The vast majority of people who worked on alchemy and biblical prophecies were either charlatans, or, at best, people who diligently researched the wrong thing. Their names are rightly mostly lost to history.
Newton earned the respect we give him with his theories of gravity and calculus. He made concrete explanations that other people were able to understand and build on - even his enemies, who were many, could not deny the correctness of his results. And the whole edifice of science, engineering, and industry is built on that work - even today, Newton's laws of motion are something people have to learn and understand, and a lot of people do understand, and teachers distinguish between people who understood them and people who did not, and test whether people's understanding of them is correct or not. People judge Newton's work all the time, and they are right to do so.
Did he spend a lot of his life on bullshit? Yes, probably. So does PG, so do any number of Nobel Prize winners. But we don't remember his name because of his work on alchemy and biblical prophecies. There's a huge difference between someone who did some productive work and some bullshit, and someone who only or mostly did the bullshit. And if you take the position that you aren't fit to judge who's a genius and who's a charlatan and you're not even going to try, you're going to get taken for a ride.
So you are saying Alan kay is 100% bullshit? Or 50-50 sense/bullshit? 25-75? What is the percentage that makes someone a crank or not? Because newton has a 30/70 score by this metric.
In my book Kay makes lots of sense most of the times, if you put in the effort. Maybe you see it totally differntly.
Another thing - with Newton for ex - I think the way he studied these other subjects - was still very honest, very sincere, and he made great efforts to get things right. So I'd say Newton has maintained methodological integrity throughout regardless of results (quality of efforts > quality of results). My view with Kay would be the same - I think he has high levels of integrity. I can cite why I think so, but then this thread is taking too long already.
> So you are saying Alan kay is 100% bullshit? Or 50-50 sense/bullshit? 25-75? What is the percentage that makes someone a crank or not? Because newton has a 30/70 score by this metric.
I don't think it's a percentage, I think we evaluate people on the non-bullshit they've done rather than the bullshit. And as far as I can see Kay hasn't done much that's valuable - I mean, I think there's merit in Smalltalk, but the parts of its design that I think are good are disjoint from the parts that Kay talks about. To the extent that the things he's said convey meaning they tend to be wrong - object orientation has failed in multiple incarnations, late binding has failed, live systems have failed, etc..
> In my book Kay makes lots of sense most of the times, if you put in the effort. Maybe you see it totally differntly.
I do. Some of the gnomic statements he's made have been retrospectively interpreted to mean things that make sense and are useful (e.g. "oh, obviously he meant actors"). But as far as I can see no-one ever managed to interpret them in a way that made sense and contributed to building something useful ahead of time - it's more of a Nostradamus situation than him having actual insight.
I mean, I assume he hasn't achieved literally nothing his whole life, that at some point he's done research that contributed to something useful. But I've reached the view that all the stuff he's famous for, all the stuff that people quote, is bullshit.
> I think the way he studied these other subjects - was still very honest, very sincere, and he made great efforts to get things right. So I'd say Newton has maintained methodological integrity throughout regardless of results (quality of efforts > quality of results).
The thing is, it's much harder to judge efforts than results, so it's easy for a charlatan to look like they were making high-quality efforts. I'm willing to trust that Newton had methodological integrity because he was able to produce great results, and so I'm willing to accept that the efforts that lead to that carried over to other parts of his life (not that I think it actually matters either way - if what you're studying is fundamentally rotten from the start then an investigation with higher methodological quality is a castle on sand). You have to be a lot more sceptical if you don't have that proof that the person is at least capable of high-quality efforts.
Newton earned the respect we give him with his theories of gravity and calculus. He made concrete explanations that other people were able to understand and build on - even his enemies, who were many, could not deny the correctness of his results. And the whole edifice of science, engineering, and industry is built on that work - even today, Newton's laws of motion are something people have to learn and understand, and a lot of people do understand, and teachers distinguish between people who understood them and people who did not, and test whether people's understanding of them is correct or not. People judge Newton's work all the time, and they are right to do so.
Did he spend a lot of his life on bullshit? Yes, probably. So does PG, so do any number of Nobel Prize winners. But we don't remember his name because of his work on alchemy and biblical prophecies. There's a huge difference between someone who did some productive work and some bullshit, and someone who only or mostly did the bullshit. And if you take the position that you aren't fit to judge who's a genius and who's a charlatan and you're not even going to try, you're going to get taken for a ride.