Talk:Isaac Newton's occult studies

message: This is just a poor start I doodled up, while Wikipedia was down. Feel free to try and NPOV it, if you feel it needs it.
Add his studies on Daniel and I think it's complete. I'm betting the studies got bogged in the mistranslation of the suffering servant prophecies...  - Sparky 01:16, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newton and Daniel 

message: Please define the study of Chronology, the link has the obvious definition of chronology.
:Done!  I added a section on Chronology, though it may need some elaboration.  Not sure if this part of Newton's research falls under Occult Study, but I suppose it does.  I guess it could reflect "hidden knowledge", or at the very least Newton's version of history.--Trippz 08:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronology 

message: Please add references to the article. Thanks. Adraeus 07:02, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yikes!  You can say that again!  A majority of it seems really POV.  In need of some rewrites, or maybe just scrap the whole thing and merge to Isaac Newton's religious views as suggested below. Trippz 11:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Credibility 

message: Could this be merged with Isaac Newton's religious views? Theres an awful lot of overlap.Borisblue 05:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the two should be merged, but this portion really needs some work first because it doesn't gel with itself, let alone a merge to another article.  Its been tagged for wikify since July 2007.  I agree, the context, verbage, and terminology almost appears ripped directly from other sources.  Aside from the wikify tag, I think it also needs a "cleanup" as well.  Interesting topic, I'd like to save it, but in its current state I suspect its heading to AfD pretty soon. Trippz 11:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After consideration I don't think it should be merged.  There does seem to be enough Newton research to warrant an article separate from his Religious beliefs.  I'm not sure some of this would fit nicely with an article about his religious convictions after all. I'm working on expanding the article so it can stand on it own.  Help would be appreciated. Trippz 11:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge?

message: In this article, it is said that Newton was a well know alchemist of his time. So far as my knowledge of Newton goes, Newton did everything possible to hide his "occult" interests, especially alchemy.
It was only in the 1930s or so, when his papers were auctioned that Newton's occult leanings came to light.
Rather than edit the page straightaway, I would like the opinion and permission of the original author.
Thanks.
My understanding is that he was well known among alchemists at least. Since most scientists were alchemists up until the period of the American Civil War you do find a lot of alchemical or occult references to some of the things he studied, including fluxions, optics, the Temple of Solomons dimensions and the study of other classical temples and monuments such as the Great Pyramid, with Newtons published conjecture on [a pyramid inch] and the studies of the columns of the Parthenon. 
The first suggestion that the builders of the Great Pyramid of Giza used units of measure related to modern measures is attributed to Oxford astronomy professor John Greaves (1602-1652), who journeyed to Egypt in 1638 to make measurements of the pyramid. 
His findings were published in his Pyramidographia and under his name in an anonymous tract.[1] More than a century later, Greaves' measurements and additional measurements made by French engineers during Napoleon's expedition in Egypt, were studied by John Taylor (1781-1864). 
Taylor claimed that the measurements indicated that the ancients had used a unit of measure about 1/1000 greater than a modern British inch.[2] This was origin of the "pyramid inch". Taylor regarded the "pyramid inch" to be 1/25 of the "sacred cubit" whose existence had earlier been postulated by Isaac Newton.[3] 
The principal argument was that the total length of the four sides of the pyramid would be 36524 (100 times the number of days in a year) if measured in pyramid inches. Taylor and his followers, who included the Astronomer Royal of Scotland Charles Piazzi Smyth (1819-1900),[4] also found numerous apparent coincidences between the measurements of the pyramids and the geometry of the earth and the solar system. 
They concluded that the British system of measures was derived from a far more ancient, if not divine, system. During the 19th and early 20th centuries, this theory played a significant role in the debates over whether Britain and the United States should adopt the metric system[5]
One reason for this might have been the development of interest in the seconds pendulum which appeared to relate Time, Space and Gravity
Newtons Alchemy
:The first folio consists of an isolated treatment of the hardness and color of gems. An interesting and previously unnoticed point of interest lies in Newton's reference here to an unambiguously alchemical tract, the De veritate & antiquitate artis chymicae Robertus Vallensis(found in volume I of Lazarus Zetzner's Theatrum chemicum). Newton also refers to "chymists" who derive the colors of precious stones from metallic tinctures. It is clear, then that Newton was already reading chrysopoetic authors at the time when he took these notes, and they may well have helped to stimulate his interest in the nature of colors more generally. 
:The preliminary notes on gems give way almost immediately to one of Newton's earliest and most important treatments of optics , simply called "Of Colours" in the manuscript. Although much of the manuscript could be thought of as a sort of commonplace book, where Newton records the thoughts of writers whom he is reading, 
:"Of Colours" is an experimental treatise in its own right, occupying folios 2r up to 12v. The text has been edited and supplied with excellent notes and commentary by J.E. McGuire and Martin Tamny in their Certain Philosophical Questions: Newton's Trinity Notebook (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983) . We direct the reader to McGuire and Tamny's edition for their interpretive apparatus. Our edition reveals the relationship between "Of Colours" and Newton's evolving chymical pursuits, and of course it is fully searchable. 
:On folio 13r we find Newton's recipe for "an excellent ink," which employs , the then well known ingredients of oak galls and iron vitriol ("copperas") to make a black ink. 
:At 14r Newton launches into extensive reading notes grouped under commonplace headings such as "Of Cold & Heate." The vast majority of these entries, which extend to about 41v, draw upon the work of Robert Boyle, who greatly influenced the young Newton. Other easily identified sources in this section include the Harvard educated chymist George Starkey (34r) and the Spanish writer on Peruvian metallurgy, Alonso Barba (34). 
:On 41v Newton begins recording his own experimental notes. The bulk of the manuscript after this point consists of Newton's records of his own chymical experiments, though reading notes still appear at a number of places. Notes from George Starkey' 1658 work on medical chymistry, Pyrotechny, appear alongside borrowings from Boyle between folios 82v and 88v , for example. Among Newton's experimental notes there are also clear attempts to interpret and implement Starkey's mysterious transmutational writings, which the young American composed under the pseudonym of Eirenaeus Philalethes. 
:On 43r, for example, Newton describes his successful attempts at making Philalethes's "net," an alloy of copper and martial antimony regulus with a depression in the center and a fine crystalline surface resembling network. 
:On 54v Newton performs further experiments with the net, which he now equates with "the oak," another Philalethan product. Philalethes thought that the myth in which Cadmus, the legendary founder of Thebes, impaled a poisonous dragon upon an oak tree with his iron lance contained a hidden recipe for the production of antimony regulus from stibnite, the ore of antimony. Philalethes elsewhere advised to fuse the product of this reaction with copper, giving Newton license to identify the "oak" with the "net," as he clearly does on 54v as well as 68r and 68v. 
:On May 10, 1681 (see 62r ), Newton seems to have initially felt that he experienced a breakthrough in decoding Philalethes, for he says (in Latin) that he has understood the meaning of the "two doves" of Diana, one of the cover-names employed by Starkey's pseudonymous adept. Newton soon realized the delusory nature of his discovery, for he crossed the passage out. On May 18 (see 62v ) he had a similar experience, when he temporarily believed that he had uncovered the real sense of Mercury's caduceus: subsequently he struck this passage out as well. The sheer intellectual challenge of disentangling the riddling allegories of Philalethes and other alchemists was clearly one of the driving impulses behind Newton's chymistry. 
On the final folio of the manuscript , Newton records the prices of various materials bought from "Mister Stonestreet" and "Mister Timothy Langley." These notes are of value in determining Newton's contacts in the world of seventeenth-century chymistry.
Rktect 17:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Newton was a well known alchemist of his time"? 

message: You guy should watch the Nova episode dealing with this matter.  It covers it quite well: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9062704729950935075&q=nova+duration%3Along
--Havermayer 06:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nova Episode 

message: "Foundations of Newtons's Alchemy" was written by Betty Jo Teeter Dobbs, unless there's another book by the same name. She is by far the authority on Newton's alchemy, as every other book I've read on the subject uses her book as a reference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Poggy8 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 

message: Are these speculations attested to any notable scholar, or are they just someone's musings about what Newton might have thought?  The clause about how he "toyed with the idea of including margin notes attesting" Pythagoras' knowledge of gravity sounds rather unencyclopedic, unless there are comments in his notebooks or early drafts of his works supporting this.
It seems to me that these speculations should either be specifically cited to reliable sources, or removed altogether. If there's specific evidence supporting the claims, the section should be retitled: "speculations" suggests individual guesswork, rather than scholarship. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, I'll pop into the library and write up the references. I should add that I wrote most of the orginal article before we had a working method of adding cites or references... as for why the title of the section is "speculations", that is probably because I didn't wish to get into an edit war with the people who were sceptical of those being his real views. They are well attested, for all that. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 11:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there a "speculations" section? 

message: According to http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/06/18/newton.papers.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories Newton didn´t mean the world would end 2060, but that this was the earliest possible date for the world to end. He wrote "This I mention not to assert when the time of the end shall be, but to put a stop to the rash conjectures of fanciful men who are frequently predicting the time of the end, and by doing so bring the sacred prophesies into discredit as often as their predictions fail."
:Agreed!  I've added the information to the 2060 section including direct and complete quotes from Newton's own work.--Trippz 08:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apocalypse 

message: The article includes reference to the story of a lab fire in which documents were destroyed.  This anecdote may be apocryphal (see, apple falling from tree) though nobody knows for sure.  There are some sources in "Isaac Newton: Eighteenth Century Perspectives" by Alfred Rupert Hall that indicate Newton never owned a pet at all.  However, the story of Diamond the dog starting the lab fire has soundly found its way into the Newtonian mythos.  I don't have a problem with it being in the article per say, but is there a source indicating that the material allegedly destroyed was in fact occult related, or at least truly may have been?  I only bring it up because its one of those stories that pops up whenever there is speculation regarding Newton's work.  Example:  Newton wrote about aliens, but it was burned in a fire.  Newton could turn lead to gold, but the notes were burnt in the fire.  Newton cured cancer, discovered Pluto, solved The Bible Code, but it burnt in a fire.  etc, etc.  I thought of maybe including a whole section on "Diamond the dog" and the phenomenon of the "lost work" which was consumed in the alleged fire, but I'm not sure it should be here.  Interesting topic, I could probably construct something, but should it go here?  Maybe.  It doesn't bring up "hidden knowledge" per say, or directly relate to Newton's occult practices, but it does address contemporary occultism in the since of the possibility of "lost work" related to Newton himself.  May be a worthy addition, but I don't want to tackle it if the consensus feels it is outside the scope of the subject material.  What do you think?  Feedback appreciated.  Trippz (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, just found Diamond (dog) --Trippz (talk) 06:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newton's Famous "Diamond" Fire 

message: "Distinctions taken for granted today – such as between the natural and supernatural, or between science and pseudoscience" is not a good sentence. It contrasts natural between supernatural and compares it to science/pseudoscience, obviously implying that pseudoscience is rubbish (true) and (belief in) supernatural too (which is not). This is a religious statement, which does not belong to an objective encyclopedia. 86.50.9.167 (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure I read that particular section that way, but at the same time I don't know how to accomplish what seems to be the purpose of the sentence by rewording it.  Personally I don't see any atheistic bias in those words.  The term supernatural can be applied to a wide variety of concepts that don't have a particularly religious connection, but of course I suppose it would be possible that some people might attach it to religious aspects as well.  Can't be for sure, but I think the purpose the contributor was going for was to address the differences in scientific understanding that exist between Newtons lifetime and our own.  Seventeenth century Europe was in fact a very superstitious period, which I don't think can really be argued, and many of their supernatural beliefs were in no way particularly connected to religious belief but yet could still be considered supernatural  (Classical Spontaneous Generation comes to mind, amongst many others like witchcraft and black toads).  If you have an idea of a way to present the differences in world view between now and then, let's hear it, might be a way to improve that statement. --Trippz (talk) 07:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My point was that the original sentence linked everything supernatural to pseudoscience, and pseudoscience equals to rubbish (in most people's minds). It follows immediately that all supernatural things are equated to rubbish, including almost all religions (not sure what kinds are there) and superstitions. That was too vague/broad terming, but now it is better, thank you. 86.50.9.167 (talk) 08:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atheist bias detected 

message: I don't see why freemasonry should even be noted on this page. If the paragraph begins with "There is no verifiable record of Newton being a Freemason" and ends with "However, ultimately there is no evidence to directly connect Newton to Freemasonry" then the whole stuff in between has no meaning. Wikipedia should be an encyclopedia with verifiable/reliable sources, and there's no evidence that he was a freemason, then it shouldn't be mentioned in this article. Groundless speculations just don't fit for a reputable encyclopedia. Including it "because secret societies are cool/exciting" is not a good reason. 86.50.9.167 (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your viewpoint, why support a negative, right?  However, the information was included simply because there are numerous allegations that Newton was a Freemason throughout popular culture and literature.  Though the information supports a negative, it does help to dispel rumor and conjecture about an aspect of Isaac Newton that is regularly brought up regarding his occult practices.  There are in fact whole books solely written as an attempt to uncover Newton's role in Freemasonry, so I personally think it is a topic that is worthy of addressing in an article of this nature.  Also, the Freemasonry section is actually a part of the larger "Secret Society" section.  Newton was also not a member of the Priory of Sion, however, considering the popularity of Da Vinci Code and the countless knock-off books and theories, Newton is often lumped into various conspiracy theories and half-baked sensationalisms that attempt to attach him to various groups.  We should not hide from common misconceptions, but actually attempt to clarify them.  So basically that particular section was designed to clarify the current knowledge about his standing within a particular group, nothing more.  Part of the job of a encyclopedic article is to also recognize the aspects of a subject that are often misunderstood or misinformed and provide a more accurate picture to the reader.  --Trippz (talk) 06:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, now I understand, keep the paragraph if it is needed. At first it just seemed unfair to label a person with freemasonry, and "there's no evidence" at the start and end of the paragraph just seemed to me that this section is only libel towards Newton. You should consider how a person with no particular interest in conspiracy theories or Da Vinci Code (I as an example) would react to that paragraph. 86.50.9.167 (talk) 08:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newton and freemasonry 

message: "Newton's chronological writing is Eurocentric, with the earliest records focusing upon Greece, Anatolia, Egypt, and the Levant." Why does this exhibit Eurocentrism? Anatolia, Egypt, and the Levant are all outside Europe. In any case, the accusation of is inappropriate. Depending which way you look at it, to accuse a 17th century Englishman of Eurocentrism is either anachronistic or redundant. Treharne (talk) 07:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes Anatolia, Egypt, the Levant are not in what we call modern Europe today, but the term was intended to indicate that Newton never mentions civilizations of Asia, Africa, the New World, etc.  None of these places are included in his chronology, though he most certainly knew of them, thus suggesting Eurocentrism.  Eurocentric history often includes historical connections to those above mentioned (near east) places, such as Greek and Egyptian myth. Their history is a strong part of foundational European history, as well as the Christian Bible which has its origins there (one which Newton uses as a primary source).  As for redundancy applied to Englishmen, I'd make the argument that there were many Englishmen living in various places throughout the world at that time who perhaps did not share a world view similar to Newton.  I wouldn't call it redundant at all to apply this term to a single scientist, and thereby lump all 17th century Englishmen into Newton's group.  Finally, using the term Eurocentric as an "accusation" is not the intention, nor do I personally see why using Eurocentric is somehow a bad thing!  It is simply a term, meaning "Centered around Europe", I think you're reading far too much into it and perhaps taking offense to a perfectly valid term without considering its meaning.  His historical chronology is Eurocentric, but that wouldn't separate him from various historian from other continents who focus solely upon their history from their own point of views.  --Trippz (talk) 12:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever the intent, "Eurocentric" does sound pejorative, at least in 2020. If you must keep the term, maybe you could qualify it so the sentence is not immediately self-contradictory, e.g., "Newton's chronological writing is largely Eurocentric, despite some of the earliest records focusing upon Anatolia, Egypt, and the Levant."Happy temporizer (talk) 01:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Eurocentrism?

message: Reference 5 is down  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.80.215.185 (talk) 21:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have switched the reference to use an archived version of the page. Keith D (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 5 is down 

message: This page should really be renamed "Isaac Newton's esoteric studies." The term occult doesn't really include stuff like freemasonry or biblical interpretation whereas everything listed in this article does full under the academic heading of "esotericism"72.89.142.128 (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting to rename article 

message: Checking the article Isaac_Newton and Isaac Newton's occult studies I have noticed that the rumors of Newton being a "magician" and dedicating much of his studies to "alchemy" have been mainly based in ASSUMPTIONS of authors that pretended to relationate Newton and Alchemy. First it is needed to see the difference between chemistry and esoteric alchemy.  I think that this field must be checked accurately, because it's still considered under the category of "mystery" and "enigma".
It seems like this rumors began because of John Maynard Keynes writings who was supposed to acquire some Newton's writings. According to the article, Keynes said "Newton was not the first of the age of reason: He was the last of the magicians." and then states Newton's interest in alchemy cannot be isolated from his contributions to science". 
That is of course, just Keynes opinion, and i think is not encyclopedic. One cannot classify all the works of Isaac Newton under an assumption or opinion, suggesting that all the contributions that he made to science owes its debt to alchemy, and in this case that's given as a fact. 
One more: Here in the article in the section "Optics" it says "Modern scholarship has revealed that Newton's analysis and resynthesis of white light owes a debt to corpuscular alchemy."
I think that is not encyclopedic again definitely and need to be checked. The correct word instead "revealed" would be "suggested". In this case the "modern scholarship" is nothing but W. R. Newman opinion, so also would be more accurate to say that "W. R. Newman suggests that  Newton's analysis..." and not write it as a fact.
Why so worried about this?
Because I haven't seen one single quote that comes directly from Newton's works that demonstrate that He was directly involved in alchemy, so it must matter that the views of Newton in alchemy are based in personal INTERPRETATIONS of his writings and not in Newton's own words. The fact that chemistry language in that age was very similar to alchemic one, does not mean that he was strictly involved in alchemy. An also, just because he was interested in natural and materials sciences and metals, it does not mean that he was all into alchemy. 
One caannot say that "Newton's vies" on this or that "were because of" this or that unless he said it himself. Otherwise it's just a guessing.
One more: In the article it says "Much of Newton's writing on alchemy may have been lost in a fire in his laboratory, so the true extent of his work in this area may have been larger than is currently known." 
This, again, is not accurate in anyway. As far as I know, there is no historical evidence of a "fire" in its laboratory, which many biographers and historians doubt. So that claim is making an assumption again based on non-proved claims.
I have checked sources like "the Chymistry of Newton" a website run by William R. Newman proffesor of Indiana University, and its articles and all their "browse manuscripts" are taken mainly from M.S. Keynes writings. This rumors were also promoted by mainstream media such like the New York Times, and very few have stopped and thought about the fidelity and accuracy of all this claims. No wonder why this rumors have been spread by worth of mouth.  Other mystical books have been published also of course, but it's still something that seems to be no accurate source. Even many of the articles made by University History professors are made up and based in assumptions on hypothesis of what Newton ("probably") "would have believed" or "would have meant" or "would have MADE", without any direct source from Isaac Newton's OWN works.  
One more: It says in the article: "Regardless of his own membership status, Newton was a known associate of many individuals who themselves have often been labeled as members of various esoteric groups. It is unclear if these associations were a result of his being a well established and prominently publicized scholar" and again, there is no source nor reference.
No wonder that Newton never published any "alchemical work", though lately there have been some people that have promoted the theory of Newton seeking the philosopher's stone, that claim is not proved, and it still based in interpretations that can be fallible. 
IF we DO take into account ONLY Newton's own words and works...? He never defined himself as an alchemist. Anyone who talk about Newton should think about that, I think.
The same happens with freemasonry. Just because there are thousands of rumors and thousands of websites saying that Newton was a freemason, it doesn't mean that  he was.
After a man dies, people start making myths and stories about them that they were into this or that they were into that, and the worst part is when the ones who hear that start spreading that information without even really know if that is true or false, objective or subjective.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goose friend (talk • contribs) 17:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest reading some of William Newman's work before deriding it as the made up suppositions of a historian.  Newman is currently annotating Newton's manuscripts to make them more accessible to everyone.  He cites Newton extensively throughout his works, and bases his conclusions study and recreation of Newton's work.  There is in fact a large body of scholarship on the study of Newton's alchemy, again all based in his own words.  The fact that you don't see some of those words in this article is merely the sign that this article still has room for improvement. Kirwanfan (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newton and Alchemy? According OTHERS and not according Newton

message: Christian Heinrich Postel did not compose operas, as the article says, - he wrote libretti. Source? Which opera composed by whom? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Postel 

message: I can't believe that everyone missed that he translated the Emerald Tablets of Hermes / Thoth. It's even mentioned on the wikipedia article Emerald_Tablets Netdragon (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emerald Tablets 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Isaac Newton's occult studies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070807181322/http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/newton/about.do to http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/newton/about.do
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071214024618/http://www.jnul.huji.ac.il/dl/mss/newton/gallery_eng.html to http://www.jnul.huji.ac.il/dl/mss/newton/gallery_eng.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071108210637/http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/texts/viewtext.php?id=THEM00005&mode=normalized to http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/texts/viewtext.php?id=THEM00005&mode=normalized
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071108210642/http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/texts/viewtext.php?id=THEM00040&mode=normalized to http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/texts/viewtext.php?id=THEM00040&mode=normalized
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070918203107/http://www.jnul.huji.ac.il/dl/mss/newton/ to http://www.jnul.huji.ac.il/dl/mss/newton/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070705225432/http://www.math.niu.edu/~rusin/known-math/index/40-XX.html to http://www.math.niu.edu/~rusin/known-math/index/40-XX.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: He needed to be discrete about alchemy since:
* alchemy was a vector of heretical ideas and mobs were lynching heretics;
* alchemy provided technical knowledge about counterfeiting money.
So, alchemy was considered dangerous. Source: Newton: The Dark Heretic, BBC, 2003. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alchemy was dangerous 

message: Doesn't summarise the article.  Why so much focus on Maynard Keynes' opinion? 94.9.146.6 (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: The lede needs attention

message: :What cause the fire to happen that burned most of his alchemy notes? How did the temple of Solomon impact his alchemy skills?Khyhvc (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: Newton as member of AMORC is as true as Newton was a Mormon (Mormons do baptize the dead and count them as members). So, yup, you might have guessed, Einstein was a Mormon, too. tgeorgescu (talk)  10:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  AMORC 

message: I just proposed merging into Religious views of Isaac Newton and shortened to the well-sourced elements.  It was initially created from the 1911 Britannica article and we have better information and sourcing in the current Isaac Newton article. – SJ + 14:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the merge. It'll need to be done selectively, of course. XOR'easter (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

text: agree with merge proposal, though only several sections are sourced and can be merged to the main article. Artem.G (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

text: I got some time to read the article, and it mostly looks like OR. Most of them are not "occult" by any definition of the word. Some are just Bible interpretation, some are Alchemy, this section calls Principia an occult study. "Newton's chronology" can be called "occult", but that's quite a stretch. "Newton and the Rosicrucians" is almost completely unsourced. What do you think can be salvaged for the proposed merge? Artem.G (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: For Rosicrucians I've found this article Newton and the Rosicrucian Enlightenment, some more possible sources are What Happened to Occult Qualities in the Scientific Revolution?, Occult Scientific Mentalities, Essay Review: Revisions of Science and Magic: From Paracelsus to Newton: Magic and the Making of Modern Science, Occult and Scientific Mentalities in the Renaissance, ‘Though their causes be not yet discover’d’: occult principles in the making of Newton’s natural philosophy, Handling "Occult Qualities" in the Scientific Revolution. Artem.G (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose, on the grounds that the idea of Newton's occult studies is well-established as a theme in academic research of his work, and hence warrants separate discussion. My view is that the WP:SUMMARY format work here, with this page linked with a main template at Religious views of Isaac Newton#Other beliefs. Klbrain (talk) 03:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal