This paper argues that the generally shared interpretation of what can be labelled 'Smithian Newtonianism' is spurious on two counts. I suggest not only that Smith was not a Newtonian in the sense ...
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 13, No. 5 (May 15, 1927), pp. 280-285 (6 pages) ...
Some results have been hidden because they may be inaccessible to you
Show inaccessible results