Comments on: Newton, P.I.

By: Issac Newton turns an investigator and sand turns into a liquid « Entertaining Research

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 07:20:42 +0000

[...] Newton turns an investigator and sand turns into a liquid By Guru Sean at Cosmic Variance strongly recommends Thomas Levonson’s book Newton and the counterfeiter: The 1690’s was a transformative time [...]

By: Neal J. King

Neal J. King — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 10:20:38 +0000

Jonathan Vos Post:

I read Asimov decades ago. But I recall concluding that quite a few seemed forgettable; indeed, I have forgotten them.

Quoting Mozart to me cuts no ice: I’m not a fan. I was one of the people who cheered a few years ago when the summer “Mostly Mozart” series in the SFBA didn’t include a Mozart piece. Had you quoted Bach…

By: coolstar

coolstar — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 03:09:26 +0000

Once one reads how Chaloner absolutely begged Newton to spare his life, it’s hard to have much sympathy for Newton the individual. And Newton had many more coiners similarly executed in barbaric fashion. And please, no excuses about “a man of his times” etc. etc. and how coining was High Treason. Doesn’t change my opinion one bit.
To my knowledge, Chaloner had never killed anyone and couldn’t possibly have deserved the fate Newton condemned him to. Dying a virgin (if he truly did) is the least of what Newton deserved. Newton certainly possessed one of the greatest minds we know about, but that doesn’t change the fact he was a whacko (to use the technical term) and apparently a sadistic one at that.

By: Jonathan Vos Post

Jonathan Vos Post — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 20:19:05 +0000

Feynman and Asimov were both great men, kind and loving persons, extraordinary teachers, remarkable collaborators, with fantastic sense of humor, and produced immortal work, by unique genius and nearly superhuman diligence. Asimov admitted that the field of Biochemistry moved faster than he could, in research, keep up. He did, however, ask me to cite his PhD dissertation on Enzymology, hitherto uncited, as he was sorry that it was already obsolete, yet marked the end of a path on which he did not continue. If his 500+ books were too many, I ask in return what Mozart asked in the film “Amadeus”:

Emperor Joseph II: My dear young man, don’t take it too hard. Your work is ingenious. It’s quality work. And there are simply too many notes, that’s all. Just cut a few and it will be perfect.

Mozart: Which few did you have in mind, Majesty?

By: Neal J. King

Neal J. King — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 19:05:57 +0000

Jonathan Vos Post:

I didn’t think that Asimov was such a great biochemist. In fact, according to one account (www.kirjasto.sci.fi/asimov.htm), “In 1949 Asimov joined the Boston University School of Medicine, where he was made an associate professor of biochemistry in 1955. Asimov was one of the best lecturers at the university, but after 1958 he taught only from time to time. Research did not interest him much. ‘As far as I know, not a single research paper to which my name was attached ever proved of the slightest importance,’ Asimov said. He devoted himself to writing and focused mostly on non-fiction, publishing such works as THE INTELLIGENT MAN’S GUIDE TO SCIENCE (1960), and books on history and literary topics. Asimov remained an associate professor until 1979, and subsequently held the title of professor.”

I don’t know how you can compare accomplishments in Physics and in Science Fiction; although if one were to try, I think you could make an argument that Asimov was overly prolific, perhaps by a factor of 2; something that I think few would say about Feynman.

By: Jonathan Vos Post

Jonathan Vos Post — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 18:15:36 +0000

Several Newton scholar with whom I’ve discussed this suggest that Newton died a virgin because of his occult beliefs. Sexual intercourse would have weakened his abilities to do Alchemy. Yes, he was the greatest scientist who ever lived. And there’s a novel about his anti-counterfeiting career: Dark Matter is sub-titled: The Private Life of Sir Isaac Newton, by Philip Kerr, Three Rivers Press, 28 October 2003, which I highly recommend. But Science was only part of his life. He was arguably a Top 10 Biblical scholar, for instance, who considered his analysis of the Book of Revelation as important as his Opticks (which has, by 3rd edition, MANY non-optics questions listed), Universal Gravitation, and Fluxions. As an unofficial protege and actual friend and coauthor of feynman, I agree that he worked VERY hard, and brilliantly concealed this, using a party animal cover identity. Feynman was the Isaac Asimov of Physics. Or Isaac Asimov was the Feynman of Biochemistry and Science Fiction.

By: Newton’s Dotage « The Renaissance Mathematicus

Newton’s Dotage « The Renaissance Mathematicus — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 17:24:01 +0000

[...] has written a review* of Tom Levenson’s new book “Newton and the Counterfeiter” at Cosmic Variance. Fairly near the beginning of what is a very positive assessment he writes the [...]

By: headlocal

headlocal — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 10:38:38 +0000

Sean –

A more discriminating characteristic than hard work (which ALL serious pre-meds exhibit in profusion) may be the possession of a GROWTH or MALLEABLE mindset, as per Carol Dweck (Stanford) and collaborators, opposed to FIXED mindsets. That is, the capacity to entertain, and the curiosity to explore possibilities in the optimistic hope that some may blossom into Arthur Koestler’s “…originality, the opening of new frontiers”, his “…principal mark of genius”.

By: Neal J. King

Neal J. King — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 08:34:26 +0000

Wc,

Did you ever talk with Richard Feynman?

I did, several times, when he was dealing with questions I and others were asking (rather than topics that he was presenting on) – questions that he, in fact, failed to resolve. You could learn more from watching Feynman fail to solve a problem than from most professors’ correct solutions.

It convinced me that there can be a tremendous difference between someone who is really really excellent in a field and someone who is actually a genius.

Granted, Feynman spent 50% of his energy setting the scene to portray himself as the smartest guy in the room. But that didn’t change the fact that he was, in fact, the smartest guy in the room.

By: James

James — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 07:14:52 +0000

“We can stretch ourselves within the limitations of the age, place, time and environment that we grow up and live in but no one can ever escape those limitations. And ‘genius’ far from being something that transcends its environment, is actually a product of it.”

There must have been a hell of a lot of geniuses around at the time then! It’s a suprise that we single out Newton, given that it was just the time and place that he lived , and there were thousands of other geniuses of equal mertit that we could choose instead.

If he had been born and lived in Somalia then of course he would have lacked the oportunities that he actually had – but I reckon he’d still have been pretty smart.