Newton was a mathematician and arguably the most important scientist in history. I recommend his biography - it's amazing reading.

I'm the kind of person who is completely disinterested in biographies.

Fine, but then why talk about Newton if you are aware you know nothing about them? Talk about what you know.

It's not as if I haven't been exposed to his laws of motion in physics courses. I just think of them as more math (or heck, even philosophy) than science.

I'm always interested in unique perspectives, but at the same time, English has a meaning outside any individual's concept of it.

> Newton was ... not a scientist.

That has a meaning, and its false. Whatever you personally think of it, Newton was a scientist. I don't love a wild goose chase.

I guess so. It's hard for me to think of anyone prior to about the mid 1800s as a scientist, but sure, he qualifies by the standards of the day.

I still don't understand why people view Linnaeus' classification as scientific though. I guess maybe because it functioned as a hypothesis of common descent later on?

> I thought Newton was a mathematician, not a scientist.

Newton was a mathematician, scientist, alchemist, theologian (though, by the view of most Christians at the time and now, quite a heterodox one), and high government official that conducted undercover investigations personally. People can sometimes do more than one thing, and Newton did...a lot.