Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Risk of Discovery

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 344 posts

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#141

Post by all_usernames »

tbabb wrote: post #129
jat850 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Theology is the study of religion or things supernatural, not necessarily tied to a practice in any belief.

How can you study the properties of something you don't believe exists? Edit: People are downvoting this, but I genuinely want to know how "theology is the study of supernatural things" and "theology does not rely on belief in the supernatural" are not in complete contradiction.

Religious faith from certain perspectives is something like: choosing to believe despite being unable to comprehend with your rational mind. That's the basic core of the inquiry, you start from there and see what happens.

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#142

Post by madgar »

quadrangle wrote: post #131
matt4077 wrote: post #107

It's either ignorant or insulting to name theology in the same breath as alchemy. Theology is still an academic discipline and it doesn't even require a believe in the supernatural. Unless this is pg's attempt to insert himself into fight about "theology" vs. "religious studies".

to use etymology: theology -> theism. It's the study of divine, god, etc. that sort of thing. It's not a normal scientific pursuit. Sure, it's still an academic discipline but not one with any scientific rigor or merit. To assert that its continued existence is what makes it more legitimate than alchemy is some mix of appeal to authority and appeal to popularity.

See reductionism: https://xkcd.com/1734/

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#143

Post by nocman »

"Physics seems to us a promising thing to work on, and alchemy and theology obvious wastes of time."

I'm not sure which "us" pg is referring to, but the essay gives me the impression that he meant something like "most people" (I could be reading him wrong, but that was my impression). Alchemy is obviously a waste of time -- I won't dispute that, and I suspect that "most people" would agree with that assertion.

Being that pg is an atheist, I would expect him to personally believe that the study of theology is a waste of time. However, even just taking Christian theology into account, given that over 100 million Bibles are sold or given away in the world every year (https://www.reference.com/world-view/many-copies-bible-sold-...), and the Bible continues to be "the most widely distributed and best-selling book in the world.", the "us" for which it is true that the study of theology is "crazy" or a "waste of time" seems to me to be much smaller group of people than the essay seems to imply.

Again, this is just the impression I got from reading the essay. I would be happy to have pg respond and let me know if my impression was incorrect.

(edited to remove unintentional indenting)

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#144

Post by jat850 »

quadrangle wrote: post #131
matt4077 wrote: post #107

It's either ignorant or insulting to name theology in the same breath as alchemy. Theology is still an academic discipline and it doesn't even require a believe in the supernatural. Unless this is pg's attempt to insert himself into fight about "theology" vs. "religious studies".

to use etymology: theology -> theism. It's the study of divine, god, etc. that sort of thing. It's not a normal scientific pursuit. Sure, it's still an academic discipline but not one with any scientific rigor or merit. To assert that its continued existence is what makes it more legitimate than alchemy is some mix of appeal to authority and appeal to popularity.

I'm going to disagree with the "or merit" part. For two reasons - the first being related to theology itself, and the other related to another field which is sometimes classified as being without scientific rigor - philosophy.

One merit of theology is the study of religious traditions and whether or not they should continue or be discouraged for various reasons, as an example.

Not only scientific pursuits have merit. I'm not sure if that's what you were trying to imply with your combination of statements, but it's possible to infer that from your choice of words.

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#145

Post by pc86 »

zanny wrote: post #74
js8 wrote: post #48

I find it funny that capitalism requires what is essentially an irrational behavior. It seems to me that big public corporations, which avoid risk, and only buy startups once they have been established, are the rational actors. On the other hands, three guys in the garage doing a startup often do it not because they calculate expected profits, but because they want to do it for other than monetary reasons - typically…

Startups are not much risk, though. You start out without, you try to make something, if it doesn't work out just having the experience as long as it wasn't a total catastrophe makes you hirable anywhere you want or you try again. The most you might lose is the support of friends and family if your dreams aren't fully realized. Which can be a lot, but that is why the people who have the most to lose don't try startup…

Founding a failed startup does not "make you hireable anywhere you want."

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#146

Post by all_usernames »

I find this essay pretty confusing. It seems to contradict itself at some basic level.

"Maybe the smartness and the craziness were not as separate as we think."

This seems kind of obvious to me. Yes, creative and driven people are interested in lots of strange things. Yes, genius often means the ability to take ideas or discoveries from apparently widely different areas and tie them together to form new understandings.

"Newton made three bets. One of them worked."

This makes no sense. Of course his physics was a success. But how could anyone judge the theological pursuits of an individual to be a success or a failure?

And if the pursuit was a failure, then doesn't that negate the earlier implication that his studying theology ("crazy") was in some ways associated with his success in physics ("genius")?

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#147

Post by gizmo »

maverick_iceman wrote: post #130
gizmo wrote: post #88

For people who wonder why YC and pg are okay with some of Peter Thiel's more extreme behavior, this is why. It's pretty interesting that pg describes the possible outcomes of contrarian ideas as either positive for society or merely a waste of time. Even though the pursuit of risky and contrarian ideas can also be hugely harmful for society.

Maybe they just believe in Thiel's free speech rights.

Peter Thiel isn't a regular guy with an imaginative twitter stream. He's an influential and highly connected billionaire. This has nothing to do with free speech.

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#148

Post by hueving »

nocman wrote: post #143

"Physics seems to us a promising thing to work on, and alchemy and theology obvious wastes of time." I'm not sure which "us" pg is referring to, but the essay gives me the impression that he meant something like "most people" (I could be reading him wrong, but that was my impression). Alchemy is obviously a waste of time -- I won't dispute that, and I suspect that "most people" would agree with that assertion. Being…

50 shades of gray was also a best selling book. However, I think most of the readers recognize that studying it is not going to advance technology/science in any way.

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#150

Post by hueving »

all_usernames wrote: post #141
tbabb wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can you study the properties of something you don't believe exists? Edit: People are downvoting this, but I genuinely want to know how "theology is the study of supernatural things" and "theology does not rely on belief in the supernatural" are not in complete contradiction.

Religious faith from certain perspectives is something like: choosing to believe despite being unable to comprehend with your rational mind. That's the basic core of the inquiry, you start from there and see what happens.

Choosing to believe without evidence is antithetical to the core of inquiry.
Post reply on HN