Skewering the Lines Between Domains of Knowledge

Isaac Newton never found the philosopher’s stone or the Elixir of Life, but it wasn’t for lack of trying. We look back on this as a comical thing. What was the world’s most influential scientist thinking? How did he not recognize that alchemy was fundamentally a different — and illegitimate! — game compared to his hard-science work?

He was also a bit of a theologian. Oh my.

This critique of Newton, that he apparently couldn’t tell the difference between real science and hocus pocus, very much applies to many an academic today. Here’s where I could list names, and there are so many. Where to start. Just consider Jordan Peterson, who mixes psychology with Jungian whimsy and Christian symbolism. Then there are the postmodern scholars (whom Peterson loudly critiques) who lean into in vogue Theory to further political agendas rather than unbiased pursuits of knowledge. And of course there are all manner of fringe characters like Deepak Chopra who merge spiritual words with hard physics and astronomy.

Everyone is a little religious in one regard or another. Everyone is a little bit like Isaac Newton with his alchemy.

The temptation to get sloppy with the fine lines between domains of knowledge is just so great!