Inductivism and hypothesism were thus rival methodologies advocating antagonistic views regarding the method of science. The two methodologies competed with each other for acceptance. Both had strong followers among scientists and philosophers. Hypothesism had an upper hand in the beginning. It had among its champions not only Descartes, but also Boyle, Hooke, Huygens and other eminent scientists. But, inductivism emerged as the dominant theory of scientific method in the early eighteenth century. The setback suffered by hypothesism and the consequent domination of the scene by inductivism are to be traded to the fact that the method of induction had had its adherent Issac Newton whose eminence as a scientist lent inductivism a remarkable scientific respectability. Indeed, the classic statement of the inductivist position came from Newton himself. Epitomizing this position in the General Scholium of his Principia, Newton says, ‘What is not deduced from phenomena (observations) is to be called a hypothesis; and hypothesis, whether metaphysical or physical, whether on occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy, particular propositions are inferred from phenomena and afterwards rendered general by induction' . Of course, Newton 's own scientific practice was at variance with his inductivist convictions. He entertained many metaphysical ideas which played an active role in his theorizing. However, the followers of Newton went by what Newton said than what he did. In order to continue the success story of Newton , they believed that it was necessary to practice literally Newton 's inductivist message. Since inductivism was cult of observations, the followers of Newton like Hales, Boarhaave and Cotes attempted to construct purely observational physics, observational chemistry and observational biology to further the cause of the master.