3 ms·

There's a long tradition of important advances in knowledge being made by people with an undemanding job [1] [2]. The 19th century university became a hotbed of

by zeteo 10y ago

There's a long tradition of important advances in knowledge being made by people with an undemanding job [1] [2]. The 19th century university became a hotbed of research because the teaching workload was relatively light and they didn't require that you also did research. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parson-naturalist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parson-naturalist [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza#Lens-grinding_and_optics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza#Lens-grinding_a...

neuromantik8086 10y ago
The Parson-naturalist list you link to lacks one very prominent scientist-cleric- Gregor Mendel (though I believe this to be deliberate, as he performed research for economic reasons rather than spiritual reasons iirc). The earliest research on genetics took years to complete and was done as a side-project in addition to other monastic duties.
jnicholasp 10y ago
Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha) was (became; established a whole tradition of being) a hermit/beggar/monk; Socrates was a stone mason (occasionally); Diogenes the Cynic lived in a barrel and begged for food; Jesus was a carpenter and then a wandering preacher; Spinoza (as you note) was a lens grinder; Kant was a tutor; Einstein was a patent clerk. And, as you note, especially in the 19th and 18th centuries, many proto-scientists were people with either an established income or independent wealth, who had the freedom to pursue whatever interested them. We ought to be finding ways to broaden the number of people who can pursue their interests, while not forfeiting security, dignity, and social respect. This is one of the arguments for universal basic income, that it could decouple (some) people's desire to pursue knowledge from the need to earn a living, and maybe even especially from the need to produce regular, measurable results. Right not we're channeling most of our people who are interested in and capable of developing new knowledge into jobs which demand "results" more than they demand that truth be followed wherever it leads, and however long it takes. This will lead to a great deal of dubious Normal Science [0], and very little revolutionary thought [1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_science [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Re...
- zeteo 10y ago
  Note that having a job seems necessary though. Maybe it's a case of the golden mean? On one side you have people whose job absorbs all leisure. On the other you have some who draw sufficient income without having a job at all. These are Marx's infamous "coupon clippers", and historically they're not as prominent in intellectual history as people with undemanding jobs (personally I'm not aware of many philosophers / scientists who were rentiers). If leisure was the only variable, we'd expect people with guaranteed incomes (annuities, for example, have been sold since the Middle Ages) to have been the most prolific thinkers of history.
  - jgamman 10y ago
    i think you have to go back to the 18th century for that. i'm thinking britain where science was something acceptable that gentlemen could do in their spare time (with smart+poor doing a lot of heavy lifting) and in particular Antoine Lavoisier in France who literally bought the rights to be a tax farmer so he could do his research. he lost his head in the revolution so there's that. YMMV.
    - zeteo 10y ago
      Well, Lavoisier's tax farming was not passive income: "Lavoisier's researches on combustion were carried out in the midst of a very busy schedule of public and private duties, especially in connection with the Ferme Générale." [1] The gentleman scientists were also usually involved in some sort of business, even if it was just administering their estates. The people who truly had a passive income - relying on annuities or government bonds, mostly inherited - are hard to spot in the history of science. They were a pretty numerous class though [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Lavoisier#Gunpowder_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Lavoisier#Gunpowder_Co... [2] https://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/25/piketty-and-the-petits-rentiers/?_r=0 https://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/25/piketty-and-the...
    - gipp 10y ago
      Kelvin, De Broglie, and Brahe come to mind as well.

by zeteo 10y ago

neuromantik8086 10y ago

The Parson-naturalist list you link to lacks one very prominent scientist-cleric- Gregor Mendel (though I believe this to be deliberate, as he performed research for economic reasons rather than spiritual reasons iirc). The earliest research on genetics took years to complete and was done as a side-project in addition to other monastic duties.

jnicholasp 10y ago

Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha) was (became; established a whole tradition of being) a hermit/beggar/monk; Socrates was a stone mason (occasionally); Diogenes the Cynic lived in a barrel and begged for food; Jesus was a carpenter and then a wandering preacher; Spinoza (as you note) was a lens grinder; Kant was a tutor; Einstein was a patent clerk. And, as you note, especially in the 19th and 18th centuries, many proto-scientists were people with either an established income or independent wealth, who had the freedom to pursue whatever interested them. We ought to be finding ways to broaden the number of people who can pursue their interests, while not forfeiting security, dignity, and social respect. This is one of the arguments for universal basic income, that it could decouple (some) people's desire to pursue knowledge from the need to earn a living, and maybe even especially from the need to produce regular, measurable results. Right not we're channeling most of our people who are interested in and capable of developing new knowledge into jobs which demand "results" more than they demand that truth be followed wherever it leads, and however long it takes. This will lead to a great deal of dubious Normal Science [0], and very little revolutionary thought [1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_science [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Re...

zeteo 10y ago
Note that having a job seems necessary though. Maybe it's a case of the golden mean? On one side you have people whose job absorbs all leisure. On the other you have some who draw sufficient income without having a job at all. These are Marx's infamous "coupon clippers", and historically they're not as prominent in intellectual history as people with undemanding jobs (personally I'm not aware of many philosophers / scientists who were rentiers). If leisure was the only variable, we'd expect people with guaranteed incomes (annuities, for example, have been sold since the Middle Ages) to have been the most prolific thinkers of history.
- jgamman 10y ago
  i think you have to go back to the 18th century for that. i'm thinking britain where science was something acceptable that gentlemen could do in their spare time (with smart+poor doing a lot of heavy lifting) and in particular Antoine Lavoisier in France who literally bought the rights to be a tax farmer so he could do his research. he lost his head in the revolution so there's that. YMMV.
  - zeteo 10y ago
    Well, Lavoisier's tax farming was not passive income: "Lavoisier's researches on combustion were carried out in the midst of a very busy schedule of public and private duties, especially in connection with the Ferme Générale." [1] The gentleman scientists were also usually involved in some sort of business, even if it was just administering their estates. The people who truly had a passive income - relying on annuities or government bonds, mostly inherited - are hard to spot in the history of science. They were a pretty numerous class though [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Lavoisier#Gunpowder_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Lavoisier#Gunpowder_Co... [2] https://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/25/piketty-and-the-petits-rentiers/?_r=0 https://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/25/piketty-and-the...
  - gipp 10y ago
    Kelvin, De Broglie, and Brahe come to mind as well.