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

121–130 of 344 posts

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#121

Post by olavk »

lmkg wrote: post #32

I'm not sure that those lines of study were actually considered separate at the time. A century earlier than Newton's time, math and geometry were considered subfields of astronomy; and astronomy was considered the observation of the realm of the divine. Not only was there not a divide between physics and theology, people actually thought that math was a tool for studying theology (one of Copernicus' sources of incom…

Yeah alchemy seem like a completely different field than astronomy today, but at the time it was considered deeply connected - the metals was corresponding to the planets and so on. Because the heavenly order was considered reflected in the earthly materials and vice versa, studying one would lead you to greater understanding of the other.

For a modern viewpoint it might seem like Newton was "hedging his bets" by contributing to several totally different fields, but I don't think it was seen like that at the time. It was all "philosophy".

Other "philosophers" in the early modern period had similar interests. For example Tycho Brahe is remembered as an astronomer with a strong focus on empirical observation, but actually was just as focused on astrology, alchemy and medicine (which was connected to alchemy and astronomy because of the same philosophy).

Newton was a "renaissance man".

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#122

Post by jat850 »

tbabb wrote: post #118
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".

How does theology not involve a belief in the supernatural?

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

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#123

Post by vumgl »

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".

I find theology and alchemy very similar. Both go to great lengths to prove something that is highly desirable for a human (afterlife and cheap gold) but very unlikely if judged with a clear mind.

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#125

Post by jp_sc »

callmeed wrote: post #102
kukx wrote: post #75

I don't think that studing chemistry (I like to think about alchemy as a precursor of chemistry) or theology should be stigmatized. I understand that it was just an example to support the core idea of the article, but it still leaves a bad taste.

I got that too. The essay definitely had an anti-religious undertone to me.

You cannot study what -by definition- it's impossible to observe or measure directly or indirectly. Believing in God it's an act of faith, you cannot KNOW nothing.

So yes, in modern times, theology and alchemy has the same scientific value: none

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#126

Post by ajuc »

js8 wrote: post #99
nabla9 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capitalism don't require irrational behavior. What is needed are things like comparative advantage and economic profit[1]. Someone who has capital has different incentives than someone who whose major offering is labor or expertise. Newton's studies were motivated by his dislike of farming and need to revenge a bully. He got time for his most productive work because plague closed the University for two years. ---- [1…

Do you agree there is a difference in behavior between startups and big companies, though? In the way they are willing to invest into something? If you agree, then how can you say both act rationally? Why wouldn't rational people who have labor to offer, instead of joining a startup, go work for a big company? The pay is usually better I hear. Addendum: I am sure you can explain the difference in behavior by invoking…

> If you agree, then how can you say both act rationally?

Why should there be only 1 optimal way to play this game?

Example of a game with 2 optimal ways to play - tossing a coin and betting on head or tail.

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#127

Post by richardfeynman »

When people say that Newton studied alchemy, what they actually mean was that he studied chemistry. He was studying what happens when you do different things to different elements. Sure he used the language of the time, but he was fundamentally doing chemistry. And the dream of the alchemists -- to turn base materials into gold -- was ultimately more or less realized when Henri Moissan created the first artificial diamond. Alchemy has a bad rep, mostly because it was shrouded in mystery and obfuscation, but at its core it was science, the pursuit of knowledge through experimentation.

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#128

Post by anExcitedBeast »

vumgl wrote: post #123
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".

I find theology and alchemy very similar. Both go to great lengths to prove something that is highly desirable for a human (afterlife and cheap gold) but very unlikely if judged with a clear mind.

Theology is a broad term and includes the anthropology of religion, history, and philosophy. Many atheists study theology in good faith.

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#129

Post by tbabb »

jat850 wrote: post #122
tbabb wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does theology not involve a belief in the supernatural?

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.

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#130

Post by maverick_iceman »

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.
Post reply on HN