4 ms·
Yeah alchemy seem like a completely different field than astronomy today, but at the time it was considered deeply connected - the metals was corresponding to t
by olavk 10y ago
Yeah alchemy seem like a completely different field than astronomy today, but at the time it was considered deeply connected - the metals was corresponding to the planets and so on. Because the heavenly order was considered reflected in the earthly materials and vice versa, studying one would lead you to greater understanding of the other.
For a modern viewpoint it might seem like Newton was "hedging his bets" by contributing to several totally different fields, but I don't think it was seen like that at the time. It was all "philosophy".
Other "philosophers" in the early modern period had similar interests. For example Tycho Brahe is remembered as an astronomer with a strong focus on empirical observation, but actually was just as focused on astrology, alchemy and medicine (which was connected to alchemy and astronomy because of the same philosophy).
Newton was a "renaissance man".
- cutler 10y agoPtolemy is likewise revered by astronomers as one of their founding fathers but they conveniently ignore the fact that in astrological circles he occupies a similar position due to his seminal work, the Tetrabiblos. Scientists can become very selective when dealing with alternatives to their world view.
- nitrogen 10y agoScientists can become very selective when dealing with alternatives to their world view. No, they just remember people for their contributions rather than their mistakes.
- cup 10y agoPretty arrogant and ignorant statement considering some of our best scientific discoveries were mistakes.
- emiliobumachar 10y ago> some of our best scientific discoveries were mistakes Could you give a few examples?
- junko 10y agoPenicillin is a famous one.
- landon32 10y agoI think you're talking about a different type of mistake than nitrogen is. You seem to be talking about accidental discoveries, or discoveries that were discovered while using mistaken techniques. When Alexander Fleming discovered that penicillin fought bacteria, he was not mistaken at all. He was spot on- it did kill bacteria. Sure, its discovery may have been caused by a mistake, but what he learned about penicillin was correct, as far as I know.
- junko 10y agoAh yes sorry I isolated the point up to cup's comment. But I'm still sure that there are/will be times when great discoveries are proven to be mistakes. Barring practical ones like penicillin, there has been numerous 'discoveries' proven wrong much later; Newton's colour theory comes to mind, and of course the rather famous its-a-particle-no-a-wave ping pong.
- ess3 10y agoIn one sense the whole scientific approach is about proving yourself wrong, which could be seen as making "mistakes"
- ess3 10y agoIn one sense the whole scientific approach is about proving yourself wrong, which could be seen as making "mistakes"
- Houshalter 10y agoIf its a great scientific discovery than it's not a mistake.
- cutler 10y agoWhat scientists cannot accept is that there are aspects of human life which are not observable or measurable. Science is good at measuring what is observable but many scientists then make that a foundation for denying, ridiculing or reducing what is not observable. Science then becomes, paradoxically, a religion.
- nitrogen 10y agoDo you not also see a paradox in claiming to be able to observe the unobservable? As others have mentioned in the thread, scientists didn't just wake up one day and decide to ignore everything supposedly "unobservable". Science was once intertwined with theology. Over the centuries, the methods we now call science produced results, while other supposed "ways of knowing" did not. Scientific knowledge converges over time, but religion diverges.
- cutler 10y agoThe unobservable category includes a lot more than religion. It may be that scientific knowledge converges more easily simply because it limits itself to what is observable or maybe, more accurately, what is mechanistic and observable. Take ghosts, for example. Do they exist? Let's conduct an experiment and take cameras to a supposedly haunted house. The ghosts in question decide to hide from the cameras. See, no ghosts. Told you so. The ghosts meanwhile laugh in background, taking a short break from scaring the inhabitants until the scientists leave.
- clock_tower 10y agoHere's another question: does decadence exist? The physicist would say that it's a meaningless question; the historian -- or politician -- would be well advised not to listen. (Barzun, in From Dawn to Decadence, defined a decadent period as one which has an objective which it wants to reach, which it could reach if it made the sort of changes which it has made in the past, and which it fails to reach nonetheless. I forget where I heard it, but there's an idea that there's social technology as well as physical -- and social technology is easier to lose.)
- olavk 10y agoAlso worth mentioning that his knowledge of alchemy got him an important job as Master of the Mint, where he worked to eliminate counterfeit coins. (Metallurgy is a branch of alchemy, and the purity of metals a major research area for alchemy.) Perhaps not as earth-shattering as principia, but from a personal perspective his investment in alchemy paid of handsomely.
- dredmorbius 10y agoAnd in a modern ironic twist, it turns out that the elements are connected to the stars. Other than hydrogen, some helium, and a very small amount of lithium, all other elements were born of stars, through either normal fusion (helium, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, ...), supernovae (heavier atoms: nickle, iron, ...), and for the heaviest including gold, neutron-star collisions. No, the models assumed by alchemists weren't right, but the central nugget was pointing in the right direction. And studying the metals does provide insight into the dynamics of stars. (And yes: on Earth, helium and several other elements are found not formed by stars directly, but through the radioactive decay of heavier elements, though those are of stellar origins.)