USViking
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 1,684
- Reaction score
- 507
- Location
- Greensboro NC USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
PART ONE OF REPLY
(from post #36):
I appreciate the suggestion, but alchemy, astrology and other such intellectual frauds do not interest me.
I take bias to mean animosity unsupported by the weight of evidence and the light of reason. There is no doubt that evidence and reason weigh overwhelmingly against alchemy. That is the truth as it is. Hence, no, I do not think my position is biased. Subject to rebuttal on the merits, but not biased. If you think Dobbs can provide such a rebuttal please provide a link to it.
Correspondence would have to include evidence that alchemical research somehow motivated legitimate scientific research. BTW I think Newton’s papers are somewhat widely scattered, with a significant amount preserved in Israel, among other places.
You have lost me.
Isn't this a reference to Newton's spooky action at a distance (apologies to A. Einstein in a different context) gravitational theory? If so it is no help to the alchemical side of the discussion. Leibniz might accuse Newton of this and that, and an alchemist might ask why we feel entitled, but Newton was not interested in digressing beyond hypotheses non fingo, and I think he would could have employed that phrase to his advantage elsewhere than gravity.
(from post #36):
ashurbanipal said:Hers is a surprising thesis, and one opposed by Cohen. Given your comments so far, I think you'd like Cohen's stuff...and I don't mean to give the impression I think Cohen is a dimwit or anything. I think it's an honest disagreement by people who are intellectual peers, but who see things differently.
I appreciate the suggestion, but alchemy, astrology and other such intellectual frauds do not interest me.
ashurbanipal said:Don't you think, though, that the bolded bit reveals a bias on your part? I mean, we all have our biases. But they prevent us, often, from seeing truth as it is. Again, you'll have to read Dobbs stuff to get the fine details of her argument, but she's pretty careful in her argumentation, and I think she makes a good case.
I take bias to mean animosity unsupported by the weight of evidence and the light of reason. There is no doubt that evidence and reason weigh overwhelmingly against alchemy. That is the truth as it is. Hence, no, I do not think my position is biased. Subject to rebuttal on the merits, but not biased. If you think Dobbs can provide such a rebuttal please provide a link to it.
This would not be good enough. Correspondence would have to include evidence that alchemical research somehow motivated legitimate scientific research, which in Newton’s case consisted almost wholly of physics and mathematics.ashurbanipal said:I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Do you just mean, unless we have written affirmation that Boyle instructed Newton on alchemy in Boyle's and Newton's own hand, we shouldn't believe it?
ashurbanipal said:I hate to tell you, but we have their correspondence (and Locke's as well) and we know that's what happened. Boyle was an alchemist, and his development of the principles of modern chemistry was inspired by a particular branch of thought in alchemy that attributed attractive forces to corpuscles. It's all laid out fairly explicitly; I think the Royal Society maintains the archives on Boyle's side. The British Museum has the Keynes material (i.e. Newton's stuff).
Correspondence would have to include evidence that alchemical research somehow motivated legitimate scientific research. BTW I think Newton’s papers are somewhat widely scattered, with a significant amount preserved in Israel, among other places.
I would have assumed this to be a premise of all legitimate scientific inquiry going back to the ancients.ashurbanipal said:If instead you just mean it's hard to make a case for alchemy itself...well, consider that, largely thanks to Newton's work, we've come to accept a particular view about the nature of physical stuff. That view has it that what we observe can serve as an explanation for what we observe.
ashurbanipal said:Rather interestingly, this was a view that Newton was loathe to accept, and one it's not clear that he himself ever held. Nineteenth century distortion of his view is probably more responsible for our own inheritance of this idea.
You have lost me.
ashurbanipal said:Newton was accused (by Leibniz and others) of taking seriously the notion of occult forces, but that notion came to dominate how we think of physics. The forces are just kinda there, as is physical law. An alchemist would ask why we feel entitled to help ourselves to such a view.
Isn't this a reference to Newton's spooky action at a distance (apologies to A. Einstein in a different context) gravitational theory? If so it is no help to the alchemical side of the discussion. Leibniz might accuse Newton of this and that, and an alchemist might ask why we feel entitled, but Newton was not interested in digressing beyond hypotheses non fingo, and I think he would could have employed that phrase to his advantage elsewhere than gravity.
I doubt it!ashurbanipal said:This is not to say that any particular view is correct. But I think if you spend some time and effort really grappling with how we got to where we are, and especially with the ideas that Newton, Leibniz, Boyle, Descartes, Gassendi, etc. were investigating and formulating, it'll probably change your view somewhat.