Seeking Truth: Roger North’s Notes on Newton and Correspondence with Samuel Clarke c. 1704–1713
Bibliographic record
Abstract
That early modern theories of natural knowledge had dramatic theological implications may seem obscure to the modern-day reader.Nonetheless, the reception of Newtonian physics at the turn of the 18th century reveals an interconnection between epistemology, the nature of reality, and early modern concepts of God and nature.And, in the case of a provincial English intellectual named Roger North, it reveals a growing apprehension regarding the Newtonian vision.Jamie Kassler's new edited volume of North's writings exposes the reader to the wider context of the contemporary response to Isaac Newton's ideas, from North's critical notes on his reading of Newton's natural philosophy to his correspondence with Samuel Clarke, one of Newton's close disciples, on matters of physics and theology.Roger North (1651-1734) is of historical interest both for his autobiography, Notes of Me, and for his scientific analysis of music in his comments on his brother Francis North's Philosophical Essay of Musick (1677).Of particular interest to the history of science, however, is Roger North's 'probabilistic' style of reasoning in natural philosophy, drawn from his training in common law and a combination of inductive and hypothetico-deductive method.North, the youngest son in a financially struggling aristocratic family, trained in Cambridge and then London as a lawyer and, after a number of familial tragedies (including the deaths of all of his older brothers), left his public appointments in London and became the lord of a manor in Rougham, Norfolk, permanently settling there in 1696.For the remainder of his days, North pursued the life of a provincial intellectual, remaining current with new ideas in natural philosophy and engaging in a program of self-critical reflection on the 'New Philosophy'.This was coupled with a number of correspondences that 'supplemented his method of critical reflection with a
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".