A Look Back at Research From 1875
Posted4 months agoActive4 months ago
bcmullins.github.ioSciencestory
calmpositive
Debate
20/100
History of ScienceResearchMathematical Logic
Key topics
History of Science
Research
Mathematical Logic
The post showcases research from 1875, highlighting forgotten and lesser-known scientific discoveries, and sparks a discussion on the evolution of scientific themes and trends.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Light discussionFirst comment
N/A
Peak period
3
78-84h
Avg / period
2
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Sep 8, 2025 at 11:24 AM EDT
4 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Sep 8, 2025 at 11:24 AM EDT
0s after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
3 comments in 78-84h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Sep 12, 2025 at 1:20 AM EDT
4 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45169477Type: storyLast synced: 11/20/2025, 6:30:43 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
I've had lots of great suggestions from HN readers in the past. If I've missed anything cool that you like, please share!
Skimming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1875_in_science the twin studies and behavioural genetics is interesting. The challenger-deep thing too since it's earlier than I would have guessed, but IMHO it would be more exciting/appropriate to categorize as "exploration" than science. Did they publish a "paper" about stuff like that back then, or just tell the royal society, tell the newspapers and call it good?
A pointless but fun question to think about is, how to decide the most important thing that happened in a given year? Sometimes a discovery, sometimes an idea, sometimes a project, election, or war. But for a slow year.. maybe it's just that someone who will have that idea or start that project later was born.
It's always an interesting exercise choosing which books or articles to write about. There's a balancing act between what I want to read, what I think is important or representative, and what do I know enough about to have anything to add.
I don't think this is a valid counterexample. The Gödel sentence is only verifiable from outside the theory, and you can prove it from outside the theory in the same way (e.g. with a large cardinal assumption for ZFC).
Thanks for pointing this out! I'll update the post.
I'm now not sure what's the distinction between verifiability and discoverability among truths in a formal system.