3 ms·

> Newton himself was deep into weird alchemy stuff. Did Newton get anything resembling an accurate idea of chemistry from studying it? Or was alchemy a horribl

> Newton himself was deep into weird alchemy stuff. Did Newton get anything resembling an accurate idea of chemistry from studying it? Or was alchemy a horrible distraction for a mind that was entirely capable of making huge advances in chemistry if the well hadn't been poisoned by mysticism? > A lot hinges here on "suggest" and "obvious" No, everything hinges on their analysis, which is what they were explicitly referring to. If I tell you that my analysis of my finances suggests that there are no obvious ways for me to buy a new house, I'm not using weasel words.

bonoboTP 3y ago
The distinction between mysticism and sane rational stuff is only clear in hindsight. There was no obvious intrinsic difference and indeed many contemporaries of Newton disliked the postulation of a seemingly mysterious universal force (gravity) that can influence objects across astronomical scales. While popular conception often equates Newton's ideas with the mechanistic "clockwork" view of the universe, gravity was in fact considered the opposite at the time. The more grounded and "sane" people wanted a "billiard ball" physicics where things interact more straightforwardly than gravity looked like. It's very hard to put ourselves in the shoes of those living in previous eras. If you think you can easily do it you most likely are missing something. Most scientists did stuff that is now considered a bit wacky. Mathematicians were deeply concerned about the theological implications of their work and indeed a lot of the motivation to do it came from a similar place in the first place. This is not an endorsement to believe any old nonsense. It is just that it's naive to think you could have prevented those detours. If you really think you could have just told Newton which parts are same and which parts are woo, based on some obvious first principles, you probably overestimate yourself. The reason we know that science works is by knowing what didn't work. If the scientific method and empiricism, model building etc was so straightforward, you bet that many smart people would have come up with it earlier. Whenever you actually look at real history, you will see that it's not some stupid superstitious people holding back the enlightened sane and rational scientists. It's humanity grappling with figuring things out, without answers handed down to them from anywhere. It's very easy to look down on quackery today that we have Wikipedia, textbooks, pop science, etc. But when you need to figure stuff out from nowhere it's much murkier.

bonoboTP 3y ago

The distinction between mysticism and sane rational stuff is only clear in hindsight. There was no obvious intrinsic difference and indeed many contemporaries of Newton disliked the postulation of a seemingly mysterious universal force (gravity) that can influence objects across astronomical scales. While popular conception often equates Newton's ideas with the mechanistic "clockwork" view of the universe, gravity was in fact considered the opposite at the time. The more grounded and "sane" people wanted a "billiard ball" physicics where things interact more straightforwardly than gravity looked like. It's very hard to put ourselves in the shoes of those living in previous eras. If you think you can easily do it you most likely are missing something. Most scientists did stuff that is now considered a bit wacky. Mathematicians were deeply concerned about the theological implications of their work and indeed a lot of the motivation to do it came from a similar place in the first place. This is not an endorsement to believe any old nonsense. It is just that it's naive to think you could have prevented those detours. If you really think you could have just told Newton which parts are same and which parts are woo, based on some obvious first principles, you probably overestimate yourself. The reason we know that science works is by knowing what didn't work. If the scientific method and empiricism, model building etc was so straightforward, you bet that many smart people would have come up with it earlier. Whenever you actually look at real history, you will see that it's not some stupid superstitious people holding back the enlightened sane and rational scientists. It's humanity grappling with figuring things out, without answers handed down to them from anywhere. It's very easy to look down on quackery today that we have Wikipedia, textbooks, pop science, etc. But when you need to figure stuff out from nowhere it's much murkier.