John Wallis and the Catholics: confessional and theological antagonism in Wallis's mathematics and philosophy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Like many of his contemporaries, the mathematician and Anglican minister John Wallis (1616–1703) repeatedly made disparaging remarks about Roman Catholics, particularly the pope and the Jesuits. This paper considers how Wallis's anti-Catholic attitude affected his reception of ideas about nature and mathematics. A well-known example is his resistance to the adoption of the Gregorian calendar in England, which he claimed would be an implicit acknowledgement of the pope's authority. This was not an isolated case in Wallis's career. For instance, the same attitude is evident in his earliest publication, Truth Tried (1643), wherein he adopts a position on the metaphysics of time and place that explicitly opposes the doctrine of transubstantiation. In addition, anti-Catholicism made Wallis more receptive to subjects that otherwise did not interest him, namely numerology and biblical prophecy. This helps to explain his decision to publish a Latin translation of Francis Potter's Interpretation of the Number 666 (1642), which Wallis seems to have appreciated mainly because of its argument that the pope is the Antichrist. These cases offer insights about Wallis's motivations as a natural philosopher and mathematician, and how they relate to anti-Catholicism in early modern English science more generally.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".