Let's consider Newton. Newton was summarizing mathematically virtually everything that was known about motion at the time. A great deal of his information was, I suspect, coming from the gunnery experts who, most certainly, must have understood gravity and motion very well indeed if they ever wanted to hit their targets. Newton's contribution was to apply new mathematical techniques -- in particular, Calculus -- to his summary of existing knowledge. He was not speculating. He was not approximating. He was not looking for or selecting new data. He was simply expressing existing knowledge in a new and innovative way, that made it easier to work with. And, more particularly, his work aroused very little controversy. It was never seriously challenged by the Church, for example, or any other important social group. Its utility was self-evident, as was its validity.

How much scientific work really meets Newton's standard, in terms of these criteria:

1. Validity
2. Utility
3. Lack of controversy
4. Abscence of speculation
5. Innovation in mathematical conception