Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Still Waters

Is Scientific Genius Extinct?

40 posts in this topic

Modern-day science has little room for the likes of Galileo, who first used the telescope to study the sky, or Charles Darwin, who put forward the theory of evolution, argues a psychologist and expert in scientific genius.

Dean Keith Simonton of the University of California, Davis, says that just like the ill-fated dodo, scientific geniuses like these men have gone extinct.

http://www.livescien...fic-genius.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO, its obvious. Black and white marbles are quite easy to sort. When we add 50% of gray, task becomes more difficult. Add more gray again - even more difficult. And so on, and so on... Thats why we built LHC, and in the future we will build more powerful "gadgets", and after that even more powerful, etc etc.

Human brain has its limits (besides fantasies), and the single person carrying all nowadays knowledge (heck, just physics) would be super-duper-genius.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Growing new great scientific minds is not very high on the Agenda except for military geniuses. The military loves there gadgets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I totaly disagree that modern science has has little room for the likes of Galileo or Charles Darwin. Beside I wouldnt called neither Galileo or Darwin genius.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure they are extinct, just in hibernation until they are needed.

The military will always get their gadgets, what we need is someone to cure cancer.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what we need is someone to cure cancer.

Theres no profit in that as with mnay other technologies that are ready to go. They would upstage the elite that are in control.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the article I find myself agreeing more with Sherrilyn Roush than with Keith Simonton. Prior to Einstein and Planck, most scientists thought they had it ``all figured out'' - boy did that change in a short 20 years.

In my opinion (as a physicist) the ``big problem'' with scientific advancement right now is that pretty much the only method we have to solve complex equations is perturbation theory. It works ``reasonably'' well, and provides some useful results - but it has its limits.

Basically all of the ``big problems'' in physics are subject to the caveat of perturbation theory.

General Relativity cannot be reconciled with Quantum Mechanics... by perturbation theory alone (unlike, say, Electrodynamics and Quantum Mechanics).

Many astronomical phenomena like galactic rotations curves and some instances of gravitational lensing cannot be reconciled with General Relativity... by a perturbative solution to the GR equations.

Big, fundamental problems with existing theoretical frameworks may exist, but it is hard to find them since the best tool we have to work with these existing theoretical frameworks is perturbation theory, which has its own set of well-known limitations.

Hopefully some math genius will pop up someday with a new method for avoiding the problems of perturbation theory... and then we will definitely see a very productive decade (or two) of scientific advancement.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, we need breaktrough in one field to make it in another. We need math breaktrough to make it in physics. We need physic breaktrough to make it in archaeology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[....]

Big, fundamental problems with existing theoretical frameworks may exist, but it is hard to find them since the best tool we have to work with these existing theoretical frameworks is perturbation theory, which has its own set of well-known limitations.

[...]

So what direction we have to go (in your opinion)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile were getting awsome pics from our space tech. I believe thats one of the best advances weve made recently isd in optical viewing AKA pics. They soon well have real photos of planets in distant solar systems. I cant wait for those. Really fantastic work in this field of science IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what direction we have to go (in your opinion)?

He dont know. He only can have intuition. If he have....

We need scientists with intuition. Einstein said: “The only real valuable thing is intuition.

And most importantly with INSIGHTS. Insights make genius.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He dont know. He only can have intuition. If he have....

[...]

Actually, he knows, and he knows a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, he knows, and he knows a lot.

He knows a lot. There is no question about it. But I doubt that he knows where new breaktrough and most importantly how will we come to that breaktrough. Path. Steps.

Because if he knew the way he would knew results/breaktrough. When you know how to make something it means you figure it out. You solve problem. Maybe he is genius and he have insights to know result without way to it. ;)

Thats true meaning of word Genius. And neither Darwin neither Galileo fits into that description. And there are people who fits into it. In my opinion those are people we should look upon. We need to study what they did.

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like sepulchrave, I find myself siding with Roush in the article. Periods of scientific revolution don't come about in a deterministic manner. I also find it insulting to the scientific community to say geniuses have gone "extinct". That's a rash generalization and is far from the truth. A scientific breakthrough will certainly garner one quite a bit of notoriety, but I would argue it is not the way to judge genius.

I would like to point out that the military does not control scientific funding. The number of times I see "we don't need weapons, we need a cure for cancer" is astounding and shows quite a bit of ignorance. Take a look at all the research being done at your local university. The advancements made at a single institution are amazing. Just as an example from some work done within my particular field (I will point out, this is not my work) is non-invasive transcranial focused ultrasound therapy (http://focused-ultrasound.org/Brain_Review.pdf).

I feel the general population is losing their sense of awe at the advancements being made. There's another thread about the neuronal activity of a zebra fish as its prey comes into its field of view. How someone can watch that video and not be blown away is beyond me. That's not a trivial accomplishment.

Instead of claiming genius no longer exists, simply look around at what is being done and you'll see the genius in front of you. Before you now is a computer that is the work of many geniuses. Your monitor/display in itself is a work of genius.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He knows a lot. There is no question about it. [...]

Ok, thats settled.

[...] But I doubt that he knows where new breaktrough and most importantly how will we come to that breaktrough. Path. Steps.

[...]

I can't speak for him, but maybe he have something up in his sleaves. :devil:

[...]

Thats true meaning of word Genius. And neither Darwin neither Galileo fits into that description. And there are people who fits into it. In my opinion those are people we should look upon. We need to study what they did.

Ok, so who is genius? L.R.Hubbard?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like sepulchrave, I find myself siding with Roush in the article. Periods of scientific revolution don't come about in a deterministic manner. I also find it insulting to the scientific community to say geniuses have gone "extinct". That's a rash generalization and is far from the truth. A scientific breakthrough will certainly garner one quite a bit of notoriety, but I would argue it is not the way to judge genius.

I would like to point out that the military does not control scientific funding. The number of times I see "we don't need weapons, we need a cure for cancer" is astounding and shows quite a bit of ignorance. Take a look at all the research being done at your local university. The advancements made at a single institution are amazing. Just as an example from some work done within my particular field (I will point out, this is not my work) is non-invasive transcranial focused ultrasound therapy (http://focused-ultra...rain_Review.pdf).

I feel the general population is losing their sense of awe at the advancements being made. There's another thread about the neuronal activity of a zebra fish as its prey comes into its field of view. How someone can watch that video and not be blown away is beyond me. That's not a trivial accomplishment.

Instead of claiming genius no longer exists, simply look around at what is being done and you'll see the genius in front of you. Before you now is a computer that is the work of many geniuses. Your monitor/display in itself is a work of genius.

No its not. Monitor is work of hard working man as any other.

I agree with you that is wrong to say that genius dont exist. Because maybe he exist as one of the childrens who is now in schools. Or even on this forum writing.

Also about half scientists work for military industry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so who is genius? L.R.Hubbard?

Neither Newton was. In my opinion genius was Poincare. Perhaps Fermat.C.G.Jung...Higgs...

Its not what they grasp. Rather how they grasp. Thats what makes genius genius. If I think more I would find great examples.

But Poincare is perfect example of Genius.

He needs to be studied. His methods, imho.

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like sepulchrave, I find myself siding with Roush in the article. Periods of scientific revolution don't come about in a deterministic manner. I also find it insulting to the scientific community to say geniuses have gone "extinct". That's a rash generalization and is far from the truth. A scientific breakthrough will certainly garner one quite a bit of notoriety, but I would argue it is not the way to judge genius.

I would like to point out that the military does not control scientific funding. The number of times I see "we don't need weapons, we need a cure for cancer" is astounding and shows quite a bit of ignorance. Take a look at all the research being done at your local university. The advancements made at a single institution are amazing. Just as an example from some work done within my particular field (I will point out, this is not my work) is non-invasive transcranial focused ultrasound therapy (http://focused-ultra...rain_Review.pdf).

I feel the general population is losing their sense of awe at the advancements being made. There's another thread about the neuronal activity of a zebra fish as its prey comes into its field of view. How someone can watch that video and not be blown away is beyond me. That's not a trivial accomplishment.

Instead of claiming genius no longer exists, simply look around at what is being done and you'll see the genius in front of you. Before you now is a computer that is the work of many geniuses. Your monitor/display in itself is a work of genius.

Ok, you are promoting your work (mods will take care of that). And monitor/display in itself is a work science and engineering altogether. Seriously, make brown sound, we'll make poop together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither Newton was. In my opinion genius was Poincare. Perhaps Fermat.C.G.Jung...Higgs

... and why? Not that you obliged to answer, but just out of curiosity, why (excluding Higgs, and Jung, and... Poincare, and...)? You get my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is to easy . genius is not what is done , it is in the isolation of sight ... it takes no great spirit to be a member of a team in foot ball , or one more soldier on a battle feild ... try working on a valve in a hydrolic liniar actuator for a bipedal walking robot for 2 years , then reducing the part count to 14 parts .

the day of success , you have 30 year of work on a project that no one understands , the success is in a frindge area of the arm design that no one on earth even knows about , and it would take years to just discribe your failures to get to this point ... and you have no one to show .

no one understands what you did , or that it even happened .

it takes a very special person to be a genius , not because of what your doing... but because your all alone , and you have no one to tell when you succeed .

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

post script . i have some very smart people who say i am quite clever ... and a bipedal walking robot is a hobby... because no one on earth will spend a dime on real resurch , because the academics have got it so pipelined and formatted driven ... if you have any really good ideas , your never going to see the light of day ..

watch the movie contact .

the true genius is the one who is cut out and handed their hat ... its the game player , and the insiders who get the bucks to play buck rogers ...

untill that changes ( do not hold your breath ) ... you will not see anything like genius .

i have solutions for every problem man kind has seen in the last 150 years ... and not one will ever be seen because loud voices win out over smart voices .

i should point out , i have made two people over 100 million dollors from ideas i did not get any credit for or any money from ... because the real work was done by them... but the ideas were mine ... i have not fewer than 100 other ideas... any one of which could make some one more than 100 million dollors...

and frankly speaking... i do not care one bit , because realestate is where money goes... not ideas or manufacturing .

you get what you pay for , you personaly are responcible for what you get , when you want the world to change... i am waiting .... i will not fight the war alone , i can do that with out your help .

frankly speaking , all i want is to have enought money for materials and space to work . some one else to manage the business end and a warm place to work .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is to easy . genius is not what is done , it is in the isolation of sight ... [...]

Makes no sense. Sorry, it doesn't.

[...] it takes no great spirit to be a member of a team in foot ball , or one more soldier on a battle feild ... try working on a valve in a hydrolic liniar actuator for a bipedal walking robot for 2 years , then reducing the part count to 14 parts .

[...]

Ok, reduced to 13, so?

[...]the day of success , you have 30 year of work on a project that no one understands , the success is in a frindge area of the arm design that no one on earth even knows about , and it would take years to just discribe your failures to get to this point ... and you have no one to show .

[...]

Is that M.Keshe tries to "send message"?

[....] no one understands what you did , or that it even happened .

it takes a very special person to be a genius , not because of what your doing... but because your all alone , and you have no one to tell when you succeed .

Someone will understand ,and they are called schrinks.

[...]

it takes a very special person to be a genius , not because of what your doing... but because your all alone , and you have no one to tell when you succeed .

Ok, not to insult you again, but get a friend. Girlfriend/boyfriend, get one, cause your dark speach gets the creeps out of me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes no sense. Sorry, it doesn't.

Ok, reduced to 13, so?

Is that M.Keshe tries to "send message"?

Someone will understand ,and they are called schrinks.

Ok, not to insult you again, but get a friend. Girlfriend/boyfriend, get one, cause your dark speach gets the creeps out of me.

for me it is easy , for you ... it is not likly you will understand this ...

let me try anyway . i have ideas that are totaly original quite often , original means... no one has ever had the thought before in all of the history of the human race... i am not going to even attempt to tell you how this can happen ... and the concept of trust is a thing which is nearly an original thought to you ...

trust me, you are a dog looking at a speaker , thinking how can your human be inside that speaker... it is just your humans voice , its alright , your human will throw a stick with you later .

you do not understand what invention is , you do not understand that what works for you in this world is not unique , but some of us are not like you , and we are unique .... so ...

unlike you , when i have thinking things sinking slowly thru my thoughts... shrinks can not rethink my dreams and medicate me into stupidity that seems to you like being normal ... functionaly getting a pet should do the trick for you .

for me , i seek a voice in the darkness that has just enought disagreement to make for intresting conversations...

something you will never understand ...

being normal has its upsides , seeking imposable questions with extraordinarly hard answers is not one of them

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, not to insult you again, but get a friend. Girlfriend/boyfriend, get one, cause your dark speach gets the creeps out of me.

not to insult you , but so that you might understand ...

to understand the linial actuator , it is a pressure regulator , a spool valve , encoder , decoder ... in one device ...

it uses a nitinol wire 10 inch's long inside a wire spring to deamplifie the actuator total 10 inches of motion to .100 inchs of motion which is the motion of the wire ... when a pulse width modulated signal changes the memory shape wire , \ controlling a 3 port spool valve inside the actuator ....so n that the signal is converted to a valve motion with out ever feeling pressure ....

the device funtions with out a regualtor and is analog in lenght to PWM signal... response time is 1/10 second... which is so much faster than the hydrolics as to make it not an issue ...

i can build the working device with manual machine equipment in about 3 hours , and the usb port will run the wire directly with a 5000 word assembly language program ...

because the design is scaleable... i can build a linilar actuator the size of a 10 story building or for a nanobot in microns .. with equal ease ... the device is patentable and is also very easy to improve ... and any one that is intrested... it has automotive applications including reactive shock absorbers that flat line a bump in the road...

it is also not effected by vaccum or ultra pressure.... ( space or deep ocean) ...

i just want a warm place to work and some one else to run the business...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No not extinct, just on strike. The minds that are able are hiding, science is less about science nowadays and more about politics which makes a lot of people just stop giving ideas to the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.