The Risk of Discovery • Hacker News Board

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#271

Post by nitrogen » Fri, Jan 13, 2017, 8:55 AM UTC

cutler wrote: post #257

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.

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.

Do you not also see a paradox in claiming to be able to observe the unobservable?

As others have mentioned in the thread, scientists didn't just wake up one day and decide to ignore everything supposedly "unobservable". Science was once intertwined with theology. Over the centuries, the methods we now call science produced results, while other supposed "ways of knowing" did not. Scientific knowledge converges over time, but religion diverges.

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#272

Post by _urga » Fri, Jan 13, 2017, 9:15 AM UTC

pg's "theology" is a strawman.

Theology is nothing but a study of the implications of the historical events concerning Jesus of Nazareth, those events themselves being subject to the historical method.

Either I am missing something, or pg is essentially implying some or all of the following:

1. The person of Jesus Christ did not exist in history.

2. There is insufficient information concerning him.

3. Studying the historical person of Jesus Christ according to the historical method is akin to, or of similar value to, the study of alchemy, i.e. a waste of time.

I seriously doubt whether any historian interested in ancient history would make such claims.

It's pretty ignorant and reckless coming from pg.

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#273

Post by _urga » Fri, Jan 13, 2017, 9:31 AM UTC

olavk wrote: post #172

all_usernames wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"The study of God" is useless, but the study of people believing in God or gods is useful and quite interesting. These are two different things! The theology of Newton was the former - he literally believed the Bible was the word of God, and by interpreting it he could foresee how the world would end. It was a waste of time because we know now the Bible is actually written by humans.

"It was a waste of time because we know now the Bible is actually written by humans."

The Bible itself has always claimed to be "written by humans", moved by God according to his interactions in history, speaking his words according to the authority given them.

The Bible itself has also been against false prophets (those claiming to speak for God), insisting that every word should be tested according to what came to pass.

For example, take the book of Isaiah. It claims for itself to be written by a human, Isaiah the son of Amoz during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah. We know now it was written circa 700 years before Christ. Isaiah speaks about the suffering and rising of the Christ (see Isaiah 53 for an accessible example).

Now the question is, does that not match what we know of Jesus of Nazareth, and do the words of Isaiah not also authenticate Jesus of Nazareth?

And when Isaiah speaks about Cyrus the Great of Persia, many years before his time, does that not match what we know of Cyrus? And was Cyrus himself (according to first-century Jewish Roman historian Josephus) not amazed when he read Isaiah's words concerning himself? Or should we force the book of Isaiah to be post-dated so as to sit more comfortably with a naturalist philosophy?

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#274

Post by _urga » Fri, Jan 13, 2017, 9:48 AM UTC

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.

The entire Christian theological claim is that Jesus of Nazareth, a "son of man" and the "son of God", walked among us in history, and that these things should and must be tested and verified according to the historical method.

See Paul of Tarsus (a former persecutor of some of the first Christians) writing to the Corinthians circa 55 AD:

"And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead."

See Luke the physician writing to Theopilus:

"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught."

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#275

Post by _urga » Fri, Jan 13, 2017, 9:55 AM UTC

olavk wrote: post #214

nocman wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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,…

Just because someone believes something does not make it true. The bible predicted the end of the world in the first century. It turned out to be wrong, even though people believed it.

"The Bible predicted the end of the world in the first century."

The Bible explicitly refuses to give a date for the end of the world, and proactively voids the claims of any who would.

If anything the Bible anticipates a long patient delay with a purpose:

"They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.” ... But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance."

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#276

Post by pdm55 » Fri, Jan 13, 2017, 10:09 AM UTC

nerfhammer wrote: post #86

For those interested in Newton's theology and alchemy work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_occult_studies

Plus there is the Newton Project, http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/prism.php?id=1. One time I looked his alchemy writings were in a code that he had concocted. I recall he had astronomical (astrological) terms for chemicals. Maybe, that ties in with what someone else wrote above about there being a belief at the time that things on earth reflected what was in the heavens.

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#277

Post by jacobush » Fri, Jan 13, 2017, 10:09 AM UTC

photojosh wrote: post #203

nostrademons wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Makes you wonder what the "software industry" will look like in 300 years. Good ideas tend to split & bifurcate, until the original term is considered simply common sense and the parts people care about are individual subfields that were trivial when they started. Recall that "industry" used to refer to anything that was mass-produced in a factory, which, back in the 1820s, basically meant textiles. As the general te…

Good point. I do both embedded (well) and web (so-so) dev, and they are worlds apart in almost every aspect I can think of.

The comment above yours made me think. If the outline holds, they are about to become even more worlds apart. It's funny to think that our grand children may marvel at how workers of today could move between fields with relative ease which then will be deemed worlds apart. We may all look a bit like renaissance men to them.

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#278

Post by fao_ » Fri, Jan 13, 2017, 10:13 AM UTC

rwj wrote: post #30

1337p337 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There wasn't quite the sharp division of disciplines, either. Thinking about it that way comes from the public school system (which the author ought to know, because if I'm not mistaken, he mentioned that in a previous essay). Mathematics (which didn't warrant a mention as a bet that paid off in a blurb about the guy that invented calculus), metaphysics, and the natural sciences were all areas of study, but they were…

guy that co-invented calculus...

no, guy that invented calculus independently, but around the same time as someone else did

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#279

Post by thegenius2000 » Fri, Jan 13, 2017, 10:21 AM UTC

_urga wrote: post #272

pg's "theology" is a strawman. Theology is nothing but a study of the implications of the historical events concerning Jesus of Nazareth, those events themselves being subject to the historical method. Either I am missing something, or pg is essentially implying some or all of the following: 1. The person of Jesus Christ did not exist in history. 2. There is insufficient information concerning him. 3. Studying the hi…

Yes, to dismiss theology along with alchemy -- in the same sentence -- as altogether useless is childish oversimplification. Rejecting Biblical faiths is one thing, but to ignore the impact the Christian worldview has had on Western science, including the life of Isaac Newton (who would never have invested time in studying the physical world if he didn't believe it had a Creator, and therefore order), either shows a gross lack of historical knowledge or poor taste. It's a pity because I agree with him otherwise about the risk taking, which was the main point of his article.

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#280

Post by pdm55 » Fri, Jan 13, 2017, 10:42 AM UTC

gwern wrote: post #91

lisper wrote: post #76

What exactly was Newton risking? An entrepreneur who quits her job and takes out a mortgage to start a business is risking her livelihood. If she fails, she and her family could end up on the street. Newton came from a wealthy family. If he failed in his intellectual endeavors the "risk" for him was to live out his life as an ordinary rich person and only ending up in the more obscure history books. I think Fredrick…

Newton's theology was extremely heretical (to all major religious factions, as he was an anti-Trinitarian!) at a time when religious politics in England were brutal and could easily be fatal; being expelled from Cambridge for violating the religion oaths/tests would've only been the start. And, incidentally, alchemy was, besides being highly disreputable & associated with con artists, illegal in England for centuries…

Good points. His position must have been tenuous anyway as it was a requirement of Cambridge that all Fellows become ordained Anglican priests. Newton only avoided this by special exemption from Charles II and it is not likely that he could afford to be exposed as breaking other regulations. Maybe this is part of the reason he was so reluctant to publish, he may have wondered if his physical reasoning could be construed as somehow against the prevailing religious beliefs of the time, especially when you see the approbation Newton's intellectual predecessor Galileo suffered for his new physics.