My questions arise after listening to Chomsky and Tim Maudlin talk about Newton's theories.
"it turns out that at this moment in history [now] the physicists have to a large extent either abandoned or are not very good at addressing directly the question that Aristotle was interested in which is fundamentally what exists and the tend to get a little sketch when you try to pin them down on what exactly their physical theories postulate to exist, but that's kind of a historical accident, you know Newton was very clear about what he was postulating" https://youtu.be/-aRu75QIPcM?t=690
(I take it that Maudlin's last line means Newton was clear about what he was postulating to exist)
"Newton disproved it [that the world is a machine (that it is an intelligible concept, and machinelike], he showed that the world is not a machine in this sense, he didn't believe it he thought it was so absurd that nobody with any scientific understanding could possibly believe this because that's why he called his major book mathematical principles not physical principles he said I don't have a physical theory all I have is mathematical principles that seem to work, he was sharply condemned." https://youtu.be/kzRkho1s5FA?t=3202
So it seems like they both agree that at some point science became unintelligible (operational?). Do philosophers agree about this larger point, that science recently became operational? And who is right about Newton here? Could Maudlin be talking about separate works of Newton that did postulate what exists in intellgible ways, and Chomsky referencing other works that gave up that idea? Or is there a real conflict, and who is more correct about Newton?