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

131–140 of 344 posts

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#131

Post by quadrangle »

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.

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#132

Post by all_usernames »

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".

Leaving aside alchemy, (which one can assume most people are fairly uninformed about), the whole notion that theology ought to be considered a waste of time in modern day belies a pretty surprising degree of ignorance.

The study of God and religious ideas is equivalent to the study of human nature and the significance of existence itself. This is true regardless of which belief system you care to study.

Even avoiding deep concepts usually not found in this forum, religion remains at the heart of the greatest human conflicts of the present day, and is critically central to any understanding of the largest cultural forces in the world. Yeah, what a waste of time!

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#133

Post by abakker »

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.

There was a good discussion related to this yesterday on Dr. Michael Burry. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13374573 Interesting discussions about reasonable risks, even when we know in hindsight that the outcomes were good.

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#135

Post by quadrangle »

anExcitedBeast wrote: post #128
vumgl wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's just like if the NAME "alchemy" had been kept and continued to be used for what we now call "chemistry". Changing the name helped the bullshit die away. If it were all "alchemy" we'd have some advanced chemists but also some people continuing the bullshit and asserting that alchemy is legitimate. It's quite unfortunate to keep the name "theology" for the practice of the anthropology of religion or the history of religion.

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#136

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.

You've stumbled upon one of the most profound spiritual questions there is.

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#138

Post by maverick_iceman »

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…

How's taking a calculated risk an irrational behavior? By your definition rational behavior would require perfect knowledge about the future, a goal forever beyond those of us mere mortals.

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#139

Post by madgar »

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.

pg has no reason to fear for the impact of "contrarian ideas" like fascism. His person is secure for life. Nobody has threatened his way of life, and he knows nobody can credibly threaten his way of life.

Lost lives may be merely wasted time if you take a maximally macro view of humanity. That detachment is likely comforting if you can pull it off. Me, personally though... I'm a social human being and I care about - even love - other human beings, and their lives represent far more to me than that.

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#140

Post by spraak »

balsam wrote: post #49
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…

PG wants to make startups/hackers surpass earth-shattering thinkers, by considering the differences in the existential risks taken by each. Newton was betting (in PG's interpretation) that he would not go crazy or be seen as crazy. The existential risk for thinkers. Now to make scummy => crazy, where "=>" can also mean "greater or equals to".

Usually I see "greater or equals to" written as >=

Anyways, why shouldn't founders/hackers reach for such heights? But if I didn't know Paul Graham's background, I wouldn't assume that's what this essay infers. Rather, the essay doesn't say anything directly about startups.

I'm curious what's scummy about them to you?

Post reply on HN