Last letter struck me as the author wanting to give something in return, so he gave a scientific analysis of the gifts he received. Basically to show gratitude and proof that the gift was appreciated.
The referee report is amusing, since it is so reminiscent of how peer review is written even today. The same structure, same complaints, same notes such as "I'm not competent to remark on so and so".
No matter the find, no matter the topic, always absolutely interesting and brilliant videos! What an honour it was to unexpectedly meet Keith at the Royal Society two years ago. And, I will unashamedly admit here that upon meeting him I did stumble over my words, it was like meeting a rock star! He is such a humble person and a true gentleman.
Always a good day when a new objectivity comes out! Even the letters of everyday life and musings are a glimpse into a past world and I can’t get enough of
The second pick, about new stars, it sound very much like peer review, an integral step in the scientific process. Only the opinion of the reviewers never get seen by the public at large.
the measles infection would have been purely coincidental. It is so fantastically contagious one can be infected simply by walking into a room hours after an infected individual had been there. The purposeful infection with smallpox they were doing was called variolation and was a method of inoculation first used to immunize individuals against smallpox (Variola) with material taken from a smallpox patient or a recently variolated individual, in the hope that a mild but protective infection would result. Only 1-2% of individuals variolated died from the intentional infection compared to 30% who contracted smallpox naturally. It fell out of favor after Jenner's cowpox vaccination method came into use about 6 decades after this letter.
I am sure I am not the first one ,but still ,realising that Brady is behind Objectivity,Periodic Videos ,and the NumberPhile in the last couple of months ,amazed me more than seeing the original Principia Mathematica. Thank you Brady for showing the humanity of science.
Some times you could lets dice decide. Roll 1d8 and 1d10 to get the drawer, roll 2d10 for rough percentile within the drawer's cards. Gloves make the final pick around the % given by the dice.
I think the second one was actually interesting. We might not have got a look at the paper itself, but we got a look about the publishing process, and that in itself is interesting.
Suggestion for a future Gloves of Destiny. I know it's not the same type of fate, but how about we see that is the very FIRST card in the catalogue, and what is the very LAST.
It would be interesting to see a "heat map" (distribution) of all picks so far. The edges rarely get picked at all. And even within each drawer, people tend to pick from the middle.
My inner -pedant,- I mean referee, noted that the Royal Society referee corrected _phenomena_ to _phenomenon,_ but then missed the plural of nova. Waitaminit. The referee got it right on both counts. I took a look at 6:19 That's Novae, not Novi as Keith pronounced it. Having taken Latin in high school many decades ago does serious lifelong damage to one's soul. There's my excuse.
I thought that pronunciation was odd, but I assumed Keith would know how to pronounce Latin better than me so thought maybe I had been saying it wrong all these years... I'm pleased to know I haven't been!
@@thomasdalton1508 I think it's a long hard march from a Latin adjective to an English noun. We just happen to have ended up with the feminine form of a Latin adjective becoming an English noun. If it had been Novus, instead (just as valid), then I think Novi would have been correct. Maybe we should just settle on the fully anglicized "Novas", and put the lid back on that particular can of worms.😁 What? You're still reading??? "nova stella" is Latin for "new star", so... feminine all the way.
@@blindleader42 - It's actually a bit before that (at 6:17), and he pronounces it correctly enough as "noveye" (scientific Latin, which tends to be closer to classical Latin but add the u/v distinction - in true classical Latin it would be "noweye"), although it could also be pronounced "noveh" (ecclesiastical Latin). I certainly should _not_ be pronounced "novee" (as some English speakers do). And "nova" is also a noun in Latin (meaning "new one"), so that part of the journey was fairly short. But I agree it would definitely make more sense to use modern English rules if you're speaking English (i.e., "novas"). Even romance languages (which are closer to Latin) tend to do that.
My puny rant…: The letters were long, because time wasn’t measured by a currency. No invoice made nor expected. The «service» of the recipient spending _their_ time in return, was a value in itself. The letters seem «rambling», because early science (natural philosophy) still maintained that every reduction was part of the holistic. I.e. the humbling complexity of one incomprehensible whole. Well into modernity, we see this as a bit «stupid», ineffective or not «to the point». See that as one may - said «stupidity» seem to remain. Maybe from the dialectic negative of reductionism - our cultural externalization of _anything_ holistic…? 😊
A 1891 keyboard warrior with pen and pencil instead, even back then they wanted a word in even though they where not qualified to comment. Some things never change 🤣
It says he was asked to comment. He assumes they knew he wasn't an expert on the technicalities, so he assumes they wanted from him what he could do. If you think of the paper that was 60 pages long, simple editing suggestions are also useful.
🤣 objective and astrophysics don't belong in the same sentence. Dark matter....it exerts gravitational attraction but we have no way to detect it? Riiight. A force large enough to collapse matter past its electrical repulsive force so to make a "singularity" of infinite density, etc....even an undergrad taking calculus knows infinity isn't a value but an abstract concept. 🤯 Far too many unfalsifiable theories & science fiction fantastical propositions passed off as a genius the average person simply is too dumb to understand.... but never that the theory could possibly be nonsensical.
yaknow. i don't know if you noticed, but, you two just did to Ben what you were complaining about the judges doing to the writers of papers to the RoySoc.
Hi-res images of the documents featured in this episode: www.patreon.com/posts/116384272
So no one is going to compliment that beautiful penmanship? The best calligraphy I've seen in one of those videos
I was just going to comment on that! That last letter is just stunning 😍
I hope you never stop doing these videos. They are my happy place.
me too
Me too! They are wonderful
Last letter struck me as the author wanting to give something in return, so he gave a scientific analysis of the gifts he received. Basically to show gratitude and proof that the gift was appreciated.
Keith is a star
The referee report is amusing, since it is so reminiscent of how peer review is written even today. The same structure, same complaints, same notes such as "I'm not competent to remark on so and so".
As a database guy, I'm curiously pleased that this old-fashioned library-style card catalog lives on in the Royal Society
No matter the find, no matter the topic, always absolutely interesting and brilliant videos! What an honour it was to unexpectedly meet Keith at the Royal Society two years ago. And, I will unashamedly admit here that upon meeting him I did stumble over my words, it was like meeting a rock star! He is such a humble person and a true gentleman.
I am still awaiting the day we see Keith try his luck.
I absolutely love the Delving of the Royal Society.
This channel is so underrated. Deserves more subscribers
Don't tell us - tell your friends! :)
I love the juxtaposition of using "fate" to decide what you show on a science history channel
Love these videos, the world needs more of this❤
Imagine having a full-time employee at the Royal Society just doing this sort of thing.
Wow, it truly seems like Keith knows something about everything. Clearly he was made for this job!
He even looks the part too
Always a good day when a new objectivity comes out! Even the letters of everyday life and musings are a glimpse into a past world and I can’t get enough of
3:09 “We can’t look at that, Brady.” 😂
Rules are rules!
"But... But pretty drawings, Keith."
The second pick, about new stars, it sound very much like peer review, an integral step in the scientific process. Only the opinion of the reviewers never get seen by the public at large.
1732, "innoculation was effective", 2024 RFK jr : "lies"
Right?? All this documentation going back over 250 years.
Man that first letter is wild, imagine if it turned out to be how they basically killed a child by purposefully giving her smallpox and measles.
the measles infection would have been purely coincidental. It is so fantastically contagious one can be infected simply by walking into a room hours after an infected individual had been there. The purposeful infection with smallpox they were doing was called variolation and was a method of inoculation first used to immunize individuals against smallpox (Variola) with material taken from a smallpox patient or a recently variolated individual, in the hope that a mild but protective infection would result. Only 1-2% of individuals variolated died from the intentional infection compared to 30% who contracted smallpox naturally. It fell out of favor after Jenner's cowpox vaccination method came into use about 6 decades after this letter.
I am sure I am not the first one ,but still ,realising that Brady is behind Objectivity,Periodic Videos ,and the NumberPhile in the last couple of months ,amazed me more than seeing the original Principia Mathematica.
Thank you Brady for showing the humanity of science.
Don't forget Sixty Symbols and Deep Sky Videos :)
Some times you could lets dice decide. Roll 1d8 and 1d10 to get the drawer, roll 2d10 for rough percentile within the drawer's cards. Gloves make the final pick around the % given by the dice.
I would not have expected to see these types of figures published in a journal in 1891.
fate does not drive the arm to a lower tier of card files
Aww it's Physics Girl!
Can you use Dungeons and Dragons dice one time to randomize the white gloves of destiny?
I think the second one was actually interesting. We might not have got a look at the paper itself, but we got a look about the publishing process, and that in itself is interesting.
I don't know if it's a trick of camera or a perspective but Keith looks very very tall indeed at 1:47 🙂
It's a trick of a low ceiling plus him having just gone up a ramp.
Keith always has the necessary size. Keith is eternal.
Unnamed Personality Core from Portal 2: 5:29
Suggestion for a future Gloves of Destiny. I know it's not the same type of fate, but how about we see that is the very FIRST card in the catalogue, and what is the very LAST.
You're in luck. They did that very thing 9 years ago. th-cam.com/video/ddx_nsYos1A/w-d-xo.htmlsi=v3tNrc9brKjAhQwB
It would be interesting to see a "heat map" (distribution) of all picks so far. The edges rarely get picked at all. And even within each drawer, people tend to pick from the middle.
Keith!
love this videos
the royal society catacombs
So, like, we all see it right? Keith is totally prepping Brady for the torch passing.
4:32 That cat is definitely one of Satan's minions
Interesting!
Even the most “boring” thing is COOL!!!
There is a substantial vertical bias in drawer selection.
My inner -pedant,- I mean referee, noted that the Royal Society referee corrected _phenomena_ to _phenomenon,_ but then missed the plural of nova. Waitaminit. The referee got it right on both counts. I took a look at 6:19 That's Novae, not Novi as Keith pronounced it.
Having taken Latin in high school many decades ago does serious lifelong damage to one's soul. There's my excuse.
I thought that pronunciation was odd, but I assumed Keith would know how to pronounce Latin better than me so thought maybe I had been saying it wrong all these years... I'm pleased to know I haven't been!
@@thomasdalton1508 I think it's a long hard march from a Latin adjective to an English noun. We just happen to have ended up with the feminine form of a Latin adjective becoming an English noun. If it had been Novus, instead (just as valid), then I think Novi would have been correct.
Maybe we should just settle on the fully anglicized "Novas", and put the lid back on that particular can of worms.😁
What? You're still reading???
"nova stella" is Latin for "new star", so...
feminine all the way.
@@blindleader42 - It's actually a bit before that (at 6:17), and he pronounces it correctly enough as "noveye" (scientific Latin, which tends to be closer to classical Latin but add the u/v distinction - in true classical Latin it would be "noweye"), although it could also be pronounced "noveh" (ecclesiastical Latin). I certainly should _not_ be pronounced "novee" (as some English speakers do).
And "nova" is also a noun in Latin (meaning "new one"), so that part of the journey was fairly short.
But I agree it would definitely make more sense to use modern English rules if you're speaking English (i.e., "novas"). Even romance languages (which are closer to Latin) tend to do that.
The only one with gloves I would allow to lure me down a basement 😉
My puny rant…:
The letters were long, because time wasn’t measured by a currency. No invoice made nor expected. The «service» of the recipient spending _their_ time in return, was a value in itself.
The letters seem «rambling», because early science (natural philosophy) still maintained that every reduction was part of the holistic. I.e. the humbling complexity of one incomprehensible whole.
Well into modernity, we see this as a bit «stupid», ineffective or not «to the point». See that as one may - said «stupidity» seem to remain.
Maybe from the dialectic negative of reductionism - our cultural externalization of _anything_ holistic…? 😊
"The Phenomena of New Stars " well little did he know that Novae are not related to formation of new stars.
Is anyone else blown away that Ben's pick and the first pick were so close to each other? Like the same distance in the card catalog and downstairs
Every time I watch Brady arbitrarily select a drawer, I can't help but feel he's biased toward the ones that are in easy reach. I'd love a randomizer
A 1891 keyboard warrior with pen and pencil instead, even back then they wanted a word in even though they where not qualified to comment. Some things never change 🤣
It says he was asked to comment. He assumes they knew he wasn't an expert on the technicalities, so he assumes they wanted from him what he could do. If you think of the paper that was 60 pages long, simple editing suggestions are also useful.
Bad acting at the start of this. They picked it ahead of time.
🤣 objective and astrophysics don't belong in the same sentence.
Dark matter....it exerts gravitational attraction but we have no way to detect it? Riiight.
A force large enough to collapse matter past its electrical repulsive force so to make a "singularity" of infinite density, etc....even an undergrad taking calculus knows infinity isn't a value but an abstract concept. 🤯
Far too many unfalsifiable theories & science fiction fantastical propositions passed off as a genius the average person simply is too dumb to understand.... but never that the theory could possibly be nonsensical.
Cool
There are a lot of young people that not only can't write script but can't read script! Sad!
It all went downhill when your great-great-great-great-great-grandfather refused to learn cuneiform.
hi
Where can we find these books? Are they digitized?
yaknow. i don't know if you noticed, but,
you two just did to Ben what you were complaining about the judges doing to the
writers of papers to the RoySoc.