[wolverine876]

> there's another reason for some optimism about a voting-truth connection: wisdom of the crowds. As long as there isn't a strong bias to people's estimate, the average will converge on the truth.

Hmmm ... that doesn't seem to match what actually happens. After false beliefs holding back humanity for its entire history, science came along and produced actual, working, truth. And science is the opposite of what you say: The crowds don't matter, only the facts. Newton was not a crowd, and the crowds didn't produce anything remotely as true and valuable for all those years. The crowds persecuted Galileo (and many others).

"In matters of science, the authority of thousands is not worth the humble reasoning of one single person." - attributed to Galileo

As someone pointed out, I think here on HN, the intuition of the crowds sucks. If it was any good, we'd have had the right physics in 5,000 BCE not starting in the 17th century.

[anonymouskimmer]

I thought Newton was a mathematician, not a scientist.

> the intuition of the crowds sucks. If it was any good, we'd have had the right physics in 5,000 BCE not starting in the 17th century.

Eh. People used to stay in their lane. Only these days can you get a city person voting on proper farming techniques.

[wolverine876]

Newton was a mathematician and arguably the most important scientist in history. I recommend his biography - it's amazing reading.

[anonymouskimmer]

I'm the kind of person who is completely disinterested in biographies.

[wolverine876]

Fine, but then why talk about Newton if you are aware you know nothing about them? Talk about what you know.

[anonymouskimmer]

It's not as if I haven't been exposed to his laws of motion in physics courses. I just think of them as more math (or heck, even philosophy) than science.

[wolverine876]

I'm always interested in unique perspectives, but at the same time, English has a meaning outside any individual's concept of it.

> Newton was ... not a scientist.

That has a meaning, and its false. Whatever you personally think of it, Newton was a scientist. I don't love a wild goose chase.

[dragonwriter]

> I thought Newton was a mathematician, not a scientist.

Newton was a mathematician, scientist, alchemist, theologian (though, by the view of most Christians at the time and now, quite a heterodox one), and high government official that conducted undercover investigations personally. People can sometimes do more than one thing, and Newton did...a lot.