3 ms·
Yes. Also the assessment of parts of his non-scientific work as being 'almost entirely fruitless' might be mistaken. We don't and can't understand how his great
by truculation 9y ago
Yes. Also the assessment of parts of his non-scientific work as being 'almost entirely fruitless' might be mistaken. We don't and can't understand how his great mind worked. Could it be that an apparently strange obsession was vital to its functioning?
- gameswithgo 9y agoAnd, to an extent we only know that alchemy is "non scientific " because a lot of people like him worked hard on it and figured that out. Until then it was scientific. So too can religious research be scientific even if it turns out there isn't really a supernatural being. A negative result is still a result.