4 ms·

Any modern-ish scientific writings like these (18th century onward) where the English, although awash with fluffy phrases and words that make any writer cringe,

Any modern-ish scientific writings like these (18th century onward) where the English, although awash with fluffy phrases and words that make any writer cringe, is readable enough to where one can grasp the gist are a pleasure to read. People spoke with such authority and a matter-of-factness that nowadays is laughable. The concept of there being unknown unknowns must have never registered for so many of the day.

hnal943 12y ago
There's still plenty of matter-of-fact smugness in our own day.
innguest 12y ago
> The concept of there being unknown unknowns must have never registered for so many of the day. "I think history is a lot more interesting and makes a lot more sense when you finally realize that people in the past were just as aware and smart as us, as opposed to the bumbling idiots we often assume them to be." -- rthomas6 : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9032743 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9032743 I disagree with rthomas6 from the cross post linked above. I think in the past people were intellectually dishonest which led them to write and act like know-it-all pathological liars.
- TomSawyer 12y ago
  Yeah, that doesn't happen anymore. Our elite are the real deal.
  - kbenson 12y ago
    No, but perhaps the common person has enough education now to see and call out the bullshit that may have been able to pass in ages past. It's not that our elites are better, it's that they aren't viewed as exempt from common mishaps and misbehaviors as they perhaps were in the past.
- Torgo 12y ago
  People get their shockingly incorrect sex advice from Youtube personalities now.
kens 12y ago
You can find this authoritative ignorance of unknowns in more recent writings too. It's interesting to read a pre-1960s geology book - before continental drift was proven - and see how they explain continent formation. They'll often present some totally wrong theory without any trace of doubt. Another example is pre-1960s biology books that talk about DNA and give it a bogus role. To be clear, I'm not criticizing these books for not having the answers, or even for being wrong. It's being confidently, authoritatively wrong that is concerning. It also makes me wonder how much of what we read now is also authoritatively wrong. (I have my suspicious about cosmology.) A counterexample is the book "Molecular Biology of the Cell", which is good about explicitly pointing out what is unknown rather than papering over it.

hnal943 12y ago

There's still plenty of matter-of-fact smugness in our own day.

innguest 12y ago

> The concept of there being unknown unknowns must have never registered for so many of the day. "I think history is a lot more interesting and makes a lot more sense when you finally realize that people in the past were just as aware and smart as us, as opposed to the bumbling idiots we often assume them to be." -- rthomas6 : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9032743 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9032743 I disagree with rthomas6 from the cross post linked above. I think in the past people were intellectually dishonest which led them to write and act like know-it-all pathological liars.

TomSawyer 12y ago
Yeah, that doesn't happen anymore. Our elite are the real deal.
- kbenson 12y ago
  No, but perhaps the common person has enough education now to see and call out the bullshit that may have been able to pass in ages past. It's not that our elites are better, it's that they aren't viewed as exempt from common mishaps and misbehaviors as they perhaps were in the past.
Torgo 12y ago
People get their shockingly incorrect sex advice from Youtube personalities now.

kens 12y ago

You can find this authoritative ignorance of unknowns in more recent writings too. It's interesting to read a pre-1960s geology book - before continental drift was proven - and see how they explain continent formation. They'll often present some totally wrong theory without any trace of doubt. Another example is pre-1960s biology books that talk about DNA and give it a bogus role. To be clear, I'm not criticizing these books for not having the answers, or even for being wrong. It's being confidently, authoritatively wrong that is concerning. It also makes me wonder how much of what we read now is also authoritatively wrong. (I have my suspicious about cosmology.) A counterexample is the book "Molecular Biology of the Cell", which is good about explicitly pointing out what is unknown rather than papering over it.