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

321–330 of 344 posts

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#321

Post by throwaway729 »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #196

I love this insight. I have often experienced in my life seeing someone come up with something really useful in the midst of spouting complete rubbish. Oddly it is about 50/50 internal and external, where half the time they stop in the middle of what they are saying and realize they have a really good idea, and half the time someone else stops them and says "hey, that could really work." or something like that. The c…

> Dare to ask stupid questions, it could make you the smartest person in the room.

It cost me a year (1/90th of my life? 1/75th? 1/50th? less?) to realize this. From what I understand, I'm far from alone -- and basically every career path risks this cost.

Emphasizing this nugget of truth by placing it at the bottom of your post is commendable.

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#322

Post by woodandsteel »

olavk wrote: post #191
woodandsteel wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference between alchemy and modern chemistry is alchemy is based on a mystic, supernatural view of reality, whereas chemistry assumes reality is basically natural. That makes a huge difference, and chemistry would never have gotten very far if it had stuck with the old metaphysics.

Well it wasn't really "supernatural" at the time. It was literally a theory about the natural world. It just wasn't correct, and have since been replaced with different theories and models.

No, it was supernatural because it was about allegedly existing non-material entities and forces that cannot be observed through the senses, and that have will and the ability to influence the material world. Think spirits or gods. In Christianity from the beginning this was described in terms of reason versus faith.

Human beings have two basic ways of thinking about reality, the natural and the supernatural, and until modern science came along they habitually mixed the two together. So for instance if I asked someone why a tree was black, they would answer "it was hit by lightening" which is a natural explanation, and then "and the lightening was thrown by the God Thor" which is a supernatural explanation.

The great innovation of modern science (inspired by the Greeks) was to decide to stick entirely with natural ideas. It took centuries to make this change, and many battles, and it made possible modern technology.

Let me add that the way I am using the term "natural" and "supernatural" is not my invention, it is the standard way philosophers and scientists have spoken about these matters for many centuries.

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#323

Post by olavk »

woodandsteel wrote: post #322
olavk wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it wasn't really "supernatural" at the time. It was literally a theory about the natural world. It just wasn't correct, and have since been replaced with different theories and models.

No, it was supernatural because it was about allegedly existing non-material entities and forces that cannot be observed through the senses, and that have will and the ability to influence the material world. Think spirits or gods. In Christianity from the beginning this was described in terms of reason versus faith. Human beings have two basic ways of thinking about reality, the natural and the supernatural, and unt…

I'm not sure I get this distinction. What definition of "supernatural" do you refer to?

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#324

Post by olavk »

_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…

Theology is not the study of the historical Jesus. The study of the historical Jesus using the same methods as other historical research is just historical research.

Theology on the other hand is the study of God and the Bible from a religious rather then historical angle. So it is a completely different subject.

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#325

Post by t3soro »

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,…

You could also take some acid and have your own trip about the end of the world. John had a DMT trip in a dream and wrote it down.

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#326

Post by t3soro »

3pt14159 wrote: post #281
tim333 wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 in…

He's a villain to you because you have different ideals. To many, he is a figurative Bruce Wayne in the Gotham City of corruption that is D.C. Any man who "is with her" either has a confused sense of allegiance to the USA or needs a shot of testosterone.

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#327

Post by micahbright »

olavk wrote: post #268
micahbright wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although theological beliefs are rarely falsifiable, that doesn't mean they don't matter or render no benefit.

Yeah, just because they don't say anything about the world does not mean they can not be used. The theology of Luther and Calvin changed the world. Even today you can start your own cult or church and get power over lots of people and get rich. But Newton did none of those things. His theology did not influence anybody and was therefore a waste of time, except for the personal gratification he gained from it.

There's plenty of falsifiable evidence that suggests that adhering to religion is good for the individual, So there are positive benefits as well. There are also examples of religions doing good for humanity.

To say that Newton's theology "did not influence anybody and was therefore a waste of time" is absolutely false. I remember my math teacher mentioning several of his statements and beliefs about the nature of God during lecture.

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#328

Post by olavk »

thegenius2000 wrote: post #279
_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…

If want to use words like childish, ignorant, poor taste, you really need to make your case better. Many scientists does not believe in a creator but still believe the physical world to have order.

In any case, whether a creator exist or not, it is still a waste of time to search in the Bible for information about his plans for the future, like Newton did.

If you are going to argue it wasn't a waste of time, you have to point out what useful information Newton discovered in his studies of the Bible.

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#329

Post by olavk »

micahbright wrote: post #327
olavk wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, just because they don't say anything about the world does not mean they can not be used. The theology of Luther and Calvin changed the world. Even today you can start your own cult or church and get power over lots of people and get rich. But Newton did none of those things. His theology did not influence anybody and was therefore a waste of time, except for the personal gratification he gained from it.

There's plenty of falsifiable evidence that suggests that adhering to religion is good for the individual, So there are positive benefits as well. There are also examples of religions doing good for humanity. To say that Newton's theology "did not influence anybody and was therefore a waste of time" is absolutely false. I remember my math teacher mentioning several of his statements and beliefs about the nature of Go…

So what are some of the important theological discoveries by Newton?

Re: The Risk of Discovery

#330

Post by ess3 »

emiliobumachar wrote: post #231
cup wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> some of our best scientific discoveries were mistakes Could you give a few examples?

In one sense the whole scientific approach is about proving yourself wrong, which could be seen as making "mistakes"
Post reply on HN