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 income was computing astrology charts for royalty).<p>I say this to reinforce Paul's statement, "But that's because we know how things turned out." "How things turned out" includes reclassification of what he was working out as belonging to different fields. I suspect that at the time, he didn't consider himself to be moving from one field to another but rather to trying to build upon his previous work.
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 common theme can best be described as "fearless thinking" or perhaps unconstrained thinking.<p>I suspect that the personality trait most closely associated with creativity like this is a lack of fear of embarrassment. When someone tells me something I have suggested is wrong I respond by asking questions to understand how they understand the topic so that I can learn from them. When you tell someone who has vested their self image in being right that they are wrong they take it personally and respond dismissively. They fight to have their point of view validated rather than understand a counter point of view. But this makes them unwilling to share partially understood topics because it could expose them to being 'wrong' in public.<p>Other times people self censor their own thinking. I get so frustrated when someone says "Well I thought that might be a solution to the problem <i>but assumed it would be too expensive.</i>" That is an example of someone who had a creative idea, self censored it, and it had to come out through someone else in order to reach the collective consciousness of the group. I try really hard to have people not self censor but it is so ingrained sometimes.<p>And all of that then feeds back into the genius/hero narrative where the narrative of a person includes only their noteworthy accomplishments and so the perception is that people like that <i>only</i> do noteworthy things, and then they are impossible to live up to.<p>Dare to ask stupid questions, it could make you the smartest person in the room.
"Physics seems to us a promising thing to work on, and alchemy and theology obvious wastes of time."<p>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.<p>Being that pg is an atheist, I would expect him to personally believe that the study of theology is a waste of time. However, even just taking Christian theology into account, given that over 100 million Bibles are sold or given away in the world every year (<a href="https://www.reference.com/world-view/many-copies-bible-sold-year-3a42fbe0f6956bb2" rel="nofollow">https://www.reference.com/world-view/many-copies-bible-sold-...</a>), and the Bible continues to be "the most widely distributed and best-selling book in the world.", the "us" for which it is true that the study of theology is "crazy" or a "waste of time" seems to me to be much smaller group of people than the essay seems to imply.<p>Again, this is just the impression <i>I</i> got from reading the essay. I would be happy to have pg respond and let me know if my impression was incorrect.<p>(edited to remove unintentional indenting)
An addendum to this: Many of the greatest unconventional thinkers of our time are similar to Newton in that they are right about one non-consensus thing and wrong about lots of others.<p>Some of those people become fantastically rich as a result of the one right thing.<p>Just because someone is wildly successful and right about one non-consensus bet, doesn't mean they aren't wrong about most of their other beliefs.<p>The occasional out-of-the-mainstream idea is a revolution, but the vast majority are just nutty and wrong.
When people say that Newton studied alchemy, what they actually mean was that he studied chemistry. He was studying what happens when you do different things to different elements. Sure he used the language of the time, but he was fundamentally doing chemistry. And the dream of the alchemists -- to turn base materials into gold -- was ultimately more or less realized when Henri Moissan created the first artificial diamond. Alchemy has a bad rep, mostly because it was shrouded in mystery and obfuscation, but at its core it was science, the pursuit of knowledge through experimentation.
For people who wonder why YC and pg are okay with some of Peter Thiel's more extreme behavior, this is why.<p>It's pretty interesting that pg describes the possible outcomes of contrarian ideas as either positive for society or merely a waste of time. Even though the pursuit of risky and contrarian ideas can also be hugely harmful for society.
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".
<p><pre><code> "I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost
almost 300 games. 26 times, I've been trusted to take the
game winning shot and missed."
</code></pre>
- Michael Jordan
Cory Doctorow made a similar connection between science and alchemy a while ago:<p>"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."<p>Source: [1:40 to 2:20] <a href="http://conferences.oreilly.com/oscon/oscon-tx/public/content/how-you-got-here" rel="nofollow">http://conferences.oreilly.com/oscon/oscon-tx/public/content...</a>
I find it funny that capitalism requires what is essentially an irrational behavior. It seems to me that big public corporations, which avoid risk, and only buy startups once they have been established, are the rational actors. On the other hands, three guys in the garage doing a startup often do it not because they calculate expected profits, but because they want to do it for other than monetary reasons - typically to show that things can be improved and done differently. And so they are willing to take huge, irrational risks.
There are plenty of discoverers who incurred some level of risk and lost in a way that isn't covered up by history. Marie Curie's discovery killed her. Tesla's genius manifested not only in groundbreaking discovery, but also mental illness and isolation. And just ask Elisha Gray about the risks of discovery.<p>But, yes, history has a survivorship bias. But that's literally one of the oldest observations made. It's often said, "History is written by the victors." What PG is saying is just another version of that age-old observation.
I wish pg would start writing longer form essays again. His startup essays had a huge impact on my approach to building startups. They were hugely insightful and inspirational for me.<p>This essay has a great core insight, and I get you don't need more words to say it, but I still miss the longer ones
I don't think that studing chemistry (I like to think about alchemy as a precursor of chemistry) or theology should be stigmatized. I understand that it was just an example to support the core idea of the article, but it still leaves a bad taste.
Wait, I thought alchemy and theology were pretty mainstream back then? How was it risky? Just because they turned out to be wrong, I don't think it was crazy for someone to be studying these things back then. Seems like a modern example would be someone studying something like string theory or dark matter and later we discover these things are wrong... but there is no reason to think that today.
> Newton made three bets. One of them worked. But they were all risky.<p>Except it was three:<p>- Optics<p>- Gravitation and mechanics<p>- Mathematics<p>There are many scientists out there who spend a lifetime on theories that turn out to be bogus, but calling it a bet is entirely missing the point.
I urge anyone to play a bit of 'why' with a young child, mixed with the Socrates method. If you can get them to try and answer beyond "I don't know"... you'll be taken to some crazy mental places no adult can take you.
The most valuable thing we have is time. Unless you are born rich or wealthy time is sustenance and living money. The tradeoffs and risks involved for those born rich and those who have to work for a living are world's apart.<p>In the era Newton came from you would have to be wealthy to be able to afford other interests beyond surviving. So a lot of the big leaps were made by those from rich families or those lucky enough to have some sort of wealthy backer.<p>Plus certain things like education, family, kids are attached to specific timelines in a typical life. Health and the ability to do things are also attached to timelines. When you take a risk you could be putting all of those on line.<p>The ability to expend time with no certainty of returns is a luxury only those from a wealthy background have. And naturally they will be more successfuly as there are more efforts from people of those backgrounds.
also, i have the impression that alchemy's bad reputation is a bit undeserved. IIRC some alchemists believed matter was made of fundamental components and followed the scientific method well. so, that bet may be less risky than we perceive it now. this only makes pg's point stronger: it'd be the most interesting for a biography of Newton to talk about alchemy.
But... isn't it true that at Newton's theology was at the foundation of his physics? The idea of a single deity whose intelligence crafted a rational world, the laws of which it is man's duty to uncover, is certainly not incidental to his discoveries.
I agree with the core insight that we sometimes ignore the risk taking of high achievers while looking at their life in hindsight.
However, I would not say with certainty that Newton was pursuing these fields with the mindset of betting on them. He could have been certain about the validity, value and fruitfulness of intellectual pursuits in those fields.<p>Interestingly, this is the second time in the past 24 hours I've encountered the idea of comparing a VC (Marc's reference) with another class of high achievers. (previous one, a comparison with entrepreneurs: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13371813" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13371813</a>)
The other anecdote concerning Sir Isaac Newton that seems most apt, and it was particularly well dramatized in Neil DeGrasse Tyson's updated <i></i>Cosmos<i></i> series, arose when the Royal Society delayed publishing his Principia due to the spectacular failure of their Encyclopedia of Fish the year before! I am not sure which amazes me more: that "natural philosophy" encompasses everything in the cosmos from optics to marine life. Or contemporaneous short-sightedness can imbue one subject with the most paramount economic and social import, whilst viewing the other as nothing more than a mere parlor trick. Only to have the perspective of history upend such dogma centuries later!
What PG calls "bets" I would call interesting topics for Newton. Maybe he just liked the subjects. Calling bets is saying he was trying to actually accomplish something out of their studies and work. I don't think a curious mind would work like that. Even in physics, he studied a broad range of topics, not only Mechanics.<p>Furthermore, you don't need to make a breakthrough in everything to satisfy your desire for knowledge. Even more so for Newton, which was known by his seclusion and introversion.
pg's "theology" is a strawman.<p>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.<p>Either I am missing something, or pg is essentially implying some or all of the following:<p>1. The person of Jesus Christ did not exist in history.<p>2. There is insufficient information concerning him.<p>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.<p>I seriously doubt whether any historian interested in ancient history would make such claims.<p>It's pretty ignorant and reckless coming from pg.
The core idea of this article is that high reward is usually accompanied by high risk. To exemplify this, pg gave a great example of Newton pursuing physics, alchemy and theology.<p>However, this was just one example. I think the article could be greatly improved by giving, like, 50 examples (in an abbreviated form, like "Newton: physics, alchemy, theology"). With one example it's sorta easy to think, "eh that might just be an exception". With 50 example, it's easy to think, "wow, look at all of that; the core idea definitely does seem to be true".
This is similar to what Ben Thompson just wrote about [1]. It's easy to forget the bets, such as Apple TV, that weren't so successful.<p>[1] <a href="https://stratechery.com/2017/the-ten-year-anniversary-of-the-apple-tv/" rel="nofollow">https://stratechery.com/2017/the-ten-year-anniversary-of-the...</a>
> Newton made three bets. One of them worked. But they were all risky.<p>Risky? What is the definition of risk? What was the downside to Newton making these 'bets'? What was the risk of Andressen deciding in college to think that what he did was the right way to go? And importantly (and my point) wouldn't the exact same action by a tenured professor be more of a risk?<p>Let's take the risk that Donald Trump took vs. Hillary Clinton. Trump is hated by many now and would be regardless of whether he won or lost the election (in many ways decimated his brand). The same is not true for Hillary even though she did take a reputation hit it's nowhere near what Trump (with his rhetoric) took. So same thing "run for President" different people different levels of risk.
I find this essay pretty confusing. It seems to contradict itself at some basic level.<p>"Maybe the smartness and the craziness were not as separate as we think."<p>This seems kind of obvious to me. Yes, creative and driven people are interested in lots of strange things. Yes, genius often means the ability to take ideas or discoveries from apparently widely different areas and tie them together to form new understandings.<p>"Newton made three bets. One of them worked."<p>This makes no sense. Of course his physics was a success. But how could anyone judge the theological pursuits of an individual to be a success or a failure?<p>And if the pursuit was a failure, then doesn't that negate the earlier implication that his studying theology ("crazy") was in some ways associated with his success in physics ("genius")?
I've been saying this for years: science is far too conservative, dogmatic, and risk-averse.<p>The reality is that genius minds are intellectually fearless. Newton was into alchemy and fringe theology. Edison tried to build a machine to contact the dead. Many of the great minds of the 60s who at least envisioned everything you're using now were into all kinds of "crazy" stuff: parapsychology, psychedelic consciousness expansion, shamanism, etc.<p>Was some of that stuff silly? Sure. Was some or even most of it a dead end? Sure. But that's not the point. The point is that great minds fear no idea.<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSolPNn0G7M" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSolPNn0G7M</a>
Loved the insight, but I don't agree with the conclusions. Maybe Newton was just genius all along, and we have yet to discover the "hugeness" of alchemy and theology.
Newtons dabbling in Alchemy made him very sick, so there was definitely a risk there. He also invested and lost his life savings in a speculative stock bubble. The bet that really paid off financially was his occult connections that got him a job as warden of the royal mint where his currency manipulation lead to an increase in demand for coins and made him a huge personal fortune. At least that's what I heard. Happy to be corrected.
Graham's casual dismissal of 'useless' theology demonstrates a complete lack of awareness of the demise of the secularization hypothesis.
I honestly think that Newton was well aware of the unlikelihood of making breakthroughs in theology and alchemy[1].<p>In physics he had a lower[2] benefit but much higher probability of progress.<p><pre><code> 1. Plus he went a little mad from chemical fumes.
2. Really. Imagine[3] making a real breakthrough in alchemy or theology!
3. I can't imagine it and you almost certainly can't either.</code></pre>
So what's the take-away? Make many high risk bets in hoping one will pay off?<p>Newton is an exception as well. While his biographers down-play his failures, he is also credited (at least in High School Physics) with things that were the work of dozens or even hundreds of scientists - or giants you might say.
For those interested in Newton's theology and alchemy work: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_occult_studies" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_occult_studies</a>
Newton had an epic insight into combinatorics. The calculus work he did during the university quarantine shutdown is great to page through. I wonder how much farther Newton, Gauss, Euler, and Erdos would have gotten if they knew how to code.
Neal Stephenson's "Baroque Cycle" goes into great detail about Isaac Newton's life, and his focus on alchemy and theology. It is of course fiction, but well researched and utterly fascinating. I recommend it!
Maybe alchemy and theology was just how he blew off steam. It seems like me did them a lot, but you know, we all like to have our hobbies.<p>Trying to describe the mindset of newton 100s of years after his death seems a bit reaching.
On his essay tab, PG's "Risk of Discovery" is loading at the bottom, instead of the top near the more recent ones - is this happening for anyone else?
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.<p>I think Fredrick Smith (founder of Fedex) is a much better example of someone taking an entrepreneurial and intellectual risk.<p><a href="http://about.van.fedex.com/our-story/history-timeline/history/" rel="nofollow">http://about.van.fedex.com/our-story/history-timeline/histor...</a>
Sorry, Newton didn't "make bets", he was not a Silicon Valley VC. He worked on problems that he found interesting and that he believed would reveal eternal truths established and maintained by God.
This is mostly confirmation bias. It's quite common to be 'kind of crazy', and it happens at all levels of intellect, from your working-class 'nutter' to your high-born 'eccentric'. There's nothing special about being smart when it comes to being 'kind of crazy'.
Calling his study of theology and alchemy "crazy" seems a bit short sighted. Newtons intense devotion to understanding the scriptures was likely what allowed him to make so much progress in science. Since God saw what a devoted student he was, chose to reward him in that manner of scientific enlightenment. The study of scripture was primary, his science, secondary.
It's amusing that he uses a modern chauvinism ("making a bet") in this way, while noting that some of Newton's "bets" were only "wasteful" (risky, bad, whatever) when viewed through the lense of modern knowledge.<p>He has a good point, put poorly, and without good support in his chosen example.
I'm not seeing what the risk was. He was taking a chance that he was wrong, yes, but that was just science. Risk suggests a danger. But what was it?