
The Newton You Didn’t Know - benbreen
https://www.huntington.org/verso/2020/01/newton-you-didnt-know
======
mattnewton
I tend to agree with Paul Graham[0] on this one, and less on the "last of the
magicians" moniker. The idea is Newton tried to uncover truth through multiple
methods and avenues, and we remember him for the ones the bore fruit, and not
for the ones that didn't seem to pan out.

After all, in Newton's time, how would you know alchemy didn't work until you
tried it rigorously? Or, more generally, how would you have even known for
sure that empiricism and mathematics would be so successful?

[0] [http://www.paulgraham.com/disc.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/disc.html)

~~~
bluedevil2k
You raise a good point because as we’ve found in the 1930’s and I believe
finally performed in the 50’s, alchemy can occur. (Seaborg with a particle
accelerator). The method of discovery is performed by trial and error and
building off the mistakes and successes of your predecessors and Newtown was
just the first step in many of his discoveries.

~~~
ecoled_ame
Okay, alchemy doesn’t refer only to transmutation. It was a legitimate
practice by early chemists who were playing around with materials. The
mysticism is greatly exaggerated. And the scientific method goes back tens or
hundreds of thousands of years .. for example early hominids fishing for tuna
in Morocco. My point is that rudimentary scientific experiments are still
science and should be appreciated. There was no transition from magic to
science in the 17th century.

------
dr_dshiv
In the last paragraph of his Principia Mathematica (maybe the most important
book in the history of science?), Newton claims that sensation and action
comes from electrical vibrations in the nerves. It took hundreds of years
before before his hypothesis could be accepted.

~~~
heavenlyblue
You should say “proven”, not “accepted.

~~~
ecoled_ame
Nothing in science is ever proven. There can only be accumulating evidence and
increased agreement among scientists. If something were to be considered
proven, then we would not be open to re-interpretation if contradictory
evidence were to appear. This would be anti-scientific.

~~~
heavenlyblue
Nah, now you are simply going down the rabbit’s hole of arguing definitions.

Nothing is ever proven, yet the probability of it being true is higher than
the probability of you waking up tomorrow being Frodo who just realised he
needs to bring that goddamn ring to Mordor.

It’s the same funny case of arguing that we live in a simulation: it’s a great
idea, but the fact is that if that simulation is good enough, then you will
never know you live in a simulation.

~~~
ecoled_ame
Maybe your life has not provided you with enough surprising results to be
weary of the word proven.

------
_bxg1
The biggest leaps are not made through rigorous process, but through
unhindered imagination. Einstein was the same way.

~~~
saagarjha
Unhindered imagination and a excellent proclivity for advanced math.

------
drummer
Always look where they don't want you to look. Something Newton knew and was
careful to hide in his time.

