4 ms·

This article already fails with it little thought experiment. Because if there's one thing we can probably agree on it's that freedom of speech today is larger

This article already fails with it little thought experiment. Because if there's one thing we can probably agree on it's that freedom of speech today is larger than it was in 17th century England. Since he was able to publish back then, he would be able to publish today. Other than that, this is just the slippery slope again, although I appreciate that they throw in Newton–considering he's arguably the inventor of the slippery slope.

chippy 9y ago
The Newton example is not about free speech but rather his behaviour, actions, and perceptions of non academics. The example given implies that he would be able to publish, but he wouldn't be able to get a decent (i.e. well promoted, popular) book deal. The example of Newton at the beginning of the article is a little thought experiment where we consider how having odd or off coloured views, or behaving strangely is treated differently by the outside of the academy. Such a thought experiment leads me to think that in the 17th Century it was easier to be a genius, odd, socially awkward mad professor than it is now. I don't know what it was actually like back then, but I do know that today the academy is in the spotlight more than it was when I was in it.
- Keysh 9y ago
  But it's a really bad example. In real history, Newton was able to keep quiet about views that would have gotten him fired and possibly imprisoned. Most of the "weird" Newtonian stuff the author is referring to are things Newton kept private, not stuff he published; we only know about them because of work done by historians in the 20th Century. In particular, we know from Newton's private writings that he had strong Unitarian tendencies (that is, he doubted the validity of the Trinity). Had he made those views public, he would certainly have been fired and possibly suffered worse. (By the late 17th Century, it was illegal for Oxford or Cambridge to hire or even teach people who weren't proper Anglicans; denying the Trinity would have put Newton into this category.)
  - notahacker 9y ago
    It's also a bad example because "Greek alchemy, Biblical cryptography, fiat currency, Jewish mysticism, or how to predict the exact date of the Apocalypse" are not the sort of thing which are censored by even the most ardent proponents of political correctness today. They might expose him to ridicule, but that's actually an integral part of free speech, as well as being far less onerous than the explicit bans on the religiously unorthodox having any involvement in academia in Newton's time

chippy 9y ago

The Newton example is not about free speech but rather his behaviour, actions, and perceptions of non academics. The example given implies that he would be able to publish, but he wouldn't be able to get a decent (i.e. well promoted, popular) book deal. The example of Newton at the beginning of the article is a little thought experiment where we consider how having odd or off coloured views, or behaving strangely is treated differently by the outside of the academy. Such a thought experiment leads me to think that in the 17th Century it was easier to be a genius, odd, socially awkward mad professor than it is now. I don't know what it was actually like back then, but I do know that today the academy is in the spotlight more than it was when I was in it.

Keysh 9y ago
But it's a really bad example. In real history, Newton was able to keep quiet about views that would have gotten him fired and possibly imprisoned. Most of the "weird" Newtonian stuff the author is referring to are things Newton kept private, not stuff he published; we only know about them because of work done by historians in the 20th Century. In particular, we know from Newton's private writings that he had strong Unitarian tendencies (that is, he doubted the validity of the Trinity). Had he made those views public, he would certainly have been fired and possibly suffered worse. (By the late 17th Century, it was illegal for Oxford or Cambridge to hire or even teach people who weren't proper Anglicans; denying the Trinity would have put Newton into this category.)
- notahacker 9y ago
  It's also a bad example because "Greek alchemy, Biblical cryptography, fiat currency, Jewish mysticism, or how to predict the exact date of the Apocalypse" are not the sort of thing which are censored by even the most ardent proponents of political correctness today. They might expose him to ridicule, but that's actually an integral part of free speech, as well as being far less onerous than the explicit bans on the religiously unorthodox having any involvement in academia in Newton's time