5 ms·

Same goes for Isaac Newton. He’s practically been elevated to godhood for his contributions to calculus and physics. What about his occult studies, alchemy, and

Same goes for Isaac Newton. He’s practically been elevated to godhood for his contributions to calculus and physics. What about his occult studies, alchemy, and chronology [1]? It seems only historians (academic and amateur), Newton buffs, and compulsive Wikipedia clickers know or care about these weird ideas that were so important to Newton. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_occult_studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_occult_studie...

tinalumfoil 6y ago
10 successes and 1000 failures is more valuable than 1 success and no failures.
perl4ever 6y ago
I don't think this sort of thing is rare, or a reflection of the time period he lived in or his status as an extreme outlier in historical influence. Many scientists spend a portion of their time in oddball or fruitless pursuits and sometimes it takes them over, particularly as they get older. Linus Pauling and Vitamin C is one thing that comes to mind. There was some scientist whose name I can't remember, was asked how he could be occupied by crazy ideas or obsessions and he said that these ideas came to him in exactly the same way as his deep scientific insights.
- msandford 6y ago
  Suggesting that Linus Pauling was wrong about vitamin C is an interesting choice. In my opinion he's looking more and more prescient. https://nypost.com/2020/03/24/new-york-hospitals-treating-coronavirus-patients-with-vitamin-c/ https://nypost.com/2020/03/24/new-york-hospitals-treating-co... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5996765/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5996765/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3937164/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3937164/ Just because someone looks silly to their contemporaries doesn't mean they're wrong. Look at Semmelweis. He figured out germs well before Pasteur. Doctors didn't accept it because they didn't like the implications: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis Sagan says it best. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/85171-one-of-the-saddest-lessons-of-history-is-this-if https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/85171-one-of-the-saddest-le...
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    I wasn't stating that he was "wrong", I was suggesting that regardless of whether you can find any merit to any of his opinions, it was kind of an odd, dubious obsession that people don't uniformly respect unlike other accomplishments he had.
freyr 6y ago
Were these studies inconsistent with a curious mind and the limitations of knowledge at the time? In any research, some avenues of investigation are fruitful and others are not. When people look back on us 300 years from today, they'll likely find many cases of geniuses working on things that seem naive or misguided in retrospect.
- onemoresoop 6y ago
  You can say the same thing about the limitations nowaadays. Looking back from the future we’ll have learned a lot of things that we are thinking now will be seen as preposterous when more knowledge is covered.
  - freyr 6y ago
    That’s exactly what I wrote.
- sunstone 6y ago
  Someone once described genius as taking a shot in the dark and hitting something. In which case, taking more shots does increase your odds.
david-cako 6y ago
Natural philosophy and alchemy were names for science before science. Alchemy had a connotation of being very ceremonial; knowledge had to spread by group gatherings and word of mouth. Cutting edge science today would have been called alchemy historically. Artificial intelligence, gene editing, etc. Fortunately scientists have a pretty good reputation now, where alchemists of the past had to research and convene in secret.
- ColanR 6y ago
  People don't realize, I think, how much modern science owes its tools and methodologies to alchemy. I like your comparison between alchemy and AI. Even modern neural nets would fit alchemical concepts pretty well - "we flattened a rock, put lightning inside it, and made it speak to us with a human voice!"
Hokusai 6y ago
> Same goes for Isaac Newton. He’s practically been elevated to godhood for his contributions to calculus and physics. The way British write confuses many people. "Newton is the greatest of the greatest", "Shakespeare is the mos prolific writer that ever lived", ""... British writers love hyperbole. The fact that the writing style aligns with national pride helps to create a positive feedback of "grandiose writing". That does not mean that there is ill intent. The target consumers of the writing are the British readers themselves, and almost all societies have a good self esteem. The fact that globally we communicate in English has tip the balance towards sharing American and British views of the world over the rest and created an over hype of some charismatic national myths.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  Such excessive writing only occurs amongst very few people, them who feel their job is 'culture'. I've heard far too much of it about shakespeare, and I think it undeserved. He's not that great. Emperor/clothes etc. I've really not heard anything similar about newton though. Don't confuse those very few who surf their own hyperbole with the average brit (I'm one).
  - Hokusai 6y ago
    > Don't confuse those very few who surf their own hyperbole with the average brit (I'm one). I see your point. And, as any generalization, my point does not apply to all British citizens. But, that grandiose talking is not uncommon (funny thou): https://www.reddit.com/r/INGLIN/comments/1p76kk/good_to_see_the_doctor_agrees/ https://www.reddit.com/r/INGLIN/comments/1p76kk/good_to_see_...
  - chongli 6y ago
    There are loads of people who don’t like Shakespeare (possibly due to being forced to read his plays in school) and that’s fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion of him. What is much harder to argue against is his influence on the English language. Shakespeare introduced, into everyday use, a monumental staggering number of words, phrases, idioms, metaphors, and ideas. And that’s just the text of his work. His influence on the institution of theatre and its role in the development of actors is equally staggering. The comparison with Newton (and his influences on mathematics and physics) is apt.

tinalumfoil 6y ago

10 successes and 1000 failures is more valuable than 1 success and no failures.

perl4ever 6y ago

I don't think this sort of thing is rare, or a reflection of the time period he lived in or his status as an extreme outlier in historical influence. Many scientists spend a portion of their time in oddball or fruitless pursuits and sometimes it takes them over, particularly as they get older. Linus Pauling and Vitamin C is one thing that comes to mind. There was some scientist whose name I can't remember, was asked how he could be occupied by crazy ideas or obsessions and he said that these ideas came to him in exactly the same way as his deep scientific insights.

msandford 6y ago
Suggesting that Linus Pauling was wrong about vitamin C is an interesting choice. In my opinion he's looking more and more prescient. https://nypost.com/2020/03/24/new-york-hospitals-treating-coronavirus-patients-with-vitamin-c/ https://nypost.com/2020/03/24/new-york-hospitals-treating-co... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5996765/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5996765/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3937164/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3937164/ Just because someone looks silly to their contemporaries doesn't mean they're wrong. Look at Semmelweis. He figured out germs well before Pasteur. Doctors didn't accept it because they didn't like the implications: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis Sagan says it best. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/85171-one-of-the-saddest-lessons-of-history-is-this-if https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/85171-one-of-the-saddest-le...
- perl4ever 6y ago
  I wasn't stating that he was "wrong", I was suggesting that regardless of whether you can find any merit to any of his opinions, it was kind of an odd, dubious obsession that people don't uniformly respect unlike other accomplishments he had.

freyr 6y ago

Were these studies inconsistent with a curious mind and the limitations of knowledge at the time? In any research, some avenues of investigation are fruitful and others are not. When people look back on us 300 years from today, they'll likely find many cases of geniuses working on things that seem naive or misguided in retrospect.

onemoresoop 6y ago
You can say the same thing about the limitations nowaadays. Looking back from the future we’ll have learned a lot of things that we are thinking now will be seen as preposterous when more knowledge is covered.
- freyr 6y ago
  That’s exactly what I wrote.
sunstone 6y ago
Someone once described genius as taking a shot in the dark and hitting something. In which case, taking more shots does increase your odds.

david-cako 6y ago

Natural philosophy and alchemy were names for science before science. Alchemy had a connotation of being very ceremonial; knowledge had to spread by group gatherings and word of mouth. Cutting edge science today would have been called alchemy historically. Artificial intelligence, gene editing, etc. Fortunately scientists have a pretty good reputation now, where alchemists of the past had to research and convene in secret.

ColanR 6y ago
People don't realize, I think, how much modern science owes its tools and methodologies to alchemy. I like your comparison between alchemy and AI. Even modern neural nets would fit alchemical concepts pretty well - "we flattened a rock, put lightning inside it, and made it speak to us with a human voice!"

Hokusai 6y ago

> Same goes for Isaac Newton. He’s practically been elevated to godhood for his contributions to calculus and physics. The way British write confuses many people. "Newton is the greatest of the greatest", "Shakespeare is the mos prolific writer that ever lived", ""... British writers love hyperbole. The fact that the writing style aligns with national pride helps to create a positive feedback of "grandiose writing". That does not mean that there is ill intent. The target consumers of the writing are the British readers themselves, and almost all societies have a good self esteem. The fact that globally we communicate in English has tip the balance towards sharing American and British views of the world over the rest and created an over hype of some charismatic national myths.

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
Such excessive writing only occurs amongst very few people, them who feel their job is 'culture'. I've heard far too much of it about shakespeare, and I think it undeserved. He's not that great. Emperor/clothes etc. I've really not heard anything similar about newton though. Don't confuse those very few who surf their own hyperbole with the average brit (I'm one).
- Hokusai 6y ago
  > Don't confuse those very few who surf their own hyperbole with the average brit (I'm one). I see your point. And, as any generalization, my point does not apply to all British citizens. But, that grandiose talking is not uncommon (funny thou): https://www.reddit.com/r/INGLIN/comments/1p76kk/good_to_see_the_doctor_agrees/ https://www.reddit.com/r/INGLIN/comments/1p76kk/good_to_see_...
- chongli 6y ago
  There are loads of people who don’t like Shakespeare (possibly due to being forced to read his plays in school) and that’s fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion of him. What is much harder to argue against is his influence on the English language. Shakespeare introduced, into everyday use, a monumental staggering number of words, phrases, idioms, metaphors, and ideas. And that’s just the text of his work. His influence on the institution of theatre and its role in the development of actors is equally staggering. The comparison with Newton (and his influences on mathematics and physics) is apt.