Bibliographic record
Abstract
Betty Jo Teeter Dobbs not only shifted the boundaries of Newton scholarship, she changed its center. Her first book The Foundations of Newton's Alchemy shifted the boundaries of inquiry by insisting on the importance of disciplines outside the canonical sciences in understanding the scientific tradition. In The Janus Faces of Genius she took the further step of arguing that religion, not science, was the real center of Newton's thought. Although Dobbs's main work focused on Newton, it would be a great loss to historical scholarship if we failed to draw the wider historiographical consequences of her work – consequences she herself made plain in her 1993 History of Science Society Lecture “Newton as Final Cause and First Mover.” In the present chapter I support Dobbs's contention that these historiographical shifts and recenterings are important in understanding the history of science well before Newton and his time. The period I consider begins with the Reformation and concludes with the career of Johann Kepler. My main concern involves Lutheran natural philosophers and astronomers, and especially those trained at Wittenberg after its reform by Philip Melanchthon. After briefly reviewing earlier opinions on the relation between science and religion in this period, I go on to document the role of Lutherans in spreading Copernicus's ideas, and the pervasive positive effect of their religion on Lutheran scientific thought. I suggest that Kepler's early work, in particular, should be read as centrally religious.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".