For scientists, should we only value their achievements and contributions without considering their personalities(such as Newton)?
Writing with great haste. The cost of publication is not a small sum, fortunately, a wealthy second-generation scientist who is enthusiastic about the cause of science, the great chemist Boyle (who was once Hooke's mentor), provided funding. Hooke's accusations angered Newton, to the point where Newton even considered interrupting the writing of "Principia," believing he had already known and proven that gravitational force is inversely proportional to the square of the distance in elliptical orbits before the communication with Hooke. He did not need Hooke's guidance. Previously, he thought the trajectory of descent was a spiral because the measurements of the Earth's radius were not accurate, leading to incorrect data that did not match the theoretical calculations. This made Newton suspect that there might be other unknown forces influencing objects, causing him to change his previous idea of elliptical orbits. Later, when the Earth's radius was accurately measured, his concept naturally adjusted. It was never related to Hooke, but he was accused of plagiarism. Naturally, Newton was furious and ultimately decided to continue the publication work of "Principia," just deleting all mentions of Hooke.
After the publication of "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy," Newton quickly became a renowned scientist worldwide, with his status soaring. He became an unshakable figure to Hooke. Hooke was still complaining, but no one paid attention. After Hooke's death, Newton became the president of the Royal Society, closed Hooke's laboratory, and destroyed Hooke's portraits and laboratory equipment.
It can be said that the conflict between Newton and Hooke was a story of the academic strongman Hooke using his authority to suppress the newcomer Newton, only to be counterattacked by Newton's strength. Hooke was certainly a scientist with significant contributions, but in his academic disputes with Newton, I do not believe he was the glorious party.
In contrast, Newton's dispute with Leibniz was more complex and legendary. There was a man named Collins in the Royal Society of England, who, although not highly skilled academically, had a great love for science. At that time, academic journals were just starting, and information exchange was underdeveloped, with scholars lacking a platform for communication. Collins was willing to act as a medium for academic exchange through his connections. He knew many scholars, including Newton's teacher Barrow. Once, Collins mentioned to Barrow the latest research findings of the German mathematician Mercator. Barrow responded that he had a student named Newton who had gone further than Mercator and had already obtained a general solution to such problems. The general solution Barrow mentioned was essentially the preliminary calculus. Barrow's response shocked Collins, so Barrow asked Newton to write a paper called "Analysis of Infinite Series" to send to Collins. After reading it, Collins advised Newton to publish the paper, but Newton believed his theory was not yet perfect and had flaws (the real perfection of calculus would not come until the 19th century). Perhaps he was worried about attracting attacks and ridicule from people like Hooke if he published, so he refused, and Collins had to give up.
For a long time, Newton's works on calculus circulated only in manuscript letters among a small circle of British mathematicians and slowly spread outward.
Leibniz was German, initially studied law, but later developed an interest in mathematics. He had traveled to Paris, studied under Huygens, and later visited London, where he met with the Royal Society of England and became acquainted with the secretary of the Royal Society, Oldenburg, and Collins, and was elected as a foreign fellow of the Royal Society. Through Oldenburg, Leibniz learned about Newton's progress in the field of infinite series, so the two began correspondence through Oldenburg. Leibniz asked Newton some questions about infinite series, and Newton answered and mysteriously hinted to Leibniz that he had invented a method for "given any number as flux, to find its fluxion, and the inverse problem," which was essentially differentiation and integration operations, but also mentioned that this problem was still unsolved. Soon after, Leibniz saw Newton's paper from Collins, copied the content related to infinite series, but there was no evidence to show that Leibniz had copied Newton's calculus content. A few years later, Leibniz founded the first academic journal in Germany, "Acta Eruditorum," and published his calculus paper. A few years later, he published a second paper, and thus Leibniz became famous.
At this time, Newton had the broad-mindedness of a great scholar, praising Leibniz as a great mathematician and acknowledging that he and Leibniz had independently created calculus, except for the symbols being different. Leibniz also praised Newton, saying that of all the mathematical contributions in history, Newton's contributions alone accounted for half.
In fact, up to this point, both great scholars were quite open-minded and enlightened. However, facing the honor of inventing calculus, which is of such epoch-making significance, a British person and a German person, even if they did not want to compete, they were inevitably swept up in the embrace of national honor and national righteousness.
An English scholar named Wallis wrote a book mainly introducing the mathematical achievements of England, mentioning calculus. This English scholar acknowledged that Leibniz independently created calculus, but at the same time claimed that our scholar Newton also independently created calculus, and did so earlier than Leibniz, and published Newton's early manuscripts and papers.
Subsequently, Leibniz's student, Johann Bernoulli, spoke up for his teacher.怀疑ing Newton's level of calculus, he decided to challenge Newton by posing a difficult problem at the time, the brachistochrone problem, inviting mathematicians worldwide to solve it within a specified deadline. His teacher Leibniz solved it, and he also managed to solve it through a clever method. Other solvers included Johann Bernoulli's brother Jacob and L'Hôpital, both from the Leibniz school. Newton sent the solution anonymously, and Newton said disdainfully that he did not like being teased by foreigners on mathematical problems. Leibniz and Bernoulli realized that the letter from England was Newton's response, so Leibniz sighed that the only heroes in the world are Newton and our master and disciple.
The escalation of the dispute between Newton and Leibniz was triggered by a mathematician named Fatio. Fatio and Leibniz were from the same school and were considered brothers, but for some reason, they did not have a good relationship with Leibniz. He also solved the brachistochrone problem but was late. Leibniz did not even mention him. After contacting Newton, Fatio established a good relationship with Newton and became a big fan of Newton. He wrote articles defending Newton, saying that Newton invented calculus many years earlier than Leibniz but was very modest, unlike Leibniz's arrogance.
After being accused by Fatio, Leibniz wrote an article in response to Fatio, implying that your brother Newton would not agree, which instead made you impolite.
Later, Newton published the book "Opticks," in which he published his calculus theory, the method of fluxions. Leibniz anonymously commented on Newton's method of fluxions in his own magazine, comparing Newton to a famous plagiarist in the history of science, which led to a direct conflict between the two.
By this time, Collins had already passed away. After obtaining the letters between Leibniz and Collins, Newton began to suspect whether Leibniz had really borrowed his theory. However, he remained silent and did not want to provoke a conflict with Leibniz. However, upon learning that Leibniz had anonymously slandered him in his magazine, Newton was furious. In Newton's eyes, Leibniz was now a villain who plagiarized his theory, published it first, and then cried thief. Newton's friends were also furious. One of them, a friend named Kell, was a troll who directly cursed, saying that Leibniz was a liar and a thief, and preached at the Royal Society. Since Leibniz was also a foreign fellow of the Royal Society, he appealed to the Royal Society to refute Kell's remarks. By then, Newton was already the president of the Royal Society, and Kell's backer was Newton, so Leibniz's appeal was naturally rejected. Later, Newton organized a committee for investigation, and the members of the committee were all Newton's confidants. In the end, the committee unanimously determined that Newton was the first inventor of calculus, and Leibniz plagiarized Newton, and published a report. The report and evidence were shown to ambassadors of various countries. Leibniz strongly denounced the composition of the committee, but he could not refute the evidence presented, which led to Leibniz's reputation being damaged for the rest of his life, and he ultimately died in sorrow. The dispute ended with Newton's victory.
Although Leibniz lost, he had a disciple who was later a famous mathematician, Euler. He developed Leibniz's calculus theory and promoted the calculus symbols invented by Leibniz, making them the ones we commonly use today. However, Newton's invented calculus symbols have not disappeared; they are still used in some specific fields today.
Modern historians, through the examination of manuscripts, letters by date and notes, generally agree that calculus was independently created by Newton and Leibniz. Newton arrived at calculus earlier, while Leibniz was the first to publish. The symbols they used were different, but they reached the same destination. Both contributed to the development of humanity, and this honor should be shared by both.
The above is roughly the beginning and end of the disputes between Newton and Hooke and Leibniz. It can only be said that Newton, after achieving fame and success, was not a person who repaid evil with virtue and was completely uninvolved with the world.
The publication of "Principia" was a watershed in Newton's life. Before that, Newton was a low-key, humble, poor at socializing,dislike publishing papers, and only liked to ponder the truth created by God. He was like a janitor-like figure. His talent was only somewhat famous in the small circle of British academia. After the publication of "Principia," Newton quickly became a renowned scientist worldwide, and fame and fortune came to him automatically. After rising in status, Newton also made friends with various powerful figures and social celebrities. But even after becoming successful, Newton was by no means a bad person.
What level was Newton in his middle and later years? It is The President of the Academy of Sciences concurrently serving as the Governor and Central Committee Member, a legitimate ministerial level leader, a world-renowned celebrity, a scientific giant who brought glory to the country, and a national hero who saved the currency crisis. With such a high status, Newton did not engage in any power money or power sex transactions, had a clean conscience, and even never had a close relationship with women for life. After achieving success and fame, his friends offered him a high paying job as a mint supervisor, but he did not settle for a simple meal. He worked hard to improve production technology, crack down on counterfeit currency crimes, and was simply a giant of science and a capable minister of governing the world; His mother remarried in his early years and left him to be raised by his grandparents. Later, she tried every means to prevent him from going to school and wanted him to become a farmer. His stepfather was particularly harsh on him, and Newton once made some threatening remarks to his stepfather and mother when he was a child, which made Newton regret it when he grew up. Newton treated his mother fairly filial, but he often supported the children of his mother and stepfather's younger siblings who had no children. Sometimes I also ask myself, if I climb to Newton's high position, would I do better than him? Although Newton was not a saint, he himself recorded a pile of his past mistakes in a small notebook, but he was by no means a moral scoundrel.