I venture to disagree, even though I started this.
Newton’s work was definitely physics; Newtonian mechanics had a theoretical basis, physical laws expressed through equations, and clear definitions of mass, length, time, momentum and force. Newton’s Opticks is more descriptive but describes the behaviour of lenses and prisms. Cavendish did solid work on electricity and gravitation. Hooke and Boyle established physical laws about matter, though the explanation had to wait till later. Physics was well developed by the end of the 19th century. Also, the word “science” is not necessarily a useful marker. Scottish universities used the term “natural philosophy”. Cambridge came up with the term “natural sciences” in 1848, by which time the commercial importance of subjects like geology had been long established. Until 1833 scientists were called “natural philosophers”, but they were doing the same job.
In the UK, France (and I think Germany), educational and other disabilities levelled against Jews were generally repealed in the 2nd half of the 19th century. That goes a long way to explaining why Jews were much less represented among early scientists, and why this situation rapidly changed. People like Spinoza simply didn’t have the educational opportunities of a Newton.
I know I am riding my hobby horse (the interaction of the development of religion and science) but in my defence nobody but me has to read it.
