Editing Scientific Revolution (section)

===Mechanical philosophy===
[[File:Sir Isaac Newton by Sir Godfrey Kneller, Bt.jpg|thumb|right|[[Isaac Newton]] in a 1702 portrait by [[Godfrey Kneller]]]]Aristotle recognized four kinds of causes, and where applicable, the most important of them is the "final cause". The final cause was the aim, goal, or purpose of some natural process or man-made thing. Until the Scientific Revolution, it was very natural to see such aims, such as a child's growth, for example, leading to a mature adult. Intelligence was assumed only in the purpose of man-made artifacts; it was not attributed to other animals or to nature.

In "[[mechanical philosophy]]" no field or action at a distance is permitted, particles or corpuscles of matter are fundamentally inert. Motion is caused by direct physical collision. Where natural substances had previously been understood organically, the mechanical philosophers viewed them as machines.<ref>[[#Westfall|Westfall]], pp. 30–33.</ref> As a result, Newton's theory seemed like some kind of throwback to "spooky [[action at a distance]]". According to Thomas Kuhn, Newton and Descartes held the [[teleology|teleological principle]] that God conserved the amount of motion in the universe:

<blockquote>Gravity, interpreted as an innate attraction between every pair of particles of matter, was an occult quality in the same sense as the scholastics' "tendency to fall" had been.... By the mid eighteenth century that interpretation had been almost universally accepted, and the result was a genuine reversion (which is not the same as a retrogression) to a scholastic standard. Innate attractions and repulsions joined size, shape, position and motion as physically irreducible primary properties of matter.<ref>Kuhn, Thomas (1970), [http://projektintegracija.pravo.hr/_download/repository/Kuhn_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions.pdf ''The Structure of Scientific Revolutions''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141020001221/http://projektintegracija.pravo.hr/_download/repository/Kuhn_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions.pdf |date=20 October 2014 }}. University of Chicago Press. {{ISBN|0-226-45807-5}}. pp. 105–06.</ref></blockquote>

Newton had also specifically attributed the inherent power of inertia to matter, against the mechanist thesis that matter has no inherent powers. But whereas Newton vehemently denied gravity was an inherent power of matter, his collaborator [[Roger Cotes]] made gravity also an inherent power of matter, as set out in his famous preface to the ''Principia's'' 1713 second edition which he edited, and contradicted Newton. And it was Cotes's interpretation of gravity rather than Newton's that came to be accepted.{{fact|date=April 2023}}