well this is provocative from a psychologist,
i am reminded of the closing of the patent office, (because everything that could be invented had been already)
and we know how that went, after a few weeks new patents were piling up.
i would contend that with the internet and the ability to recover knowledge at a high speed our idea of what a genius is has changed.
a genius now is someone who makes a radical advance in a particular feild of science (scientific genius)
someone who makes massive advances in maths (mathematical genius)
some computer geek who reinvents how computers speak to each other (computer genius)
but in my opinion a genius is some who re-evaluates what we think we know and harnesses the power of the internet to come to a logical conclusion that
can be put to practical use, to benifit society as a whole.
and infact many people world wide would fit MY definition of genius.
thats why i was shocked to read the following
(Phys.org)—Dean Keith Simonton, a psychology professor at the University of California, has published a comment piece in the journal Nature,
where he argues that it's unlikely mankind will ever produce another Einstein, Newton, Darwin, etc. This is because, he says, we've already
discovered all the most basic ideas that describe how the natural world works. Any new work, will involve little more than adding to our knowledge
Read more at: phys.org...
so the idea here is that we know we know everything therfore there is nothing to discover, or re discover.
kinda like closing the patent office,
all the great geniuses have re examined "what we think we know"
and have re interoperated the conclusions and against all odds have redefined our knowledge on subjects once thought settled.
what say you are the days of genius over?
or is this thinking the perfect excuse to re define our knowledge again to allow for more geniuses to step up and break the broken paradime of
"but we already know everything".
thus proving their genius