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

281–290 of 344 posts

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#281

Post by 3pt14159 »

tim333 wrote: post #228
3pt14159 wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or maybe its because Thiel is a useful person to associate with and enough money is on the line that pg's claim that he'd be the "first to bring about the resistance" doesn't apply because Thiel, like Andreessen, is too important to be stood up to. I've lot so much respect for YC wrt Thiel. Trump is such an obvious villain that if you're not against him you're an enabler. I don't care that he's become normalized in t…

Roughly half the country voted Trump so it's a bit excessive to shun all of them.

I respect the 28% of voting age America that voted for HRC. I also have respect for the people that voted Stein or Johnson in non-battleground states. Call it 30%. But as a Canadian who's been to America dozens of times over the years I've slowly lost respect for the GOP and Trump was the final nail in the coffin. 90% of the GOP is evil or brainwashed. The other 10% that I still have a small modicum of respect for includes people like Kasich.

So I respect about a third of American electorate. The third that didn't vote I don't respect. The third that voted for Trump I don't respect.

As for America the country, I respect most of the intelligent people working at the State Department and the CIA that I truly believe are working towards a peaceful more prosperous world, though I admit that their history is much more checkered (waterboarding, etc) than their counterparts in Germany, but they've done good work basically everywhere outside of the Middle East. Tough area to play right though, lobbyists, Israel, Turkey, multiple religious factions, critical market for the economy / national security.

But all their work is jeopardized by this horrible demagogue and enough of America either stayed home or voted for him. A man that bragged about sexual assault and swindled the poor for their student loan money and chanted "lock her up" to crowds of tens of thousands. We're laughing at America in the morning, but we're crying at night.

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#282

Post by olavk »

_urga wrote: post #273
olavk wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

Josephus also claims that Vespasian (the Roman emperor) was the prophesied Messiah. I'm sure Vespasian would have been amazed and flattered, but what does this this prove or disprove?

According to textual criticism (the branch of research where you apply source criticism to the biblical texts the same way you would for any other historical source), the book called Isiah is a compilation of texts written by three different authors at different points in time - before, during and after the exile.

The prophecy in Isiah 53 talks about a guy who was incredibly ugly and despised by everyone, who was killed disgracefully, and who never uttered a word. This probably matches numerous unfortunate souls before and after, but clearly not Jesus, since he was actually revered by his followers and did utter quite a lot of words, even during his execution. In other words, the passage disproves that Jesus could be the Messiah - unless you apply a healthy dose of cognitive dissonance.

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#283

Post by cutler »

nitrogen wrote: post #271
cutler wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 con verges over t…

The unobservable category includes a lot more than religion. It may be that scientific knowledge converges more easily simply because it limits itself to what is observable or maybe, more accurately, what is mechanistic and observable. Take ghosts, for example. Do they exist? Let's conduct an experiment and take cameras to a supposedly haunted house. The ghosts in question decide to hide from the cameras. See, no ghosts. Told you so. The ghosts meanwhile laugh in background, taking a short break from scaring the inhabitants until the scientists leave.

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#284

Post by codingdave »

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…

I've always been under the impression that pg talks to a very small specific audience. He is talking to the SV tech crowd, and those who want to be part of it. Much of his business advice does not apply unless you want to be a high-growth VC-backed startup, and his non-business advice is no better or worse than anyone else's.

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#285

Post by SEMW »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #192
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…

As you say dismissing alchemy is probably a bad thing too. Alchemy was the search for the ability to transform matter (particularly Pb->Au). I rather think that nuclear fusion/fission are still consider worthy fields and that creation/discovery of an alchemist's stone - a way to convert readily between different forms of matter - would still be considered a worthy development. I agree too with your synopsis. Physics…

> Alchemy was the search for the ability to transform matter (particularly Pb->Au). I rather think that nuclear fusion/fission are still consider worthy fields

This is just a disagreement over definitions.

If you define alchemy as e.g. 'the search for the ability to transmute elements', then sure, nuclear reactions are alchemy. But that's not how the word is generally used. It's used to describe a practice bound up with a bundle of concepts, beliefs, and connotations[0], which mostly disappeared after the 18th century. (That's a useful thing to have a word for -- under a definition of alchemy for which nuclear physics is alchemy, you'd probably want to invent a different word to describe that practice, and then that just introduces unnecessary confusion when talking to people who use the more common set of definitions).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alchemy#Core_concepts

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#286

Post by olavk »

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.

This is clearly incorrect since cosmology operates with the distinction between the observable and the unobservable universe. But of course there have to be a reason (based on models which can be verified in observation) to assume the existence of the unobservable.

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#287

Post by olavk »

_urga wrote: post #275
olavk wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Paul predicted the end the world to arrive in his lifetime. He was wrong. See: 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#288

Post by Flenser »

Cory Doctorow made a similar connection between science and alchemy a while ago:

"FLOSS .. is better for the same reason that science is better than alchemy. Back before we had science we had alchemy, a lot like science except alchemists never told anyone else what they thought they'd learned and so they were prey to the most common human frailty which is self deception, which is how how alchemists discovered in the hardest way possible that you shouldn't drink mercury, and when alchemists started telling each other what they thought they'd learned, and subjecting themselves to adversarial peer review, and they started publishing their source they turned something base into something noble, they turned superstition into science and created the enlightenment, and FLOSS is everywhere because it continues the enlightenment tradition."

Source: [1:40 to 2:20] http://conferences.oreilly.com/oscon/oscon-tx/public/content...

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#289

Post by dredmorbius »

olavk wrote: post #121
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 con…

And in a modern ironic twist, it turns out that the elements are connected to the stars.

Other than hydrogen, some helium, and a very small amount of lithium, all other elements were born of stars, through either normal fusion (helium, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, ...), supernovae (heavier atoms: nickle, iron, ...), and for the heaviest including gold, neutron-star collisions.

No, the models assumed by alchemists weren't right, but the central nugget was pointing in the right direction. And studying the metals does provide insight into the dynamics of stars.

(And yes: on Earth, helium and several other elements are found not formed by stars directly, but through the radioactive decay of heavier elements, though those are of stellar origins.)

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#290

Post by _urga »

olavk wrote: post #282
_urga wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

Josephus also claims that Vespasian (the Roman emperor) was the prophesied Messiah. I'm sure Vespasian would have been amazed and flattered, but what does this this prove or disprove? According to textual criticism (the branch of research where you apply source criticism to the biblical texts the same way you would for any other historical source), the book called Isiah is a compilation of texts written by three diff…

"The prophecy in Isiah 53 talks about a guy who was incredibly ugly and despised by everyone, who was killed disgracefully, and who never uttered a word."

You reduce the passage to being about "a guy who was incredibly ugly" whereas the context (see Isaiah 52) indicates someone beaten horrifically, "his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any human being and his form marred beyond human likeness".

Your caricature neglects to mention and skirts around the key details of the passage:

The suffering servant is the kingly representative of his people, appointed by God, who, though innocent, will bear the punishment of his people's sins on their behalf. He will be smitten by God and they will mock him for it. He will be rejected, suffer and die, but he will rise, and make many to be accounted righteous.

The substitutionary atonement is clearly repeated many times in Isaiah 53:

"Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted."

"But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed."

"We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all."

"For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was punished."

"He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth."

"Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand."

"After he has suffered, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities."

"For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors."

Post reply on HN