3 ms·

> Take the famed scientist Issac Newton for example, despite all his scientific knowledge and logical reasoning he wasted the second half of his life trying to

> Take the famed scientist Issac Newton for example, despite all his scientific knowledge and logical reasoning he wasted the second half of his life trying to turn other metals into gold, alchemy - based nothing more than biblical text. Prior to the atomic model invented several hundred years later, given there was examples of metals turning into other metals (i.e. iron turning into steel, copper turning into brass)... I don't think there was much of a reason to think that the transmutation of metals into Gold wouldn't be possible. And it in fact sort of turns out to be possible in certain circumstances. We can make gold from lead (although it requires a particle accelerator).

zmgsabst 4y ago
Alchemists being “wrong” is like Michelson-Morley “failing”: More branding than reality, since we accomplished their projects later — transmuting elements and detecting the aether. Ironically, this seems to be a cognitive bias — we never update our first impression nor put together a story across terminology changes. Carlo Rovelli gives an interesting talk on how we’re too quick to dismiss ancient scholars. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=an5-KLvvMGM&t=1199s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=an5-KLvvMGM&t=1199s
- marginalia_nu 4y ago
  It's really fascinating to read historical accounts of science. Cicero's De Natura Deorum has an incredible account various antique world views and how they're motivated. Most of it is wrong in some sense in the light of modern science, but what's fascinating is how often they get things right. It's like they're using poorly chosen basis vectors, and muddling some concepts we now understand to be distinct: They seem to have associated energy and/or thermodynamic heat with the element of fire; the gaseous phase with air and buoyancy, the liquid phase with water, the solid phase with earth and gravity. It's very clear why the model stood for as long as it did despite some remarkably clever people looking into it. It actually fits the empirical evidence pretty well.
- evv555 4y ago
  >More branding than reality, since we accomplished their projects later — transmuting elements and detecting the aether. Arguably this was accomplished using the work of alchemists. Ontologies tend to progress through stages of differentiation of components("stamp collecting") followed by integrative models. Mendeleev doesn't find periodic patterns in elements without alchemists first inventorying elemental features.
largepeepee 4y ago
Certainly there is that possibly, problem is where he stemmed his research from - biblical text. He used dates and accounts of ancient myths for many of his data points. Combing the bible over and over for clues, wasting much of his talent and decades on false leads. Flawed research leading to dead ends despite his brilliance. Which is the point of the post, intelligence does not make one immune to bias.

zmgsabst 4y ago

Alchemists being “wrong” is like Michelson-Morley “failing”: More branding than reality, since we accomplished their projects later — transmuting elements and detecting the aether. Ironically, this seems to be a cognitive bias — we never update our first impression nor put together a story across terminology changes. Carlo Rovelli gives an interesting talk on how we’re too quick to dismiss ancient scholars. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=an5-KLvvMGM&t=1199s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=an5-KLvvMGM&t=1199s

marginalia_nu 4y ago
It's really fascinating to read historical accounts of science. Cicero's De Natura Deorum has an incredible account various antique world views and how they're motivated. Most of it is wrong in some sense in the light of modern science, but what's fascinating is how often they get things right. It's like they're using poorly chosen basis vectors, and muddling some concepts we now understand to be distinct: They seem to have associated energy and/or thermodynamic heat with the element of fire; the gaseous phase with air and buoyancy, the liquid phase with water, the solid phase with earth and gravity. It's very clear why the model stood for as long as it did despite some remarkably clever people looking into it. It actually fits the empirical evidence pretty well.
evv555 4y ago
>More branding than reality, since we accomplished their projects later — transmuting elements and detecting the aether. Arguably this was accomplished using the work of alchemists. Ontologies tend to progress through stages of differentiation of components("stamp collecting") followed by integrative models. Mendeleev doesn't find periodic patterns in elements without alchemists first inventorying elemental features.

largepeepee 4y ago

Certainly there is that possibly, problem is where he stemmed his research from - biblical text. He used dates and accounts of ancient myths for many of his data points. Combing the bible over and over for clues, wasting much of his talent and decades on false leads. Flawed research leading to dead ends despite his brilliance. Which is the point of the post, intelligence does not make one immune to bias.