You’re missing the point. It’s not an effort to discredit Newton. It is merely to point out that he was right about some things and dead wrong about others.
Calling Newton a *kook* about some things in an effort to invalidate what he says about others IS trying to discredit him. Scientists wouldn’t know for several hundred years that alchemy wouldn’t work.
If he had claimed that in his day, his peers would have labeled him a *kook* instead, just like evos do to anyone who doesn’t buy the macroevoltion/speciation, naturalistic, random mutation, natural selection, no God allowed, version of the ToE today.
Newton was doing science according to the prevailing scientific wisdom of the day. If that makes him a kook, then it makes ALL the rest of them kooks, as well.
The scientific community does not allow for much room for dissent or out of the box thinking.
I don’t think I’m the one missing the point.
From Merriam-Webster Online:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discredit
Main Entry:
dis·cred·it
Function:
transitive verb
Date:
1559
1 : to refuse to accept as true or accurate : disbelieve *discredit a rumor*
2 : to cause disbelief in the accuracy or authority of *a discredited theory*
3 : to deprive of good repute : disgrace *personal attacks meant to discredit his opponent*
************************************************************
Calling him a kook is trying to discredit him. It is not merely showing that he was wrong about something.