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

251–260 of 344 posts

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#251

Post by argonaut »

nocman wrote: post #209
olavk wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Newton was trying to predict the end of the world by studying the Bible. The people who wrote the Bible did not actually have any privileged information about the end of the world. Therefore his endeavor was a waste of time. As far as I know Newtons theology had absolutely no impact on anybody except himself.

"The people who wrote the Bible did not actually have any 'privileged information about the end of the world.'" Well, you might believe they did not, but many people in the world believe they did. If you do not accept the Bible as revelation from God (and I would guess from your response that you do not), then I can see why you would reach that conclusion. If, however, you do accept the Bible as revelation from God,…

Except even most modern theologians do not take the Bible literally.

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#252

Post by argonaut »

steejk wrote: post #117

This is similar to what Ben Thompson just wrote about [1]. It's easy to forget the bets, such as Apple TV, that weren't so successful. [1] https://stratechery.com/2017/the-ten-year-anniversary-of-the...

Most people have not forgotten the Apple TV.

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#253

Post by Houshalter »

cup wrote: post #229
nitrogen wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scientists can become very selective when dealing with alternatives to their world view. No, they just remember people for their contributions rather than their mistakes.

Pretty arrogant and ignorant statement considering some of our best scientific discoveries were mistakes.

If its a great scientific discovery than it's not a mistake.

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#254

Post by Fargren »

amsilprotag wrote: post #213
pc2g4d wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it matters what his particular theology was. What matters is that theology matters. It affects how people experience and interpret religion, which has a vast impact on the world. So the article's utter dismissal of theology as a waste of time seems misguided to me. Alchemy as well was not so ridiculous as people seem to think. Modern hatred for alchemy seems more like a way of patting ourselves on the b…

The essay isn't about what matters in the absolute. It's about deciding where to spend a marginal hour, year, or life with imperfect information. And it's obviously true in retrospect that Newton's lifetime was spent in a way which produced more good to society than yet another theological life. Contrast his contributions to the most prominent 17th century theologians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_…

John Milton is on that list. Newton was exceptionally important, but our world would be poorer without Paradise Lost. I'm glad Milton spent his time as he did.

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#255

Post by noam87 »

dhfhduk wrote: post #194
kowdermeister wrote: post #18

> Newton made three bets. One of them worked. But they were all risky. Except it was three: - Optics - Gravitation and mechanics - Mathematics There are many scientists out there who spend a lifetime on theories that turn out to be bogus, but calling it a bet is entirely missing the point.

A couple of years ago, I went to a museum exhibition of DaVinci's notebooks. I was completely unprepared for what was my primary reaction: that DaVinci just documented every idea in his head, and that some of them just happened to pan out. But for some reason, we credit him for the small percentage of ideas that just happened to work, and ignore all the wrong ideas. To me, he didn't seem like a genius, he seemed very…

About mathematician Yutaka Taniyama:

> He was not a very careful person as a mathematician. He made a lot of mistakes. But he made mistakes in a good direction. I tried to imitate him. But I’ve realized that it’s very difficult to make good mistakes.

I bet if you compared DaVinci's mistakes to the mistakes of your average Renaissance thinker you'd find a striking difference in calliber (and breadth).

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#256

Post by emmelaich »

I honestly think that Newton was well aware of the unlikelihood of making breakthroughs in theology and alchemy[1].

In physics he had a lower[2] benefit but much higher probability of progress.

  1. Plus he went a little mad from chemical fumes.
  2. Really.  Imagine[3] making a real breakthrough in alchemy or theology!
  3. I can't imagine it and you almost certainly can't either.

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#257

Post by cutler »

nitrogen wrote: post #211
cutler wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ptolemy is likewise revered by astronomers as one of their founding fathers but they conveniently ignore the fact that in astrological circles he occupies a similar position due to his seminal work, the Tetrabiblos. Scientists can become very selective when dealing with alternatives to their world view.

Scientists can become very selective when dealing with alternatives to their world view. No, they just remember people for their contributions rather than their mistakes.

What scientists cannot accept is that there are aspects of human life which are not observable or measurable. Science is good at measuring what is observable but many scientists then make that a foundation for denying, ridiculing or reducing what is not observable. Science then becomes, paradoxically, a religion.

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#258

Post by junko »

landon32 wrote: post #242
junko wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Penicillin is a famous one.

I think you're talking about a different type of mistake than nitrogen is. You seem to be talking about accidental discoveries, or discoveries that were discovered while using mistaken techniques. When Alexander Fleming discovered that penicillin fought bacteria, he was not mistaken at all. He was spot on- it did kill bacteria. Sure, its discovery may have been caused by a mistake, but what he learned about penicilli…

Ah yes sorry I isolated the point up to cup's comment.

But I'm still sure that there are/will be times when great discoveries are proven to be mistakes. Barring practical ones like penicillin, there has been numerous 'discoveries' proven wrong much later; Newton's colour theory comes to mind, and of course the rather famous its-a-particle-no-a-wave ping pong.

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#260

Post by krsree »

whack wrote: post #110
oskarth wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for reading and commenting with good faith and a, as far as I can tell, correct historical frame in mind. As opposed to with some literalist naive and/or hostile, contemporary-navel-gazing nonsense that is completely missing the point of the essay. For more thinking in a similar direction, see Nassim Taleb's excerpt on the Lindy effect ( https://medium.com/incerto/an-expert-called-lindy-fdb30f146e... ), whe…

" If you hear advice from a grandmother or elders, odds are that it works at ninety percent. On the other hand, in part because of scientism and academic prostitution, in part because the world is hard, if you read anything by psychologists and behavioral scientists, odds are it works at less than ten percent " Some of my favorite books of all time were Taleb's, but I have to say, his writing is the perfect demonstra…

I have been following his work (and social media discussions) since Black Swan, and it seems to me that the ideas are becoming stronger (to me) with time. The later ideas reinforcing and expanding on earlier themes. For example, Black Swan was about unpredictable and catastrophic risk, later Anti-fragility was about how to deal with risks including Black Swans, his work in progress (Skin in the game) is how to make systems more anti-fragile.

I encountered his ideas (10 years back!) at a time when my default way of thinking was very intuitive instead of systematic and analytical thinking (which many of my high-performing peers had developed over the course of engineering education). Perhaps because of this, I took to his ideas like duck (swan) takes to water. I never acquired a systematic(analytical) thinking approach despite being in academia till mid twenties though I could hack decent academic performances. It was in an engineering profession that I realized the advantage and importance of systematic thinking and tried to consciously develop it.

Strangely, the use of systematic thinking has also actually increased my appreciation of his ideas after a period of wavering doubt. The systematic (analytical) way of thinking is too seductive and it's successes too apparent that it appears far superior to my earlier intuitive way of thinking. However, I am gradually coming to realize that the intuitive way of thinking has a deep logic of it's own which is not visible or may not even be decipherable. It's logic can only be inferred by its effect which ofcourse a critic can also be ascribe to luck!

Post reply on HN