4 ms·

The funny thing about Newton is that he was treating pseudo-science like alchemy with the same level of seriousness as actual science he helped advance so much.

The funny thing about Newton is that he was treating pseudo-science like alchemy with the same level of seriousness as actual science he helped advance so much. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_occult_studies#Alchemical_research https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_occult_stud...

beenBoutIT 6y ago
Alchemy wasn't scientifically disproven until the 19th century, so Newton had no choice but to explore it. If transforming base metals to gold was scientifically plausible and illegal(as it was in Newton's day) most of us on this board would be chasing after it at full speed right now.
- ip26 6y ago
  Making matters worse, nuclear fusion practically is alchemy.
  - redwall_hp 6y ago
    I've always thought there was something poetic about that. The ancient Greeks gave us the name "atom," the indivisible unit. The alchemists chased the goal of breaking down base metals (splitting the atom) and transmuting the components into gold. Then in the 20th century, the physics were finally mapped out. The atom was split, unveiling the subatomic world, and we know full well that atoms can be fused. The term "transmutation" is even used. It's like an ancient quest finally reached a conclusion, albeit not in the convenient way they would have hoped.
    - lioeters 6y ago
      Some of the scientists working on the Manhattan Project were certainly aware of associations with mythological themes. > Oppenheimer later recalled that, while witnessing the explosion, he thought of a verse from the Hindu holy book, the Bhagavad Gita: > "If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky, that would be like the splendor of the mighty one." I'm fond of mythopoetic perspectives on technology, to find parallels in texts from the antiquities or the Renaissance. From their point of view, we in the modern world must seem to live like magicians, communicating over vast distances, peering into our "looking glass".
- tpetricek 6y ago
  It's not just that alchemy was not "scientifically disproven" in Newton's time. There was no such thing as "scientific" and "pseudo-scientific". Reading about Newton's thinking about alchemy is a fascinating look at a way of thinking that we can hardly imagine today. I also thought that it is a nice reminder of the (certain but unimaginable) limitations of our present thinking. There is a fascinating (but pretty academic) book about Newton's Alchemy: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Foundations-Newtons-Alchemy-Cambridge-Paperback/dp/0521273811 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Foundations-Newtons-Alchemy-Cambrid...
  - submeta 6y ago
    What a wonderful perspective to look at this. We take so many things for granted. The knowledge we have is beautifully compartmented by artificial boundaries we take for granted. All the faculties we have: we rarely question the architecture of this building of knowledge we grow up with.
armitron 6y ago
Newton was first and foremost, an alchemist. His mathematical pursuits were an afterthought, certainly not what took up the vast majority of his time which was alchemy. There is a lot we still don't know and the tendency to condense and distort is everpresent, but the facts are a lot more interesting than the oversimplifications one usually encounters in modern books about Newton's alchemy. For instance, the focus tends to lie on alchemical transmutation (which is erroneously equated with making gold) rather than Newton's worldview (intensely religious) and philosophy (alchemical). That Newman has cheekily renamed alchemy to chymistry in his output, reinforces the fact that a specific agenda is being pushed rather than an attempt made to acquire holistic understanding.
goto11 6y ago
I wouldn't call alchemy a pseudo-science. Pseudo-science is something pretending to be science but which is not using legitimate scientific methods (falsifiable hypotheses, reproducible experiments and so on). Alchemy was the study of transformations of matter and did use experiments (rather than just making stuff up, like a typical pseudo-science). Turned out some of the hypotheses were wrong.

beenBoutIT 6y ago

Alchemy wasn't scientifically disproven until the 19th century, so Newton had no choice but to explore it. If transforming base metals to gold was scientifically plausible and illegal(as it was in Newton's day) most of us on this board would be chasing after it at full speed right now.

ip26 6y ago
Making matters worse, nuclear fusion practically is alchemy.
- redwall_hp 6y ago
  I've always thought there was something poetic about that. The ancient Greeks gave us the name "atom," the indivisible unit. The alchemists chased the goal of breaking down base metals (splitting the atom) and transmuting the components into gold. Then in the 20th century, the physics were finally mapped out. The atom was split, unveiling the subatomic world, and we know full well that atoms can be fused. The term "transmutation" is even used. It's like an ancient quest finally reached a conclusion, albeit not in the convenient way they would have hoped.
  - lioeters 6y ago
    Some of the scientists working on the Manhattan Project were certainly aware of associations with mythological themes. > Oppenheimer later recalled that, while witnessing the explosion, he thought of a verse from the Hindu holy book, the Bhagavad Gita: > "If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky, that would be like the splendor of the mighty one." I'm fond of mythopoetic perspectives on technology, to find parallels in texts from the antiquities or the Renaissance. From their point of view, we in the modern world must seem to live like magicians, communicating over vast distances, peering into our "looking glass".
tpetricek 6y ago
It's not just that alchemy was not "scientifically disproven" in Newton's time. There was no such thing as "scientific" and "pseudo-scientific". Reading about Newton's thinking about alchemy is a fascinating look at a way of thinking that we can hardly imagine today. I also thought that it is a nice reminder of the (certain but unimaginable) limitations of our present thinking. There is a fascinating (but pretty academic) book about Newton's Alchemy: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Foundations-Newtons-Alchemy-Cambridge-Paperback/dp/0521273811 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Foundations-Newtons-Alchemy-Cambrid...
- submeta 6y ago
  What a wonderful perspective to look at this. We take so many things for granted. The knowledge we have is beautifully compartmented by artificial boundaries we take for granted. All the faculties we have: we rarely question the architecture of this building of knowledge we grow up with.

armitron 6y ago

Newton was first and foremost, an alchemist. His mathematical pursuits were an afterthought, certainly not what took up the vast majority of his time which was alchemy. There is a lot we still don't know and the tendency to condense and distort is everpresent, but the facts are a lot more interesting than the oversimplifications one usually encounters in modern books about Newton's alchemy. For instance, the focus tends to lie on alchemical transmutation (which is erroneously equated with making gold) rather than Newton's worldview (intensely religious) and philosophy (alchemical). That Newman has cheekily renamed alchemy to chymistry in his output, reinforces the fact that a specific agenda is being pushed rather than an attempt made to acquire holistic understanding.

goto11 6y ago

I wouldn't call alchemy a pseudo-science. Pseudo-science is something pretending to be science but which is not using legitimate scientific methods (falsifiable hypotheses, reproducible experiments and so on). Alchemy was the study of transformations of matter and did use experiments (rather than just making stuff up, like a typical pseudo-science). Turned out some of the hypotheses were wrong.