4 ms·

Newton often gets derided for his unfruitful efforts at unlocking alchemy, but there's something admirable there. He was willing to take on bold, grand ideas th

Newton often gets derided for his unfruitful efforts at unlocking alchemy, but there's something admirable there. He was willing to take on bold, grand ideas that were not obviously wrong. I'd even venture to say that in the 17th century, the concept of alchemy sounds much more reasonable than the idea that there is an 'invisible' force of attraction between everything in the universe. A lot of this derision for Newton's alchemy comes from hindsight knowledge of the hundreds of years of chemistry knowledge we've since accumulated. And in the end, he wasn't really wrong in principle about whether alchemy is possible. He was just off on the scale of energy required.

acqq 6y ago
Yes, modern chemistry starts with Lavoisier's "Traité Élémentaire de Chimie" (1789) and development of chemistry as a science took a lot of time: only in 20th century the existence of atoms was finally proven. Up to then there were still some scientists who denied the existence of atoms, one of the last of the famous ones: Ernst Mach: "he famously declared, after an 1897 lecture by Ludwig Boltzmann at the Imperial Academy of Science in Vienna: "I don't believe that atoms exist!"" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Mach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Mach Newton died in 1727. He followed however not only unscientific paths in alchemy, but also in his analysis of the ancient texts. Both reflect the time he lived and his own beliefs, which influenced these endeavors. With hindsight, we know that these investigations didn't advance humanity's knowledge, but are interesting for history. It can be that he even discovered something scientifically interesting while doing alchemy, but he had his reasons to try to hide that work and apparently some of these papers never survived to this day. And what survived wasn't public until 20th century, contrary to the principles of science.
- fsloth 6y ago
  Yes, the history of the atomic model where it became indisputable is _quite_ recent. And before this the structure of matter was more or less a disputable mystery. The atomic model became undisputable after Jean Perrin's experiments in 1908 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Baptiste_Perrin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Baptiste_Perrin And only after being prompted by the investigations of Einstein published in 1905 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cber_die_von_der_molekularkinetischen_Theorie_der_W%C3%A4rme_geforderte_Bewegung_von_in_ruhenden_Fl%C3%BCssigkeiten_suspendierten_Teilchen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cber_die_von_der_molekula... The size of this mystery gets forgotten in modern discussion - but getting to the bottom on how the world is built was among the biggest triumphs of modern world. And the people who lived before the 20th century should not be belittled for lacking this knowledge.
  - whatshisface 6y ago
    >The atomic model became undisputable after Jean Perrin's experiments in 1908 For the people reading this who know more about science than history of science (like me), this is referring to cathode rays and experimental verification of Einstein's "constant collisions from molecules" Brownian motion model. >but getting to the bottom on how the world is built was among the biggest triumphs of modern world. We are not at the bottom yet. :)
  - acqq 6y ago
    It wasn't that much "a mystery" , more that there were those who lived in denial, like Mach. On the positive side, much before Mach, there was obvious scientific progress. Not much later after Lavoisier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_theory#Avogadro https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_theory#Avogadro "Avogadro was able to offer more accurate estimates of the atomic mass of oxygen and various other elements, and made a clear distinction between molecules and atoms." (Since 1811). Mach and similar simply denied what was already discovered, often not even wanting to consider that, sticking to their beliefs. Mach was "physicist and philosopher," not a chemist. Not having a definitive proof for physical existence doesn't mean that chemistry haven't already used the concepts. Today too there are scientists who after they became prominent for some work start to spread the false beliefs, some realizing that at the moment they are too hard to disprove, even when most of the experts don't believe them. And some get more influence than it would be scientifically valid. The progress is not something automatically guaranteed, it's always the result of hard work and perseverance.
spaetzleesser 6y ago
Totally agree. He tried to solve difficult problems, with some he succeeded, with others he didn’t. He would deserve derision if he had published theories about alchemy, but he didn’t.
- WealthVsSurvive 6y ago
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe he knew the difference between the success and failures; it was all just piled up and someone had to come along, sort through it, and tell him it was important. He sought patterns.
  - spaetzleesser 6y ago
    Didn’t he publish his work about gravity and light but not about alchemy ? It seems to me he had a pretty good handle on results that were worth publishing vs the ones that weren’t.
racl101 6y ago
It's like geez, what intellectual endeavour pie didn't this guy have his hands in? Almost every waking moment of his prime years were devoted to major intellectual pursuits.
- sieabahlpark 6y ago
  That's why not everyone is a great scientist.

acqq 6y ago

Yes, modern chemistry starts with Lavoisier's "Traité Élémentaire de Chimie" (1789) and development of chemistry as a science took a lot of time: only in 20th century the existence of atoms was finally proven. Up to then there were still some scientists who denied the existence of atoms, one of the last of the famous ones: Ernst Mach: "he famously declared, after an 1897 lecture by Ludwig Boltzmann at the Imperial Academy of Science in Vienna: "I don't believe that atoms exist!"" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Mach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Mach Newton died in 1727. He followed however not only unscientific paths in alchemy, but also in his analysis of the ancient texts. Both reflect the time he lived and his own beliefs, which influenced these endeavors. With hindsight, we know that these investigations didn't advance humanity's knowledge, but are interesting for history. It can be that he even discovered something scientifically interesting while doing alchemy, but he had his reasons to try to hide that work and apparently some of these papers never survived to this day. And what survived wasn't public until 20th century, contrary to the principles of science.

fsloth 6y ago
Yes, the history of the atomic model where it became indisputable is _quite_ recent. And before this the structure of matter was more or less a disputable mystery. The atomic model became undisputable after Jean Perrin's experiments in 1908 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Baptiste_Perrin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Baptiste_Perrin And only after being prompted by the investigations of Einstein published in 1905 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cber_die_von_der_molekularkinetischen_Theorie_der_W%C3%A4rme_geforderte_Bewegung_von_in_ruhenden_Fl%C3%BCssigkeiten_suspendierten_Teilchen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cber_die_von_der_molekula... The size of this mystery gets forgotten in modern discussion - but getting to the bottom on how the world is built was among the biggest triumphs of modern world. And the people who lived before the 20th century should not be belittled for lacking this knowledge.
- whatshisface 6y ago
  >The atomic model became undisputable after Jean Perrin's experiments in 1908 For the people reading this who know more about science than history of science (like me), this is referring to cathode rays and experimental verification of Einstein's "constant collisions from molecules" Brownian motion model. >but getting to the bottom on how the world is built was among the biggest triumphs of modern world. We are not at the bottom yet. :)
- acqq 6y ago
  It wasn't that much "a mystery" , more that there were those who lived in denial, like Mach. On the positive side, much before Mach, there was obvious scientific progress. Not much later after Lavoisier: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_theory#Avogadro https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_theory#Avogadro "Avogadro was able to offer more accurate estimates of the atomic mass of oxygen and various other elements, and made a clear distinction between molecules and atoms." (Since 1811). Mach and similar simply denied what was already discovered, often not even wanting to consider that, sticking to their beliefs. Mach was "physicist and philosopher," not a chemist. Not having a definitive proof for physical existence doesn't mean that chemistry haven't already used the concepts. Today too there are scientists who after they became prominent for some work start to spread the false beliefs, some realizing that at the moment they are too hard to disprove, even when most of the experts don't believe them. And some get more influence than it would be scientifically valid. The progress is not something automatically guaranteed, it's always the result of hard work and perseverance.

spaetzleesser 6y ago

Totally agree. He tried to solve difficult problems, with some he succeeded, with others he didn’t. He would deserve derision if he had published theories about alchemy, but he didn’t.

WealthVsSurvive 6y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe he knew the difference between the success and failures; it was all just piled up and someone had to come along, sort through it, and tell him it was important. He sought patterns.
- spaetzleesser 6y ago
  Didn’t he publish his work about gravity and light but not about alchemy ? It seems to me he had a pretty good handle on results that were worth publishing vs the ones that weren’t.

racl101 6y ago

It's like geez, what intellectual endeavour pie didn't this guy have his hands in? Almost every waking moment of his prime years were devoted to major intellectual pursuits.

sieabahlpark 6y ago
That's why not everyone is a great scientist.