Are true geniuses extinct?

[Maximum7]

I was reading a Nature article by Dean Keith Simonton speaking about how science seems to have slowed and there really isn’t such a thing as a real genius anymore. He defines a true genius as “A real paradigm shifter. A Renaissance human who could completely change the way we understand the world. Geniuses are people who come up with surprising ideas that are not a mere extension of what is already known”. That last line really resonates with me as we really don’t see any completely novel science being discovered that doesn’t already build on an existing concept.

So that begs the question. Are people like Einstein and Tesla and Marie Curie simply not being born and educated anymore (due to poor generics and bad schooling) or are there tons of Einstein’s-they just can’t show their talents because there isn’t anything left for them to do?


As a sidenote; I really don’t think science can end as as long as humans continue to ask questions; there will always be something to study. Yet on the other hand, I find it hard for anything-even the universe itself- to be infinitely complex because nature hates infinities.

This is more of a philosophical question; but it’s been bugging me for years.

 

[BWV]

Science has slowed because there is no more science discoverable by lone geniuses, the intellectual and resource requirements are too large

Scientific discoveries are subject to diminishing returns, no one can be another Newton or Einstein- the book on fundamental physical laws of nature is largely closed

 

[Math100]

I have to disagree with this person, true geniuses can still exist. There is nothing absolute in the world.

 

[Maximum7]

I have to disagree with this person, true geniuses can still exist. There is nothing absolute in the world.

Well you could be a genius based on problem solving ability; there are lots of those. But most of them don’t do a lot of innovative stuff

 

[Math100]

Well you could be a genius based on problem solving ability; there are lots of those. But most of them don’t do a lot of innovative stuff

Maybe because they lack motivation, but that doesn't necessarily indicate true geniuses don't exist.

 

[Pythagorean]

Expanding on the point about diminishing returns - as science evolves it also becomes a more "fractal" space with lots of specialists down lots of different subdomains of primary subjects. So there's a lot of geniuses, they're just more specialized and less generalist and most people probably simply don't care what they're working on and/or the specialists don't care to learn to communicate in a sensational and simple way that would make it to your news feed.

 

[BWV]

Think about how many people had the opportunity to be Isaac Newton in the 1600s - think about how small the talent pool was, the population of Europe, the only place that had science, was at best around 80 million, 95%+ of which were illiterate peasants. That leaves 4 million with access to basic education, half of that were women, so 2 million with an opportunity to demonstrate their genius. Today you have a talent pool of billions with the access to education, childhood nutrition and the other prerequisites to becoming ‘geniuses’. It beggars belief that now somehow we are collectively less capable than in premodern times.

 

[Pythagorean]

Think about how many people had the opportunity to be Isaac Newton in the 1600s - think about how small the talent pool was, the population of Europe, the only place that had science, was at best around 80 million, 95%+ of which were illiterate peasants. That leaves 4 million with access to basic education, half of that were women, so 2 million with an opportunity to demonstrate their genius. Today you have a talent pool of billions with the access to education, childhood nutrition and the other prerequisites to becoming ‘geniuses’. It beggars belief that now somehow we are collectively less capable than in premodern times.

Easy to forget that much of midgame science emerged from rich/privileged, bored people

 

[Baluncore]

Science is conservative. Geniuses sensibly depart science, to express their ideas as creative investors in the economic marketplace. There is profit to be made there, many thousands of times beyond an academic's salary.

 

[Maximum7]

Science has slowed because there is no more science discoverable by lone geniuses, the intellectual and resource requirements are too large

Scientific discoveries are subject to diminishing returns, no one can be another Newton or Einstein- the book on fundamental physical laws of nature is largely closed

Sadly, that is true.

Think about how many people had the opportunity to be Isaac Newton in the 1600s - think about how small the talent pool was, the population of Europe, the only place that had science, was at best around 80 million, 95%+ of which were illiterate peasants. That leaves 4 million with access to basic education, half of that were women, so 2 million with an opportunity to demonstrate their genius. Today you have a talent pool of billions with the access to education, childhood nutrition and the other prerequisites to becoming ‘geniuses’. It beggars belief that now somehow we are collectively less capable than in premodern times.

That is a really REALLY good point

 

[yungman]

I think when people look at great people from the pass, 50yrs becomes one page in the history, it's like time was compressed. We live in the real time world, everything seems to be slow.

What I mean is how about we stop and look at the change between just 70s to today, just 50yrs period, how big a change our technology has evolved. You think people in the 70s can even imagine how the world is today? AI and all.......Forget AI, our phone is more advance than the walky talky from the original Star Trek series. James Bond movies cannot even start to imagine the mini drones flying around, capturing videos, sound, dropping bombs. All in 50yrs.

[Post edited by the Mentors to remove some misinformation]

 

[Hornbein]

Ed Witten

 

[jack action]

Geniuses are people who come up with surprising ideas that are not a mere extension of what is already known

How does that make Einstein a genius? According to this:

Einstein published what is now called special relativity and gave a new derivation of the transformation, which was based only on the principle of relativity and the principle of the constancy of the speed of light. While Lorentz considered "local time" to be a mathematical stipulation device for explaining the Michelson-Morley experiment, Einstein showed that the coordinates given by the Lorentz transformation were in fact the inertial coordinates of relatively moving frames of reference. For quantities of first order in v/c this was also done by Poincaré in 1900, while Einstein derived the complete transformation by this method. Unlike Lorentz and Poincaré who still distinguished between real time in the aether and apparent time for moving observers, Einstein showed that the transformations applied to the kinematics of moving frames.

Principles of relativity and the constancy of the speed of light were already found, and Lorentz's transformations were already established. At this point, we can already directly identify easily half a dozen people who worked on this before Einstein. I doubt he would have thought of all this by himself.

Even lately, some "geniuses" are stating that the speed of light is not constant:

Two papers, published in the European Physics Journal D in March, attempt to derive the speed of light from the quantum properties of space itself. Both propose somewhat different mechanisms, but the idea is that the speed of light might change as one alters assumptions about how elementary particles interact with radiation. Both treat space as something that isn't empty, but a great big soup of virtual particles that wink in and out of existence in tiny fractions of a second.

“It’s very impressive work,” says Robert Boyd, an optical physicist at the University of Rochester in New York. “It’s the sort of thing that’s so obvious, you wonder why you didn’t think of it first.”

Researchers led by optical physicist Miles Padgett at the University of Glasgow demonstrated the effect by racing photons that were identical except for their structure. The structured light consistently arrived a tad late. Though the effect is not recognizable in everyday life and in most technological applications, the new research highlights a fundamental and previously unappreciated subtlety in the behavior of light.

[...]

“I’m not surprised the effect exists,” Boyd says. “But it’s surprising that the effect is so large and robust.”

Greg Gbur, an optical physicist at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, says the findings won’t change the way physicists look at the aura emanating from a lamp or flashlight. But he says the speed corrections could be important for physicists studying extremely short light pulses.

Just 2 days ago, a paper was published where the variability of the speed of light is introduced to already-known concepts:

In this paper, we endeavour to build up a non-Abelian formulation to describe the self-interactions
of massless vector bosons in the context of Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG). To accomplish this task,
we start off from the modified Maxwell equations with the inclusion of LQG corrections and its
corresponding local U (1) gauge invariance. LQG effects in the electromagnetic interactions have
significant importance, as they might be adopted to describe the flight time of cosmic photons
coming from very high-energy explosions in the Universe, such as events of Gamma-Ray Bursts
(GRBs). These photons have energy-dependent speeds, indicating that the velocity of light in the
vacuum is not constant. To carry out the extension from the Abelian to the non-Abelian scenario,
we shall follow the so-called Noether current procedure, which consists in recurrently introducing
self-interactions into an initially free action for vector bosons by coupling the latter to the conserved
currents of a global symmetry present in the action of departure. In the end of the non-Abelianization
process, the initial global symmetry naturally becomes local. Once the Yang-Mills system includes
LQG correction terms, it becomes possible to analyze how quantum-gravity induced contributions
show up in both the electroweak and the QCD sectors of the Standard Model, providing a set-up
for phenomenological investigations that may bring about new elements to discuss Physics beyond
the Standard-Model.

This is exactly the type of work Einstein did: take some stuff from others and combine them together to see what you get. Whether it will revolutionize the way we see the world remains to be seen but it is doubtful as it would mean that we were completely wrong before.

Another example is the discovery of the atomic model:

Is Schrödinger more of a genius than Dalton? Could Schrödinger have thought of his model without the work of his predecessors?

Is there such a thing as someone "who came up with a surprising idea that was not a mere extension of what was already known"?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Who says progress has slowed? Expectations have sped up. While Maxwell might be the next chapter after Newton, 200 years separated them.

 

[Hornbein]

I think when people look at great people from the pass, 50yrs becomes one page in the history, it's like time was compressed. We live in the real time world, everything seems to be slow.

What I mean is how about we stop and look at the change between just 70s to today, just 50yrs period, how big a change our technology has evolved. You think people in the 70s can even imagine how the world is today? AI and all.......Forget AI, our phone is more advance than the walky talky from the original Star Trek series. James Bond movies cannot even start to imagine the mini drones flying around, capturing videos, sound, dropping bombs. All in 50yrs.

But that's engineering, not science.

 

[Baluncore]

But that's engineering, not science.

The word engineering arises from the same root as genius.
... from Latin ingenium ‘talent, device’.

 

[pinball1970]

Terrance Tao?

 

[JT Smith]

I think the author of that article in Nature had a weird way of looking at it. He's not saying people of the same creativity and intelligence as so-called scientific geniuses aren't going to be around anymore. Rather, he's saying that opportunities for genius level advances have disappeared. That's certainly a debatable point but not a very interesting one. It's obvious that the low fruit has already been picked. Someday, we hope, there will be an understanding of how gravity and quantum mechanics are related. And probably that won't be one guy sitting alone doing thought experiments. It might be computers.

But in any case I believe there will still be a kind of collective genius at work. Even Einstein didn't work in a vacuum. The people we call geniuses were to some extent in the right place at the right time.

 

[hutchphd]

He defines a true genius as “A real paradigm shifter. A Renaissance human who could completely change the way we understand the world

Anyone who uses the term "paradigm shift" should be immediately shunned.
Or perhaps worse. Also from the Queen of Hearts
“It takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!”

 

[phinds]

How about someone who figures out how supermassive black hole evolve? Someone who comes up with a unified combination of QM and GR? Someone who figures out how life evolves out of the muck? Someone who figures out what dark energy is?

Yes, scientists will continue to stand on the shoulders of those that went before, just as they almost always have, but It is just silly to think that revelations on the order of Einstein will never happen again. It is silly to think that the "spark of genius" has disappeared from mankind, never to be seen again.

Just silly.

 

[BWV]

How about someone who figures out how supermassive black hole evolve? Someone who comes up with a unified combination of QM and GR? Someone who figures out how life evolves out of the muck? Someone who figures out what dark energy is?

Yes, scientists will continue to stand on the shoulders of those that went before, just as they almost always have, but It is just silly to think that revelations on the order of Einstein will never happen again. It is silly to think that the "spark of genius" has disappeared from mankind, never to be seen again.

Just silly.

and what testable predictions can these theories make? Plenty of explanations exist today, the problem is empirical not theoretical

 

[berkeman]

Thread paused temporarily for Moderation and cleanup...

 

[berkeman]

After some cleanup, the thread is reopened provisionally. Please remember that even though this thread is in the GD forum, we need to be careful not to drift into speculation territory. Thanks.

 

[symbolipoint]

No! Geniuses are not extinct and never will be extinct. As long as some people exist who insist on exploring, a small few of them will be found to be more exceptionally and intellectually brilliant compared to others.

 

[erobz]

Perhaps AI will be the only entity/emergent consciousness/super intelligence/ (whatever it should be called) capable of "genius" contributions in the future.

 

[PhDeezNutz]

This Dean Keith Simonton fellow appears to be a psychologist opining on the progress in physics/science/engineering.

While I respect psychology….this guy is out of his element and he needs to eat dirt because he comes off as trite and self righteous (at best)

 

[symbolipoint]

#26, PhDeezNutz
Not enough in there to know what was happening. Only 6 seconds of "you're out of your element".

 

[hutchphd]

Not enough in there to know what was happening.

Hence

Anyone who uses the term "paradigm shift" should be immediately shunned.

"nuf said

 

[PeroK]

With 8 billion people on the planet, one would imagine that there must be at least one genius somewhere.

 

[pines-demon]

Maybe we have enough data to put together the next fundamental theory, but most probably is that we do not. A new genius may have the mathematical attitudes of Terrence Tao and the physical intuition of Einstein but he/she may never put together the puzzle if there are too many pieces missing. Experimental efforts matter a lot (at least in physics).

 

[symbolipoint]

Anyone who uses the term "paradigm shift" should be immediately shunned.
Or perhaps worse. Also from the Queen of Hearts
“It takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!”

?
But as for the Queen of Hearts quote, the feel is that effort is more important than genius.

 

[JT Smith]

With 8 billion people on the planet, one would imagine that there must be at least one genius somewhere.

No doubt, but the question had to do with scientific genius. That cuts the pool down substantially.

 

[hutchphd]

ffort is more important than genius.

I think the geniuses that become recognized have an almost indefatigable drive to match their ability. The two
are perhaps difficult to separately recognize. There is of course Feynman's self-assessment.
I think a distinction need be made between genius and savant.

 

[BWV]

No doubt, but the question had to do with scientific genius. That cuts the pool down substantially.

True, but social media created a golden era of pseudoscientific genius

 

[Vanadium 50]

but social media created a golden era of pseudoscientific genius

Gold? I guess we can call it gold.