluded later editions of Principia, Newton described the work as 'experimental philosophy':
In this experimental philosophy, propositions are deduced from phenomena and are made general by induction. The impenetrability, mobility, and impetus of bodies, and the laws of motion and the law of gravity have been found by this method.
On this blog, I have argued that we should take this statement at face value. In support, I have emphasised similarities between Newton's work in optics and mechanics. For example, I have considered the kind of evidence provided in each work, arguing that both the Principia's 'phenomena' and the Opticks's 'experiments' are idealisations based on observation, and that they perform the same function: isolating explananda. I have also emphasised Newton's preoccupation in the Principia with establishing his principles empirically. Finally, I have suggested that this concern with experimental philosophy, in combination with his use of mathematics, made Newton's method unique.
In my last blog post, I wondered if we should regard Newton's methodology as an extension of the Baconian experimental method, or as something more unique. I have written many blog posts discussing the Baconian aspects of Newton's optical work (for example, here, here and here), but the Baconian aspects of the Principia are less well-established. I can identify at least three possible candidates for Baconianism in the Principia. The first, suggested by Daniel Schwartz in recent conversation, is that book 3 contains what might be interpreted as Baconian 'crucial instances'. The second, discussed by Steffen Ducheyne, is that Newton's argument for universal gravitation resembles Bacon's method of induction. The third, discussed by Mary Domski, is that the mathematical method employed in the Principia should be viewed as part of the seventeenth-century Baconian tradition. In this post, I'll focus on Schwartz's suggestion—the possibility there is a crucial instance in book 3 of the Principia—I'll address the rest in future posts.
To begin, what is a 'crucial instance'? For Bacon, crucial instances (instantiae crucis) were a subset of 'instances with special powers' (ISPs). When constructing a Baconian natural history, ISPs were experiments, procedures, and instruments that were held to be particularly informative or illuminative of aspects of the inquiry. These served a variety of purposes. Some functioned as 'core experiments', introduced at the very beginning of a natural history, and serving as the basis for further experiments. Others played a role later in the process. This included experiments that were supposed to be especially representative of a certain class of experiments, tools and experimental procedures that provided interesting investigative shortcuts, and model examples that came close to providing theoretical generalisations.
Crucial instances are part of a subset of ISPs that were supposed to aid the intellect by "warning against false forms or causes". When two possible explanations seemed equally good, then the crucial instance was employed to decide between them. To this end, it performed two functions: the negative function was to eliminate all possible explanations except the correct one; the positive function was to affirm the correct explanation.
According to Claudia Dumitru, Bacon's crucial instances have a clear structure:
- Specify the explanandum;
- Consider the competing explanations (these are assumed to exhaust the possibilities);
- Derive a consequence from one explanation that is incompatible with the other explanation(s);
- Test that consequence.
Are there any arguments in the Principia that look like crucial instances? I think there's at least one: Newton's famous 'Moon test'. Let's have a look at it.
In proposition 4 book 3, Newton used his Moon test to establish that "The moon gravitates toward the earth and by the force of gravity is always drawn back from rectilinear motion and kept in its orbit". Here, Newton argued that the inverse-square centripetal force, keeping the moon in orbit around the Earth, is the same force that, say, makes an apple fall to the ground, namely, gravity. I think we can tease out the features of a Baconian crucial instance from Newton's reasoning here.
Firstly, there is an explanandum: what kind of force keeps the Moon in its orbit and prevents it from flying off into space? Secondly, two possible explanations are provided: the force is either (a) the same force that that acts on terrestrial objects, namely, gravity; or (b) a different force. Thirdly, we have a consequence of (a) that is incompatible with (b): if the moon were deprived of rectilinear motion, and allowed to fall towards Earth, it would begin falling at the rate of 15 1/12 Paris feet in the space of one minute, accelerating so that at the Earth's surface it would fall 15 1/12 Paris feet in a second. Finally, we see a test of that consequence: the calculations based on the size and motion of the Moon, and its distance from the Earth. The results are taken to support (a) and refute (b).
I have three concluding remarks to make.
Firstly, interpreting the Moon test as a crucial instance involves 'rational reconstruction'. In the text, Newton starts by calculating the rate at which the Moon would fall, and shows that this supports proposition 4. But I think my reading of this as a crucial instance is supported by Newton's concluding remarks:
For if gravity were different from this force, then bodies making for the earth by both forces acting together would descend twice as fast, and in the space of one second would by falling describe 301/6 Paris feet, entirely contrary to experience.
Here, Newton described the Moon test as a crucial instance: he used an observation to choose between two competing explanations of the explanandum.
Secondly, when looking for crucial instances in the Principia, it might be tempting to start with the phenomena, listed at the beginning of book 3. Elsewhere, I have argued that these resemble Newton's experiments in the Opticks, which function as instances with special powers. But the label 'crucial instance' describes the function, not the content, of an empirical claim. And so, to see if they provide crucial instances, we need to consider how the phenomena are used. In fact, I think they do provide crucial instances for Newton's rejection of Cartesian vortex theory in favour of universal gravitation, found at the end of book 2. But again, this requires rational reconstruction.
Finally, there is the issue of historical influence. I have shown that Newton employed the Moon test to decide between two competing explanations, and that this argument resembles one of Bacon's crucial instances. However, one might think that this was simply a good approach to empirical support, and that Newton was using his common-sense. So perhaps we shouldn't take this to indicate (direct or indirect) influence. And so I have a question for our readers: was this style of reasoning uniquely Baconian?
Newton the empiricist?
Kirsten Walsh writes…
Recently, Zvi Biener and Eric Schliesser's long-awaited volume, Newton and Empiricism, appeared on the shelves. The book is an excellent collection of papers, which makes a significant new contribution to the field. Today I want to focus on one aspect of this volume: the decision to frame the collection in terms of empiricism rather than experimental philosophy.
Over the last four years, we have provided many arguments for the superiority of the ESD over the RED. An important line of argument has been to show that 'experimental philosophy' and 'speculative philosophy' were the key terms of reference used by the actors themselves, and that they characterised their own work in terms of this division. For example, I have argued here, here, here and here that Newton is best understood as an experimental philosopher.
In their introduction, Biener and Schliesser explain their decision. They acknowledge the 'Otago School', and argue that, while in general there may be some good reasons to prefer the ESD to the RED, they see various problems with labelling Newton an 'experimental philosopher'. Their concerns amount to the following: labelling Newton an 'experimental philosopher' obscures the idiosyncrasies of his approach to natural philosophy. They argue, firstly, that the label belies the significant influence of non-experimental philosophers on Newton's methodology, for example those who influenced his mathematical focus. Secondly, that the label unhelpfully groups Newton with Boyle and Locke, when many features of his work support a different grouping. For example, Newton's mathematical-system building suggests that his work should be grouped with Descartes'. Thirdly, they argue that the fact that Newton did not employ the label himself until after the publication of the first edition of the Principia suggests that he did not fully identify with the label.
These are important issues about the ESD and Newton's place in it. So today I want to reflect on the broad problem of Newton's idiosyncratic position. I argue that Newton's divergence from Baconian tradition of the Royal Society is best seen as a development of experimental philosophy.
On this blog, I have sketched many features of Newton's natural philosophical methodology. I have argued that, if we look at Newton from within the framework of the ESD, he can be neatly and easily identified as an experimental philosopher. His use of queries, his cautious approach to hypotheses, and his many methodological statements decrying the construction of metaphysical systems, suggest that this is a label that Newton would have been comfortable with. However, there is an important caveat to note: while Newton was clearly influenced by the Baconian experimental tradition, he did not consider himself a Baconian experimental philosopher.
In the earliest statements of his mathematico-experimental approach, Newton set up his position in opposition to the Baconian experimental philosophers. In these passages, one feature of Newton's methodology stands out in explicit rejection of the Baconian method: his claims to certainty. This feature, in itself, is not very significant – many experimental philosophers believed that, in the end, natural philosophy would be a form of scientia, i.e. a system of knowledge demonstrated from certain axioms. Indeed, Bacon shared this ideal of certainty. He thought that his method of induction could get around the problems usually associated with ampliative inference and deliver knowledge of the essences of things. Thus, Bacon's method of natural history was ultimately supposed to provide the axioms on which scientia could be founded. The challenge, which everyone agreed on, was to discover those axioms on which the system would be built.
Newton and the Baconians seem to diverge on their responses to this challenge. Baconian experimental philosophers recommended that one should have all the facts before formulating generalisations or theories. In contrast, Newton thought that a few, or even just one, well-constructed experiment might be enough – provided you used it in the right way. This shows that Newton took a different view of the role of evidence in natural philosophy. This divergence amounts to three key differences between Newton and the Baconian experimental philosophers:
- Where the Baconian experimental philosophers advocated a two-stage model, in which construction of natural histories preceded theory construction, Newton appeared to reject this two-stage approach. Newton commenced theory-building before his knowledge of the facts was complete.
- Related to (1), the Baconian experimental philosophers conceived of phenomena as immediate facts, acquired via observation, and hence pre-theoretic. In contrast, Newton's phenomena were generalised regularities, acquired via mediation between observation and theory.
- For the Baconian experimental philosophers, queries were used to give direction and define the scope of the inquiry. But Newton's queries were more focussed on individual experiments.
There is strong textual evidence that the ESD was operative in Newton's early natural philosophical work. We have good reason to suppose that Newton regarded his natural philosophical pursuits as experimental philosophy. This becomes clearer in Newton's later work. For instance, in the General Scholium to the Principia (1713), Newton explicitly described his work as 'experimental philosophy' – indeed, Peter Anstey has noted that Roger Cotes also recognised this feature of Newton's work. We also have good reason to suppose that, in important ways, Newton saw his work as aligned with the Royal Society and, by extension, with the Baconian movement. But Newton was also a mathematician, and he saw a role for mathematical reasoning in experimental philosophy. In many ways, it was this mathematical approach that led to his divergence from the Baconian experimental philosophy.
Biener and Schliesser are right to draw attention to the ways in which Newton's position diverged from the experimental tradition of the Royal Society. However, they fail to recognise that Newton's position diverged in a way that should be viewed as a development of this tradition. Indeed, the 'Newtonian experimental philosophy' eventually replaced the experimental philosophy of Boyle, Hooke and the other early members of the Royal Society. The label 'empiricism' has no such historical relevance. But, more on this another time…
'Epistemic amplification' and Newton's laws
Kirsten Walsh writes…
In my last post, I considered the experimental support Newton offers for his laws of motion. In the scholium to the laws, Newton argues that his laws of motion are certainly true. However, in support he only cites a handful of experiments and the agreement of other mathematicians. I suggested that the experiments discussed do support his laws, but only in limited cases. This justifies their application in Newton's mathematical theory, but does not justify Newton's claims to certainty. In this post, I will speculate that the laws of motion were in fact better established than Newton's discussion suggests. I introduce the notion 'epistemic amplification' – suggesting that Newton's laws gain epistemic status by virtue of their relationship to the propositions they entail. That is, by reasoning mathematically from axioms to theorems, the axioms obtained higher epistemic status, and so the reasoning process effectively amplified the epistemic status of the axioms.
I am not arguing that epistemic amplification captures Newton's thinking. In fact, Newton explicitly stated that epistemic gain was not possible. For him, the best one could achieve was avoiding epistemic loss. (I have discussed Newton's aims of certainty and avoiding epistemic loss here and here.) I suggest that, objectively speaking, the epistemic status of Newton's laws increases over the course of the Principia.
To begin, recall that Newton has two projects in relation to the laws:
- The specification of the laws as the axioms of a mathematical system; and
- The justification of laws as first principles in natural philosophy.
Let's consider the first project. In addition to the support of mathematicians and the experiments that Newton cites, it is plausible that the epistemic status of the laws increases by virtue of their success in the mathematical system: in particular, by entailing Keplerian motion. Kepler's rules and Newton's laws of motion have independent evidence: as we have seen, Newton's laws are weakly established by localised experiments and the 'agreement of mathematicians'; Kepler's rules are established by observed planetary motion and were widely accepted by astronomers prior to the Principia. Newton's laws entail Kepler's rules, which boosts Newton's justification for his laws. Moreover, Newton's laws provide additional support for Kepler's rules, by telling us about the forces required to produce such motions. The likelihood of the two theories is coupled: evidence for one carries over to the other. So Newton's laws also boost the justification for Kepler's rules. Thus, Newton achieves epistemic gain: the epistemic status of the laws, qua mathematical axioms, has increased by virtue of their relationship to Kepler's rules.
Now let's consider the second project – the application of the laws to natural philosophy. Again, the discussion in the scholium justifies their use, but not their certainty. I now suggest that these laws, as physical principles, gain epistemic status through confirmation of Newton's theory. This occurs in book 3, when Newton explicitly applies his mathematical theory to natural phenomena. As I have previously discussed, the phenomena (i.e. the motions of the planets and their moons) are employed as premises in Newton's argument for universal gravitation. However, the phenomena also support the application of the mathematical theory to the physical world: they show that the planets and their moons move in ways that approximate Keplerian motion. As we saw above, the laws of motion entail Kepler's rules. So, since the phenomena support Kepler's rules, they also support the laws of motion. So this is a straightforward case of theory-confirmation.
There is also scope for theory-testing in book 1. Each time Newton introduces a new factor (e.g. an extra body, or a resisting medium), the mathematical theory is tested. For instance, the contrasting versions of the harmonic rule in one-body and two-body model systems provides a test: it allows the phenomena to empirically decide between two theories, one involving singly-directed central forces, the other involving mutually-interactive central forces. Similarly, the contrasting two-body and three-body mathematical systems provide a test: they allow the phenomena to select between a theory involving pair-wise interactions and a theory involving universal mutual interaction. Moreover, in the final section of book 2, Newton shows that, unlike his theory, Cartesian vortex theory does not predict Keplerian motion. Thus, the phenomena seem to support his theory, and by extension the laws of motion, and to refute the theory of vortices. Again, the laws seem to gain support by virtue of their relationship to the propositions they entail.
To summarise, Newton claims that his laws are certainly true, but the support he gives is insufficient. Here, I have sketched an account in which Newton's laws gain epistemic status by virtue of their relationship to the propositions they entail. 'Epistemic amplification' is certainly not something which Newton himself would have had truck with, but the term does seem to capture the support actually acquired by Newton's laws in the Principia. What do you think?
Are Newton's Laws Experimentally Confirmed?
Kirsten Walsh writes…
Previously on this blog, I have argued that the combination of mathematics, experiment and certainty are an enduring feature of Newton's methodology. I have also highlighted the epistemic tension between experiment and mathematical certainty found in Newton's work. Today I shall examine this in relation to Newton's 'axioms or laws of motion'.
In the scholium to the laws, Newton argues that his laws of motion are certainly true. In support, however, he cites a handful of experiments and the agreement of other mathematicians: surprisingly weak justification for such strong claims! In this post, I show how Newton's appeals to experiment justify the axioms' inclusion in his system, but not with the certainty he claims.
Newton begins:
- "The principles I have set forth are accepted by mathematicians and confirmed by experiments of many kinds."
Newton expands on this claim, discussing firstly, Galileo's work on the descent of heavy bodies and the motion of projectiles, and secondly, the work conducted by Wren, Wallis and Huygens on the rules of collision and reflection of bodies. He argues that:
- The laws and their corollaries have been accepted by mathematicians such as Galileo, Wren, Wallis and Huygens (the latter three were "easily the foremost geometers of the previous generation");
- The laws and their corollaries have been invoked to establish several theories involving the motions of bodies; and
- The theories established in (2) have been confirmed by the experiments of Galileo and Wren (which, in turn confirms the truth of the laws).
These claims show us that Newton regards his laws as well-established empirical propositions. However, Newton recognises that the experiments alone are not sufficient to establish the truth of the laws. After all, the theories apply exactly only in ideal situations, i.e. situations involving perfectly hard bodies in a vacuum. So Newton describes supplementary experiments that demonstrate that, once we control for air resistance and degree of elasticity, the rules for collisions hold. He concludes:
- "And in this manner the third law of motion – insofar as it relates to impacts and reflections – is proved by this theory [i.e. the rules of collisions], which plainly agrees with experiments."
This passage suggests that the rules of collisions support a limited version of law 3, "to any action there is always an opposite and equal reaction", and that the rules themselves appear to hold under experimental conditions. However, this doesn't show that law 3 is universal: which Newton needs to establish universal gravitation. This argument is made by showing how the principle may be extended to other cases.
Firstly, Newton extends law 3 to cases of attraction. He considers a thought experiment in which two bodies attract one another to different degrees. Newton argues that if law 3 does not hold between these bodies the system will constantly accelerate without any external cause, in violation of law 1, which is a statement of the principle of inertia. Therefore, law 3 must hold. As the principle of inertia was already accepted, this supports the application of law 3 to attraction.
Newton then demonstrates law 3's application to various machines. For example, he argues that two bodies suspended from opposite ends of a balance have equal downward force if their respective weights are inversely proportional to the distances between the axis of the balance and the points at which they are suspended. And he argues that a body, suspended on a pulley, is held in place by a downward force which is equal to the downward force exerted by the body. Newton explains that:
- "By these examples I wished only to show the wide range and the certainty of the third law of motion."
What these examples in fact show is the explanatory power of the laws of motion – particularly law 3 – in natural philosophy. Starting with collision, which everyone accepts, Newton expands on his cases to show how law 3 explains many different physical situations. Why wouldn't a magnet and an iron floating side-by-side float off together at an increasing speed? Because, by law 3, as the magnet attracts the iron, so the iron attracts the magnet, causing them to press against one another. Why do weights on a balance sometimes achieve equilibrium? Because, by law 3, the downward force at one end of the balance is equal to the upward force at the other end of the balance. These examples demonstrate law 3's explanatory breadth. But these examples do not give us a compelling reason to think that law 3 should be extended to gravitational attraction (which seems to require some kind of action, or attraction, at a distance).
Newton, clearly, is convinced of the strength of his laws of motion. But this informal, discussion of the experiments he appeals to shows that he ought not be so convinced. As I see it, Newton has two projects in relation to his laws:
1) The specification of the laws as the axioms of a mathematical system; and
2) The justification of laws as first principles in natural philosophy.
I suggest that the experiments discussed give strong support for the laws in limited cases. This justifies their application in Newton's mathematical model, but it does not justify Newton's claims to certainty. In modern Bayesian terms, we might say that Newton's laws have high subjective priors. In my next post, I shall sketch an account in which Newton's laws gain epistemic status by virtue of their relationship to the propositions they entail.
Understanding Newton's Experiments as Instances of Special Power
Kirsten Walsh writes…
In my last few posts, I have been discussing the nature of observations and experiments in Newton's Opticks. In my first post on this topic, I argued that Newton's distinction between observation and experiment turns on their function. That is, the experiments introduced in book 1 offered individual, and crucial, support for particular propositions, whereas the observations introduced in books 2 and 3 only supported propositions collectively. In my next post, I discussed the observations in more detail, arguing that they resemble Bacon's 'experientia literata', the method by which natural histories were supposed to be generated. At the end of that post, I suggested that, in contrast to the observations, Newton's experiments look like Bacon's 'instances of special power', which are particularly illuminating cases introduced to provide support for specific propositions. Today I'll develop this idea.
Note, before we continue, that there are two issues here that can be treated independently of one another. One is establishing the extent of Bacon's historical influence on Newton; the other is establishing the extent to which Bacon's methodology can illuminate Newton's. In this post I am doing the latter – using Bacon's view only as an interpretive tool.
Identifying 'instances of special power' (ISPs) was an important step in the construction of a Baconian natural history. ISPs were experiments, procedures, and instruments that were held to be particularly informative or illuminative. These served a variety of purposes. Some functioned as 'core experiments', introduced at the very beginning of a natural history, and serving as the basis for further experiments. Others played a role later in the process. They included experiments that were supposed to be especially representative of a certain class of experiments, tools and experimental procedures that provided interesting shortcuts in the investigation, and model examples that came very close to providing theoretical generalisations. In some cases, a collection of ISPs constituted a natural history.
The following features were typical of ISPs. Firstly, they were considered to be particularly illuminating experiments, procedures or tools. For example, a crucial instance, or a particularly clear or informative experiment, or experimental procedure. Secondly, they were supposed to be replicated. On Bacon's view, replication was not merely an exercise for verifying evidence; it was an exercise for the mind, ensuring that one had truly grasped the phenomenon. Thirdly, they were versatile, in that they could be used in several different ways. As we shall see, the experiments of book 1 display these essential features.
In book 1 of the Opticks, Newton employed a method of 'proof by experiments' to support his propositions. Each experiment was introduced to reveal a specific property of light, which in turn proved a particular proposition. We know that Newton conducted many experiments in his optical investigations, so why did he present the experiments as he did, when he did? When we consider Newton's experiments alongside Bacon's instances of special power, common features start to emerge.
Firstly, for each proposition he asserted, Newton introduced a small selection of experiments in support – those that he considered to be particularly illuminating or, in his own words, "necessary to the Argument". Unlike in his first paper, in the Opticks, Newton did not label any experiments 'experimentum crucis'. But his use of terms such as 'necessary' and 'proof' make it clear that these experiments were supposed to provide strong support: just like ISPs.
Secondly, Newton usually provided more than one experiment to support each proposition. These were listed in order of increasing complexity and were carefully described and illustrated. That Newton took this approach, as opposed to just reporting on their results, suggests that these experiments were supposed to be an exercise for the reader: they were about more than just proof or confirmation of the proposition. The reader was supposed either to be able to replicate the experiment, or at least to understand its replicability. Starting with the simplest experiment, Newton led his reader by the hand through the relevant properties of light, to ensure that they were properly grasped. Like Bacon's ISPs, then, Newton's experiments were intended to be replicated.
Thirdly, Newton's experiments were recycled in a variety of roles in the Opticks. For example, the experiments he used to support proposition 2 part II were experiments 12 and 14 from part I. Newton introduced and developed these experiments in several different contexts to illuminate and support different propositions. Again, this is typical of Bacon's ISPs.
And so, Newton's experiments in the Opticks play a role analogous to Bacon's instances of special power, and thinking of them as such explains why they are presented as they are. They are particularly illuminating cases that are introduced to provide support for specific propositions. Newton selected the experiments which best functioned as ISPs for inclusion in the Opticks. Moreover, seen in this light, the seemingly disparate set of experiments start to look like a far more cohesive collection, or a natural history.
Many commentators have emphasised the ways that Newton deviated from Baconian method. Through this sequence of posts, I have argued that the Opticks provides a striking example of conformity to the Baconian method of natural history.
Workshop: Mathematics and methodology from Newton to Euler
University of Sydney
20 March, 2014
- 9.15 Katherine Dunlop (Texas): 'Christian Wolff on Newtonianism and Exact Science'
- 10.45 Coffee
- 11.00 Peter Anstey (Sydney): 'From scientific syllogisms to mathematical certainty'
- 12.30 Lunch
- 2.00 Kirsten Walsh (Otago): 'Newton's method'
- 3.30 Stephen Gaukroger (Sydney): 'D'Alembert, Euler and mid-18th century rational mechanics: what mechanics does not tell us about the world'
- 5.00 Wind up
Location: Common Room 822, Level 8, Brennan MacCallum Building
Contact: Prof Peter Anstey
Phone: 61 2 9351 2477
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
RSVP: Here