{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01901565995525727, 'fraction_numerical': 0.013422818791946308, 'mean_word_length': 4.927152317880795, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
What motion is: William Neile and the laws of motion

SUMMARY In 1668–1669 William Neile and John Wallis engaged in a protracted correspondence regarding the nature of motion. Neile was unhappy with the laws of motion that had been established by the Royal Society in three papers published in 1668, deeming them not explanations of motion at all, but mere descriptions. Neile insisted that science could not be informative without a discussion of causes, meaning that Wallis's purely kinematic account of collision could not be complete. Wallis, however, did not consider Neile’s objections to his work to be serious. Rather than engage in a discussion of the proper place of natural philosophy in science, Wallis decided to show how Neile's preferred treatment of motion lead to absurd conclusions. This dispute is offered as a case study of dispute resolution within the early Royal Society.