What is Digg?78 Comments
- Darkhacker, on 10/10/2007, -1/+43Newton also died a virgin. I guess that means he would have been quite an active Digger if he was alive today.
- AnteChronos, on 10/10/2007, -4/+18Except science can never point to supernatural conclusions, because science only deals with things that can be tested and falsified. Supernatural events, by their very definition, fall outside the purview of science.
- webcure, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13I thought this was interesting :
"His obsession was trying to find hidden meanings in the Bible. Indeed, Newton learned Hebrew, spent half his life, and devoted much more time to this pursuit than to science." - OneHine, on 10/10/2007, -4/+17So let's see.
Lighting: once thought to be due to God, now known to be natural
Earthquakes: once thought to be due to God, now known to be natural
Volcanoes: once thought to be due to God, now known to be natural
Floods: once thought to be natural, now known to be due to God. No, wait...other way around. Just like everything else.
Gosh James, instead of finding God everywhere, it seems that "atheistic" scientists just keep finding that things we once ignorantly attributed to God are in fact natural phenomena. Is there any reason to think this trend will suddenly reverse itself? - nepawoods, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12Newton: "I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily."
(from wikipedia, the same source the article cites) - jordanlund, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1011 - Newton had a dog named Diamond.
"Newton once bragged to his friend Wallis about his little dog Diamond. 'My dog Diamond knows some mathematics. Today he proved two theorems before lunch.'. 'Your dog must be a genius,' said Wallis. 'Oh I wouldn't go that far,' replied Newton. 'The first theorem had an error and the second had a pathological exception.'"" - AnteChronos, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12"Don't you just hate it when the great scientists turn out to be Christians or deists at a minimum?"
-----
Why would it? As long as their accomplishments as a scientist are not diminished by their beliefs, then why should it matter? And no one "worships" science. We just choose *not* to worship a god that we aren't convinced exists. Big difference. - ThinkBox, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Fact number one: Its not a cookie
- Pyroteknik, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7On the counterfeiting issue, he is the one responsible for the ridges on coins (think dime or quarter). People would shave the edges off of gold and silver coins and collect the shavings because or their intrinsic value. Coins would get shaved until they were much too small to be worth their stated value. When Newton was given control of the mint, he had them put ridges on the edge so you could tell if any had been shaved off.
- nepawoods, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Wikipedia gets a bum rap because of the fact that anyone can go in and vandalize it. But if something is incorrect, it is more likely it will be corrected than would an inaccuracy in a more traditional, more static, source of information.
- nepawoods, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9"And no one "worships" science."
Speak for yourself. There are many who do. - izzybr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Even stranger, Newton himself said he was more proud of his lifelong celibacy than any of his scientific accomplishments.
- jimmah, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6As accurate as the sources cited for the remarks on the wiki page?
- SHuisman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6He also invented the kitty-door (cat-flap in the uk i believe)
- Spankov, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10You are an idiot! Such a sweeping generalisation; if you're religious then you reject science. Unbelievable. You realise there are people that are much cleverer than you that believe is God...and they're scientists?
- stacky, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5'His greatest invention'
'What about gravity?'
'That was just a discovery. Anyone could have discovered it. But the cat-flap, that was an engineering marvel!' - Spankov, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6No because I realise that sometimes,just sometimes, not every story on Digg is about Apple...
- Treshnell, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Cleverly, he didn't say science points to supernatural conclusions, he only said science fails to explain how a natural process completes a task. A small but very important difference. JamesSpaza, you can have your Supernatural Process be the reason for an event..until the natural process is discovered for that event.
- labmouse42, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4What is up with the hatred against wikipedia?
Do people think that FOX news is a more accurate source of infromation? - trogdoor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3yes.
- coolbru, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Anyone into Newton, or others of that era, would be well served by reading Neal Stephenson's Baroque Cycle. A truly excellent (but heavy) read.
- OneHine, on 10/10/2007, -7/+9Yeah, when was the last time science benefited anybody? I mean, besides computers, rockets, electricity, planes, and vaccines. Just look at all the great inventions that have stemmed from careful study of the Bible. Like, uh... OK, forget inventions, just look at all the discoveries that have been based on faith. Such as, um... Well, at least the religious are always completely moral and ethical due to the perfect God-given truth of their religions. Erm, unless you count slavery, jihads, Rwanda, and the Holocaust.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Yeah, Science is like a blabber mouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. Well I say that there are some things we don't wanna know. Important things!
- rejoined, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3In the 2nd story you should have atleast changed the dog to a cat and the name to emerald. Funny story, nonetheless.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3And his middle name isn't Fig.
- jawbreaker4fs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2He was also an alchemist. Just because someone is only exposed to preparadigms of a scientific revolution doesn't mean they'll reject the paradigm shift.
Go read some Kuhn and Popper, you nutjob.
Oh yeah, and wrap your brain around this while you're at it: http://www.peirce.org/writings/p107.html - JohnnyXmas, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Oh, good. ANOTHER date for the apocalypse in my lifetime.
- grumpy1377, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2INTERESTING FACTS
"Newton’s secretiveness had led to many quarrels over credit... mathematician Gottfried Leibniz published his work on calculus, Newton countered that he had invented methods for that branch of math many years previously but didn’t publish, thus sparking one of the largest controversy in mathematics: who truly invented calculus"
Newton won the battle of calculus, because Leibniz died first :P
"Newton Battled Counterfeiters"
Newton started from the small fish and rose to catch the big fish. He would catch people chipping off the coins in those days and melt them to get gold lumps. When caught, the accused would be offered a deal, give 2 other people who 'made' gold and then will be set free. - datastorageguy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yes.
- Dumbledorito, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4How exactly does one "worship" science? Where are services held, and is there a pot luck supper afterwards?
- in2deep, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Just Newton in general was strange! You can't be normal and come up with the ***** he did!
- lilrabbit129, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yea... way the go on that one...
- rjam710, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Guess he thought up Calculus in his spare time.
- Koldkompress, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5Actually, you'll find a lot of Scientists over the years have been Religious.
But that's the problem. Some great Scientists resort to religion when their border of knowledge can no longer be expanded.
For example, Newton tried to figure out how the gravitational pull of the planets effect each others orbit around the sun.
He tried to do this by using by trying to do a knock on calculation of sorts - he'd take two planets, try and work out how they effected each other and then try to do the next pair. Obviously, this didn't work. So what did he say? He said it was God who made the planets orbit, because it was far too complex for humans to understand.
Now, we've got a fully working gravitational model on how the planets effect each other due to further research.
All religion represents is the borders of our knowledge.
Also, Scientists by their very definition SHOULD be Atheists. Anyone who has a Christian/other religious bias tries to find evidence to support their conclusion [God did XXX, God exists etc]. Real scientists look at the evidence, then make a conclusion.
I'd be one of the first to accept there's a God - just give me scientific proof. - TenebrousX, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1the more important thing about gravity is the same force that binds us to the planet also makes the Earth rotate around the Sun
- szembek, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Correct indeed!
- spaceyraygun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1apparently you don't watch mr. show.
- smek2, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Wow, somebody took the time to google a couple of minutes to create another top 10-like list and secured some traffic for his blog. I mean, who didn't know already that, yes Isaac Newton was scientist and religious. Or that apple thing.
- greenmountain, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1This stemmed from an overcompensation for the jealosy he felt about his younger, more handsome brother Fig who became the scion of a baking empire that lives on today.
- superdupergc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1hear hear. great books, but yes, several pages.
- Cherubim, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Sir Isaac Newton was alao an aggressive person who ruled the Royal Society with an iron fist and constantly battled with other scientists of his day. A bit of an egomaniac in many ways.
- szembek, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The article didn't claim that these were facts unknown until now. Anyone who ever read a biography, or probably his wikipedia page would have known all of this information already. I think article was meant to be a quick 1-10 browse for curious folk.
- szembek, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Are you replying to somebody? Who's the idiot? Use the god damn reply button!!!
- mikev2008, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Dugg down for missing one of the best simposons quotes.
- drachemorder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1"Also, Scientists by their very definition SHOULD be Atheists. Anyone who has a Christian/other religious bias tries to find evidence to support their conclusion."
As though atheists don't do that? Atheism can be a bias equally as strong as any religious bias. - szembek, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Apparently you didn't read #1.
- BenRS, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0That is the most absurd comment I have ever read. Hooke discovered the cell, which admittably did change the way we think about organisms, but Newton more or less completely revolutionized physics and mathematics entirely.
Newton is responsible for all of phyiscs that you learn up until relativity in some way. I just don't think I can overstate how important Newton was to physics.
He not only is responsible for more or less every single principle of classical physics (besides conservation of energy), but he also developed the mathematics used in analysis. Derivatives and anti-derivatives? All Newton, although Leibniz did develop the commonly used notation (I feel I should mention that much of Newton's notation is still more commonly used in classical physics than leibniz').
He was even the first to (mostly) accurately understand astronomy through physics and figured out that the orbits were due to mutual attraction and was even the first to hypothesize that tides were due to unequal attractions between the moon and earth.
I could honestly continue listing important contributions that Newton made to the scientific community all day, but that's not the point.
The point is that stating that Hooke, who looked through a microscope and saw a cell, was more important to science than Newton, who's work has so thoroughly become the base of modern physics and mathematics that it is often completely overlooked, is nothing more than pure ignorance.
Newton is probably the single most important scientific mind in the past millenium (if not more), let alone more important than Robert Hooke. - JohnnyXmas, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Dugg for the "Got Gout?" advertisement.
- PenthorMul, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Exactly as Treshnell says. Just because science hasn't yet discovered the exact path the solution takes doesn't mean it's a deity. History is full of examples of when science caused religion to change when the true solution to a phenomena was discovered scientifically.
- BenRS, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I will also admit that Hooke's work with elasticity was a very important detail I overlooked, but still changes little in the grand scheme.
-
Show 51 - 79 of 79 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is