How could be unified the scientific knowledge?

[ryokan]

I will pose the first question in other form.
In the past centuries, there was possible for one man to know a great part of the whole of his time's knowledge. Good examples of "universalist" men could be Newton, Gauss,von Humboldt, ...
Now that isn't possible.
The career of a scientist is progressively more dependent of his specialization. That is clear in the remaining of the "publish or perish" motto.
The universal knowledge is now in the libraries.
Is it possible for one individual a basic, balanced knowledge of the world a this moment?
Scientific specialization is of clear benefit to society, but is it also for the individual scientist as a person?
Must Science to follow its actual way of progressive specialization ?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Witten is the best we have. He knows a lot of detail about both cutting edge math and cutting edge physics. This is about where Gauss was in his day. But as for deeper knowledge/talent in letters or arts, I don't think so.

 

[ryokan]

Witten is the best we have.

The best ... Where?

In the World?
In your Country?
or.. In this Forum?

 

[sol2]

The best ... Where?

In the World?
In your Country?
or.. In this Forum?

Wouldn't this question, limit the "potential" anyone of us might have? It would be comparative to saying, only the "specialization," could have answered any of the most disturbing questions, yet, the potential could well recognize that this might be answered by other people?

 

[ryokan]

Wouldn't this question, limit the "potential" anyone of us might have? It would be comparative to saying, only the "specialization," could have answered any of the most disturbing questions, yet, the potential could well recognize that this might be answered by other people?

The question was about the term "best" used by SelfAdjoint in reference to Witten. Only that. I haven't as aim any comparison among people.

 

[ryokan]

Consilience

What do you think about the Wilson's concept "consilience"?