Is scientific genius a thing of the past?

[phion]

A psychologist argues structural changes have eliminated the space for genius.

Einstein, Darwin, Galileo, Mendeleev: the names of the great scientific minds throughout history inspire awe in those of us who love science. However, according to Dean Keith Simonton, a psychology professor at UC Davis, the era of the scientific genius may be over. In a comment paper published in Nature last week, he explains why.

The “scientific genius” Simonton refers to is a particular type of scientist; their contributions “are not just extensions of already-established, domain-specific expertise." Instead, “the scientific genius conceives of a novel expertise.” Simonton uses words like “groundbreaking” and “overthrow” to illustrate the work of these individuals, explaining that they each contributed to science in one of two major ways: either by founding an entirely new field or by revolutionizing an already-existing discipline.So, what do you think? Is scientific genius extinct?

link

 

[micromass]

I don't want to sound elitist. But I don't think a psychologist's opinion on this carries much weight...

 

[Evo]

I think it's a bit idiotic. All of those people built upon previous knowledge, and there is so much more knowledge now to build upon, incredible discoveries and advances are constantly being made, but there are so many now.

A psychologist is not a scientist, he might as well be an accountant as far as his major giving him credibility in judging advances in science.

 

[russ_watters]

Sounds about right to me. It is only 100 years ago that Einstein "overthrew" Newtonian physics. Does anyone really believe there will ever again be such a major upheaval in the accepted paradigm of how the universe works?

 

[micromass]

A psychologist is not a scientist

That's a bit too much, I think. Psychology really is a science, in my opinion. I just don't see why a psychologist should be qualified to judge fundamental physics or mathematics research.

 

[phion]

I don't want to sound elitist. But I don't think a psychologist's opinion on this carries much weight...

I don't necessarily agree either, considering a lot of psychology's claims are merely a consummation of the interpretation of apparent trends in scientific progress, on the basis of education.

I can't help but sympathize with this type of view, though, because I think, over time, the progressive limitations in scope during basically any research encourages more groupthink, instead of nurturing that purely individualistic, ivory tower, kind of thought process. There's nothing wrong with revolutionary ideas of course, but I think the author is off the mark concerning his power-of-prediction. It'll [probably] just take longer for another dramatic paradigm shift to occur with far reaching consequences. We just need to know where to look.

 

[micromass]

Sounds about right to me. It is only 100 years ago that Einstein "overthrew" Newtonian physics. Does anyone really believe there will ever again be such a major upheaval in the accepted paradigm of how the universe works?

Yes, I believe this. It would be very arrogant to assume that our current physical theories describe the universe. In fact, we know that it doesn't.
As far as I know, dark matter hasn't been really explained well (please correct me if I'm wrong). So a theory that explains this could be the next major upheaval.

Also, there is no reason to limit ourselves to just physics. The theory of schemes in mathematics was quite revolutionary at the time and it is only 60 years old. And it seems to meet every criterium in the article. There are many such examples.
A new thing that I'm looking forward too is a rigorous definition of $\mathbb{F}_1$, the field with one element. There is no reason to expect that major advances and genius are a thing of the past in mathematics.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Today, according to Simonton, there just isn’t room to create new disciplines or overthrow the old ones. “It is difficult to imagine that scientists have overlooked some phenomenon worthy of its own discipline,” he writes. Furthermore, most scientific fields aren’t in the type of crisis that would enable paradigm shifts, according to Thomas Kuhn’s classic view of scientific revolutions. Simonton argues that instead of finding big new ideas, scientists currently work on the details in increasingly specialized and precise ways.

And to some extent, this argument is demonstrably correct. Science is becoming more and more specialized. The largest scientific fields are currently being split into smaller sub-disciplines: microbiology, astrophysics, neuroscience, and paleogeography, to name a few. Furthermore, researchers have more tools and the knowledge to hone in on increasingly precise issues and questions than they did a century—or even a decade—ago.

This makes perfect sense. Ground breaking thinkers are relegated to working in smaller areas that just won't get the historical attention that Galileo or Einstein got.

 

[phion]

To add, I tend to think of psychology in terms of behaviorism. In that light, it all seems a bit more scientific to me. After all I'm sure you could just as easily explain broad human behavior to a statistician as you could an amalgamation of physical collisions.

 

[Evo]

To even suggest that there is no "space for genius" is completely wrong, IMO. Of course we have geniuses making incredible discoveries and advancements. The difference is that today it usually requires a lot of money and collaboration. The individual genius is still there though. It's only that they are forced to share the public awards or acknowledgments. I don't think we should confuse one with the other, it still may all boil down to an individual genius. Or perhaps, he is just saying that geniuses have to share the credit now? In other words the article title amounts to yellow journalism.

 

[phion]

To even suggest that there is no "space for genius" is completely wrong ... the article title amounts to yellow journalism.

I would have liked to see your reaction to the converse-- "Is scientific genius a thing of the future?". I think so, even if it is only syntactic slight of hand.

 

[Evo]

I would have liked to see your reaction to the converse-- "Is scientific genius a thing of the future?". I think so, even if it is only syntactic slight of hand.

The question makes no sense, it has no meaning. There will always be "scientific geniuses, as there always have been.

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, I believe this. It would be very arrogant to assume that our current physical theories describe the universe. In fact, we know that it doesn't.
As far as I know, dark matter hasn't been really explained well (please correct me if I'm wrong). So a theory that explains this could be the next major upheaval.

Our observations of the world around us were widely known to not fit very will with theory 100 years ago. Today the error bars are much, much smaller. To me, that makes any "upheaval" an orders of magnitude smaller discovery in terms of its effect on how much it changes our level of understanding of the universe. This does not require the assumption that our understanding of the universe is or will ever be perfect, only the recognition that it is better than it used to be and the % error in our understanding gets smaller and smaller.

And that's even assuming that we will never know everything (that there will be an endless chain of new discoveries and theories, refining our understanding of the universe to smaller and smaller precision) when some scientists actually do think physics is nearly over.

 

[russ_watters]

To even suggest that there is no "space for genius" is completely wrong, IMO. Of course we have geniuses making incredible discoveries and advancements.

The article makes no such suggestion. It doesn't sound to me like you read past the title.

 

[jim hardy]

Well now this is interesting.
We are commenting on a zoologist's comments on a psychologist's comments on physics.

From bottom of link:

Kate Shaw / Kate is a science writer for Ars Technica. She recently earned a dual Ph.D. in Zoology and Ecology, Evolutionary Biology and Behavior from Michigan State University, studying the social behavior of wild spotted hyenas.

That's an ending worthy of Agatha Christie.

 

[phion]

Oh no, it might be a sign. What if Pierre Boulle was right all along?

 

[micromass]

Our observations of the world around us were widely known to not fit very will with theory 100 years ago. Today the error bars are much, much smaller. To me, that makes any "upheaval" an orders of magnitude smaller discovery in terms of its effect on how much it changes our level of understanding of the universe. This does not require the assumption that our understanding of the universe is or will ever be perfect, only the recognition that it is better than it used to be and the % error in our understanding gets smaller and smaller.

So you measure the amount of "genius" by how much "upheaval" the theory makes? That doesn't seem to be the criteria used in the article: "either by founding an entirely new field or by revolutionizing an already-existing discipline". By their standards, the creation of a theory like QFT was genius, while by your criteria, it is not so much.

And that's even assuming that we will never know everything (that there will be an endless chain of new discoveries and theories, refining our understanding of the universe to smaller and smaller precision) when some scientists actually do think physics is nearly over.

I'm sure scientists said the same thing before they discovered electricity. This is a debate for another thread of course, but I think it is very strange to claim we know all about the universe while we are entirely confined to this solar system.

Also, read this quote by Lord Kelvin made at about 1900

There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement.

or from 1874:

"When I began my physical studies [in Munich in 1874] and sought advice from my venerable teacher Philipp von Jolly... he portrayed to me physics as a highly developed, almost fully matured science... Possibly in one or another nook there would perhaps be a dust particle or a small bubble to be examined and classified, but the system as a whole stood there fairly secured, and theoretical physics approached visibly that degree of perfection which, for example, geometry has had already for centuries."

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

In the Feynman lectures, there is a paragraph on that quote by Lord Kelvin. He doesn't quote it directly, but he says that it wasn't true. That at the time it was said, physics was in a state of upheaval because of anomalous experimental data. It was a time when everyone knew that a breakthrough was necessary, but didn't know what form it should take. I think the current climate is the same. The problem we face today is that no one knows how to combine gravity into the standard model of particle physics. If someone comes up with a solution we can suppose that the discoverer will be considered a genius by many, and that others will say no, they stood on the shoulders of giants. If you celebrate the breakthrough insight, you will call them genius. If you celebrate the grunt work that has to be done first, you will not.

P.S. The problem then was data without theory. Today we have plenty of theory, but no data.

 

[russ_watters]

So you measure the amount of "genius" by how much "upheaval" the theory makes?

Nope, and neither does the author of the article we are discussing. In fact, he said that if anything, scientists are getting smarter, which also seems obvious to me.

 

[brenan]

It seems to me the term "genius" (incidently a term with zero scientific evidence, relevance or definition) has more to do with popular media than actual mental superiority.
By all means applaud einstein or fineman but applaud their industrious dedication
and meticulous attention to very narrow obscure subjects for long periods of time - AND their luck in spotting things that others have missed possibly solely because of others lack of such focus - not some magical "superpower" that only "special" people have.
Einstein, Fineman, Newton etc. are simple products of their environment and social surroundings not products of some random genetic mutation. Yes they are special - but not because of some weird brain chemistry.

Such people will always pop up from time to time in various fields - most of them unrecognised - perhaps because their field doesn't happen to include a large percentage of math and the media likes it's geniuses to be "Phd's" before the term can be attributed.
(A small license there but I think reasonably fair to say.)
Correct me if I'm wrong but - you can't win a scientific nobel prize unless you already have a BSc or similar - and that factor seems to rule out the traditional notion of "genius" to me anyway.

A thing of the past? A thing that's never existed I suspect.

 

[Samii H]

1) At that time, very few people were fortunate enough to go to universities and reach high education, and thus, very few people did something incredible and that's why they were very distinctive from others. But right now, hundreds, if not thousands or PhDs in Physics, Mathematics, and Sciences are given each year, and thus one must do something VERY incredible to be distinctive and to stand out from the crowd, but that doesn't rule out the fact that we do actually have more genius people than before.

2) Usually you won't know the genius ones until the end of their lives or after they die. If you ask someone at the time of Newton about Newton, Kepler, Galelio, etc, he won't have much to tell. I predict that after 100 years, people will look at contemporary scientists like Stephen Hawking, Peter Higgs, Michio Kaku, Leonard Susskind, and others the same way we look at Maxwell, Einstein, Hubble, and others

Regards!

 

[WannabeNewton]

2) Usually you won't know the genius ones until the end of their lives or after they die. If you ask someone at the time of Newton about Newton, Kepler, Galelio, etc, he won't have much to tell. I predict that after 100 years, people will look at contemporary scientists like Stephen Hawking, Peter Higgs, Michio Kaku, Leonard Susskind, and others the same way we look at Maxwell, Einstein, Hubble, and others

Regards!

Uh...what? Are you actually comparing the famous physics faces of history channel to Newton and Maxwell lol. There is a difference between being a genius (which the people you mentioned certainly are) and doing/ discovering things at the level of Newton, for example (although not a great example since no one can touch the caliber of Newton's accomplishments).

 

[Samii H]

I know Newton and Maxwell did something incredible, but you cannot diminish what the ones I mentioned did.

Why not considering Peter Higgs' prediction of the existing of the Higgs Bosons 40 years ago as an incredible achievement?

Why not considering the Superstring theory that was proposed by Michio Kaku as an incredible achievement that will be mentioned centuries to come? That is aside from Stephen Hawking who is the most famous physicist right now.

Appearing in media and speaking easy and simple English to the public doesn't diminish the greatness of those scientists ...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Our observations of the world around us were widely known to not fit very will with theory 100 years ago. Today the error bars are much, much smaller.

What was the error on the mass of the universe before discovering dark matter and dark energy? I don't remember the exact number but between the two we had missed something like 70% of the mass of the universe. Of course I had debates about things like this with people like you before those discoveries were made. We were right back then too.

The expansion of the universe is decelerating. Whoops, I mean accelerating [I was dating myself there], and we don't know why.

 

[DiracPool]

1) At that time, very few people were fortunate enough to go to universities and reach high education, and thus, very few people did something incredible and that's why they were very distinctive from others.
Regards!

IMO, the best way NOT to achieve something in science that is genius status is to think your going to do it by pursuing a "traditional" path to get you there, i.e., undergrad, grad, postdoc, etc. Ok, now I did what I'm supposed to do, and now it's my time to do my thing, and uhh, well, ummm...Hmmm? Ok, here I go...Uhhhh.

Yep, sorry Mr. "just got my PhD in physics", you have no original thoughts because your mind has been saturated and conditioned with what the psychologists (the real usung heros in this thread) call cognitive classical and operant conditioning. You are rewarded in undergrad by grades to wire your thought process with the status quo, and you are rewarded in grad school to kiss up to your senior professor and do his grunt work. You are punished if you do anything else. The end result...Your brain has been so conditioned to what everyone else can find in a standard textbook your opportunity to make any significant contribution much less a revolutionary advance is severely truncated, if not biologically impossible.

Thomas Kuhn made note of this in the 70's with his book as most of you know. It is typically the outsiders of the field that create the revolutions for the reasons I just stated. All of the scientific greats were iconoclasts, very few got there by following the traditional path.

 

[DiracPool]

It is typically the outsiders of the field that create the revolutions for the reasons I just stated. All of the scientific greats were iconoclasts, very few got there by following the traditional path.

This is why I'm fairly certain that it will be me who ends up finally solving the TOE. Why? Because I'm a cognitive neuroscientist who's emphasis is on consciousness studies. I'm the perfect guy according to Kuhn. I'm a scientist but not specifically a physicist. Therefore, I have the basic gear necessary to do the job but at the same time I'm not weighed down with the baggage of the dogma of the discipline. However, my window is short, as I venture in, well worn paths of preferred neuroelectric travel will become consolidated and it will become very hard to unlearn these. To add to this is the scientific social pressure not to publish outside your field. I was thinking of creating an alias to publish in physics related journals as I'm already well known in the cog sci scene. But then I said, screw it, I'll just use my real name...I mean Roger Penrose thought nothing of walking right into my field and writing a book about consciousness, why should I care...Right?

 

[Evo]

In fact, he said that if anything, scientists are getting smarter, which also seems obvious to me.

I don't think it's correct to say the individual scientists are getting "smarter". They have a larger base of knowledge to work from, but that doesn't mean that equates to the people themselves being "smarter". I'd like to see him back that statement up.

 

[micromass]

I don't think it's correct to say the individual scientists are getting "smarter". They have a larger base of knowledge to work from, but that doesn't mean that equates to the people themselves being "smarter". I'd like to see him back that statement up.

Depends entirely on how you define "smart".

 

[Drakkith]

IMO, the best way NOT to achieve something in science that is genius status is to think your going to do it by pursuing a "traditional" path to get you there, i.e., undergrad, grad, postdoc, etc. Ok, now I did what I'm supposed to do, and now it's my time to do my thing, and uhh, well, ummm...Hmmm? Ok, here I go...Uhhhh.

Yep, sorry Mr. "just got my PhD in physics", you have no original thoughts because your mind has been saturated and conditioned with what the psychologists (the real usung heros in this thread) call cognitive classical and operant conditioning. You are rewarded in undergrad by grades to wire your thought process with the status quo, and you are rewarded in grad school to kiss up to your senior professor and do his grunt work. You are punished if you do anything else. The end result...Your brain has been so conditioned to what everyone else can find in a standard textbook your opportunity to make any significant contribution much less a revolutionary advance is severely truncated, if not biologically impossible.

Thomas Kuhn made note of this in the 70's with his book as most of you know. It is typically the outsiders of the field that create the revolutions for the reasons I just stated. All of the scientific greats were iconoclasts, very few got there by following the traditional path.

This is why I'm fairly certain that it will be me who ends up finally solving the TOE. Why? Because I'm a cognitive neuroscientist who's emphasis is on consciousness studies. I'm the perfect guy according to Kuhn. I'm a scientist but not specifically a physicist. Therefore, I have the basic gear necessary to do the job but at the same time I'm not weighed down with the baggage of the dogma of the discipline. However, my window is short, as I venture in, well worn paths of preferred neuroelectric travel will become consolidated and it will become very hard to unlearn these. To add to this is the scientific social pressure not to publish outside your field. I was thinking of creating an alias to publish in physics related journals as I'm already well known in the cog sci scene. But then I said, screw it, I'll just use my real name...I mean Roger Penrose thought nothing of walking right into my field and writing a book about consciousness, why should I care...Right?

I'm no scientist, just a guy who likes to talk to them here on PF, but I think this is absurd. Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems to me that the entire point of learning a field is to work within that field. You claim that this "traditional path" leads to conditioning of your mind and whatever other nonsense when it is in fact this very path that leads to practically all breakthroughs in all fields in science. There's a reason we don't have cosmologists making major breakthroughs in cancer research. They don't know anything about that area.

As for few scientific greats getting there by following the traditional path, I think history itself proves you wrong. I'd be willing to be that practically all of the scientific greats went to school and got a degree. I don't see how else they could have learned the basic skills necessary for their breakthroughs in the first place, nor how they had the know how and the access to scientific journals in which to publish in.

 

[micromass]

Thomas Kuhn made note of this in the 70's with his book as most of you know. It is typically the outsiders of the field that create the revolutions for the reasons I just stated. All of the scientific greats were iconoclasts, very few got there by following the traditional path.

Can you name a few people who revolutionized physics or mathematics without having taken the traditional path?? Can you name some outsiders of physics who eventually contributed significantly?

 

[Evo]

Depends entirely on how you define "smart".

The way the person is using it

Simonton is quick to assert that the end of scientific genius doesn’t mean science is at a standstill or that scientists are no longer smart. In fact, he argues the opposite: scientists are probably more intelligent now, since they must master more theoretical work, more complicated methods, and more diverse disciplines.

he seems to be equating the amount of information they must work with to making them more intelligent, IMO. That's not my definition of intelligence, so, I suppose it comes down to what you believe intelligence to be. He throws out a lot of presumptions, but backs nothing up. I'd like to see him back himself up with some facts.

 

[DiracPool]

So you measure the amount of "genius" by how much "upheaval" the theory makes? That doesn't seem to be the criteria used in the article: "either by founding an entirely new field or by revolutionizing an already-existing discipline". By their standards, the creation of a theory like QFT was genius, while by your criteria, it is not so much.

All scientific theories or models, if you will, are actually invented constructions designed to try to imitate or facsimilize some aspect of nature, whether it is the concept of natural selection or of the orbital structure of a hydrogen atom. I think the central question here is what these models mean and/or what the utility of these models are. Homo ergaster was able to live comfortably on the planet for far longer than we have already and had no concept of how Legendre polynomials related to the orbital structure of electrons in the atom. Pre-Einstein societies lived just fine on Newtons mechanics as did the middle-ages people on pre-Galiliean physical understanding.

What do we gain in the modern age? A refinement, a refinement on our ability to model physical processes and therefore to manipulate our external surroundings in a more sophisticated manner. But what about understanding? Do we really understand more? Do we really understand more than that guy in Newton's time who said, give me the position and momentum of every particle in the universe and I will tell you what happens for the rest of eternity? Who was that guy, Voltaire?

In any case, the whole "the more you know the less you know" debate is well known. My argument is that progress in this day and age overemphasizes description rather than conception. The real breakthroughs in history were conceptual, common sense game changers like the apple falling from the tree is what make the moon go cross the sky, and that light, not time, is the universal constant. These are fundamental redirects in concept, and that I think is what characterizes what great advances achieve.

In the end, though, what will really satisfy the scientist and the layman alike will be a description that is, unlike what Michio Kaku likes to assert, NOT simply an equation one inch long that you can print on a t-shirt. It will end up being a STORY, a story of why things are the way the are (yes, WHY), and how they got to be that way. Descriptions and equations are great, but what the human soul really seeks, really craves, is a story.

 

[micromass]

But what about understanding? Do we really understand more? Do we really understand more than that guy in Newton's time who said, give me the position and momentum of every particle in the universe and I will tell you what happens for the rest of eternity?

We have the capability to go to the moon, and people in Newton's time did not.
We can send an object out of our solar system, people in Newton's time did not.
I can talk to somebody in America while being in Europe, people in Newton's time had to make a dangerous and long journey to do that.

What do you think makes all of this possible? It is because of scientific discoveries and understanding. So yes, we understand more.

 

[DiracPool]

There's a reason we don't have cosmologists making major breakthroughs in cancer research. They don't know anything about that area.

Well, yeah..Ok. My point was more of the idea of revolutionizing a field, which I think the topic of the thread is. Of course if you're baking a cake and I'm mixing the drinks I'm not going to make a better cake than you, but I may recognize when I come visit your station that somehow you got so used to using margarine because of the war rationing that we are now actually allowed to use butter since the war is over, etc.

In any case, I didn't come up with the outsider changes the game idea, that was Kuhn. He made this argument in Structures of scientific revolutions. My main point is not that it has to be someone outside a certain discipline per se that has to make the big breakthrough, it is more as I said in my earlier post that one has a certain WINDOW where they can make that breakthrough, a window whereby their conceptual understanding of a situation is chaotic enough that the attractor in the brain doesn't fall in easily to some pre-learned limit cycle solution. Does that make sense?

So, it doesn't have to be someone from another field, just someone who hasn't spent their careers learning only the status quo. Maybe Planck and a few others are exceptions, but Guys like Einstein, Dirac, and Heisenberg were young enough to keep those attractos chaotic, and guys like Newton and Galilleo had the benefit of not having a stringent scientific load to memorize before they came up with their great works.

 

[Drakkith]

All scientific theories or models, if you will, are actually invented constructions designed to try to imitate or facsimilize some aspect of nature, whether it is the concept of natural selection or of the orbital structure of a hydrogen atom. I think the central question here is what these models mean and/or what the utility of these models are.

We know that these models mean and we have such an overwhelming amount of evidence of the utility of them surrounding every civilized person on the planet that arguing that we don't know the utility of these models is absolutely ridiculous. All major theories are in active use, daily, by millions of people.

But what about understanding? Do we really understand more? Do we really understand more than that guy in Newton's time who said, give me the position and momentum of every particle in the universe and I will tell you what happens for the rest of eternity? Who was that guy, Voltaire?

I think I see the issue here. Your view of "understanding" is not like most people's here on PF. I cannot answer your question without knowing exactly what you mean by "understanding".

In any case, the whole "the more you know the less you know" debate is well known. My argument is that progress in this day and age overemphasizes description rather than conception.

That's because the overwhelming majority of science in todays era is working with the founding principals of a few theories. Further "conceptual" advancements appear to be MUCH more difficult and expensive to achieve than they used to be. This is to be expected when you have to build multi-billion dollar machines just to find out if a single particle really exists or not. I really see no basis for your argument.

In the end, though, what will really satisfy the scientist and the layman alike will be a description that is, unlike what Michio Kaku likes to assert, NOT simply an equation one inch long that you can print on a t-shirt. It will end up being a STORY, a story of why things are the way the are (yes, WHY), and how they got to be that way. Descriptions and equations are great, but what the human soul really seeks, really craves, is a story.

We can explain with some detail the evolution of the universe and the formation of our solar system and our planet with a degree of accuracy that only increases as time goes on. The whole process makes for one hell of a story...but it's going to take a while to tell, so go make a sandwich or something and come back.