4 ms·

If you're interested in this topic, you should also have a look at this article (https://www.neh.gov/humanities/2011/januaryfebruary/feature/newton-the-last-mag

by Jun8 9y ago

If you're interested in this topic, you should also have a look at this article (https://www.neh.gov/humanities/2011/januaryfebruary/feature/newton-the-last-magician https://www.neh.gov/humanities/2011/januaryfebruary/feature/...) and Keynes' wonderful lecture on the topic. In fact Newton was pre-Newtonian in terms of scientific rigor. You can perhaps say similar things about most revolutionary scientists, i.e. rarely do they fully realize the y have wrought. I think Newton being the "Last Magician" fascinates/frustrates people because currently we (think) that there is such a clear divide between scientists and mubo-jumboists, the latter perceived to be rather idiotic. In fact, most topics have pretty clear labels classifying them into one or the other: diffraction - science, tarot - MJ, etc. How could Newton, the epitome of reason and the greatest scientist ever lived, dabble in the latter? Of course, the labels were not so clear at his time.

mattnewton 9y ago
PG has a relevant post on this, where he explains that he thinks of Newton as having made several "bets" on different systems of thought, and we remember the ones that paid off. http://www.paulgraham.com/disc.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disc.html
rblion 9y ago
It's worth noting that science is just one side of the coin. The other side is something that every great scientist, artist, inventor, writer, and leader has explored too. Great innovations in every discipline are found where the rational and intuitive overlap. I'm aware that there is a lot of quackery out there but there are a lot of mysteries about the nature of existence, of consciousness, of the beginning and end of the Cosmos still.
jerf 9y ago
I recently encountered this video about an interesting possible reaction that could have been done by alchemists that might explain where the idea of turning lead to gold came from (in particular, wanting gold as an end product is no surprise, but why lead specifically as the source?): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzsdORUPk48 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzsdORUPk48 It doesn't quite use period materials, for safety and convenience reasons, but I was satisfied that the described reaction could have been done, with more effort. And it does take "lead" and turn it into something that seems awfully close to gold. If you don't have an atomic theory of matter and understand how elements work, you know, I would submit that it's not even that "magical" of a thought to think that you're so close and surely there's just one or two last tweaks you can do to get there. It's very easy to imagine that as being part of the inner mysteries of a mystery religion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Roman_mysteries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Roman_mysteries Now turning lead into gold is pure 100% unmitigated magic, because we know a lot more stuff. But if we didn't know that stuff, it would not be an obviously magical belief.
- copperx 9y ago
  I now worry that coming up with a cure for all cancers is a magical belief.
  - Babooster 9y ago
    Don't worry: there's no requirement for one single cure-all.
- wallace_f 9y ago
  >Now turning lead into gold is pure 100% unmitigated magic Alchemy is not useful, but what you said here is not a magical belief. All elements were in fact created through the fusion of lighter elements before them through nuclear transmutation. Stellar nucleosynthesis is the natural process creating the variety of elements in the universe. In other words, we do conceptually know how you can turn lead in to gold, and even heavier elements than gold have already been artificially created. Wikipedia has a periodic table with the origins of each the elements.-1 1-https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis#Key_Reactions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis#Key_...
vacri 9y ago
> Of course, the labels were not so clear at his time. This is understating the issue quite a bit. Don't forget that the point of science is to test things in a robust manner, which at this point in time has been done for the things you mention, but in Newton's time they hadn't been.
nol13 9y ago
..or, I mean he was Isaac Newton, maybe he was on to something. Just sayin yo.

by Jun8 9y ago

mattnewton 9y ago

PG has a relevant post on this, where he explains that he thinks of Newton as having made several "bets" on different systems of thought, and we remember the ones that paid off. http://www.paulgraham.com/disc.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disc.html

rblion 9y ago

It's worth noting that science is just one side of the coin. The other side is something that every great scientist, artist, inventor, writer, and leader has explored too. Great innovations in every discipline are found where the rational and intuitive overlap. I'm aware that there is a lot of quackery out there but there are a lot of mysteries about the nature of existence, of consciousness, of the beginning and end of the Cosmos still.

jerf 9y ago

I recently encountered this video about an interesting possible reaction that could have been done by alchemists that might explain where the idea of turning lead to gold came from (in particular, wanting gold as an end product is no surprise, but why lead specifically as the source?): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzsdORUPk48 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzsdORUPk48 It doesn't quite use period materials, for safety and convenience reasons, but I was satisfied that the described reaction could have been done, with more effort. And it does take "lead" and turn it into something that seems awfully close to gold. If you don't have an atomic theory of matter and understand how elements work, you know, I would submit that it's not even that "magical" of a thought to think that you're so close and surely there's just one or two last tweaks you can do to get there. It's very easy to imagine that as being part of the inner mysteries of a mystery religion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Roman_mysteries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Roman_mysteries Now turning lead into gold is pure 100% unmitigated magic, because we know a lot more stuff. But if we didn't know that stuff, it would not be an obviously magical belief.

copperx 9y ago
I now worry that coming up with a cure for all cancers is a magical belief.
- Babooster 9y ago
  Don't worry: there's no requirement for one single cure-all.
wallace_f 9y ago
>Now turning lead into gold is pure 100% unmitigated magic Alchemy is not useful, but what you said here is not a magical belief. All elements were in fact created through the fusion of lighter elements before them through nuclear transmutation. Stellar nucleosynthesis is the natural process creating the variety of elements in the universe. In other words, we do conceptually know how you can turn lead in to gold, and even heavier elements than gold have already been artificially created. Wikipedia has a periodic table with the origins of each the elements.-1 1-https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis#Key_Reactions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis#Key_...

vacri 9y ago

> Of course, the labels were not so clear at his time. This is understating the issue quite a bit. Don't forget that the point of science is to test things in a robust manner, which at this point in time has been done for the things you mention, but in Newton's time they hadn't been.

nol13 9y ago

..or, I mean he was Isaac Newton, maybe he was on to something. Just sayin yo.