[as300]

Sure, but didn't pretty much every English person those days?

I feel the real interesting point is that he was interested in the unknown, and back in those days they didn't have the modern distinctions between what we now consider as natural and supernatural.

Seems that if you want to make progress in human knowledge, you assume the risk of doing things that appear frivolous or just stupid in hindsight.

[neaden]

Reminds me of Jack Parsons, one of the most influential rocket scientists and co-founder of Jet Propulsion Labs and committed Thelemite occultist. Or John Murray Spear, a clergyman from the 1800s who campaigned for women's equality, rights for workers, abolition, and getting rid of the death penalty. He also believed he was talking to Ben Franklin's ghost and tried to build what was essentially a robot Jesus.

[tkgally]

And Isaac Newton:

“English physicist and mathematician Isaac Newton produced works exploring chronology, and biblical interpretation (especially of the Apocalypse), and alchemy. Some of this could be considered occult. Also, Newton described himself as a ‘natural philosopher’, and his work is grounded in Aristotelian metaphysics. Newton’s scientific work may have been of lesser personal importance to him, as he placed emphasis on rediscovering the wisdom of the ancients. In this sense, some historians, including economist John Maynard Keynes, believe that any reference to a ‘Newtonian Worldview’ as being purely mechanical in nature is somewhat inaccurate.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_occult_studie...

[collegeburner]

And Keynes himself was a eugenicist [1] and pederast [2].

[1]: https://eugenicsarchive.ca/discover/tree/5233e4365c2ec500000...

[2]: Lytton Strachey: A Critical Biography, Holroyd 1967

[aaaaaaaaaaab]

>tried to build what was essentially a robot Jesus

Lol! I had to look this up, and indeed it’s true: http://www.danbaines.com/blog/tag/New+Motive+Power

[Igelau]

I don't care if it rains or freezes, I've still got my robot Jesus

[brigandish]

Nothing ventured, nothing gained. It seems to me to tie in nicely with a discussion[1] from HN the other day, and this comment[2] in particular: (though there were many good ones)

> Nice quote, and a very concise diagnosis of what ails much of science: lots of data jockeys, few true scientists. The output of scientific endeavor is not simply truth, but true theories. Or, more accurately, theories which accurately predict (i.e. are not falsified by) the broadest set of relevant observations. The real tragedy is that genuine theoretical advances are often ignored or overlooked because everyone is too busy collecting more data to notice.

A bit too much focus on the known or what can be known is (probably) playing it too safe to make the big gains.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28821498

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28823430