Expert psychologist suggests the era of genius scientists is over, page 2

reply to post by mbkennel

---

so you decided to go the antagonist route.....ALONE.

Eat my butt...I stand by what I said.

I am well read, have an excellent vocabulary, and I am up to date on most scientific endeavors as well as new discoveries.

You ASSume too much.

Originally posted by XPLodER

Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by XPLodER

---

Let's put this in some context shall we before everyone starts running with "they think we know everything" which hunt against science, as is so prevalant on this site, shall we.

The article is not saying we know everything and there is nothing left to discover. He claims that the basic framework for all of the sciences has been laid . . . we've discovered the basic principles, so anything new is going to add to exisiting fields (say dark energy/matter).

He also states he's been working with/studying genius for 30yrs, and his position is also based on the changing paradigm of research. Now, we no longer see a lone-wolf "crazy" scientist researching in private to come up with new ideas. We now work in large teams working a project and any new breakthroughs will be the work of teams and not some exalted "genius".

you have to admit this guy discounts the home grown lone scientist, and "amuses" that teams of white coated guys with government funding will always out compete the lone genius

He also goes on to say he "hopes he is wrong on this issue", but his findings lead to that conclusion.

he is wrong on two levels, the definition of genius, and the inability of ordinary people to make remarkable advances for man kind in isolation.

But . . . let's run with the hyperbole, cuz Jersey Shore attitude towards scientific articles is more fun than examining it with critical thinking.

absurd articles garner absurd reprocesses, i cant help but find his conclusions .....well silly,
and that leads me to laugh when i write these answers. no more geniuses REALLY?

EDIT - the article also didn't say that we wouldn't label humans as genius, just the superstar-type icons (Einstein) are a thing of the past.

like steven hawking?

Comprehension, people . . . please! Deny Ignorance, right?

edit on 1/31/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)

i comprehend this, genius weather by number of folds in the brain or artistic expresion is not something that can go away because of lack of super star status

ps i am still laughing

xploder

Where do I start . . . with confirmation bias. Please show me where he says "geniuses" won't exist? He is talking about the single guy that finds a new field . . . He is coming to that conclusion based on our current paradigm for research. You are inserting a lot that isn't there. Again . . . comprehension shouldn't include your emotional response to the message.

You're not the only one that disagrees with him . . . so do most scientists that phys.org spoke with on the subject.

However . . . nothing of what you are inferring his point to be is backed up by what he said. So the absurd response I see is by those that suffer from a lack of critical thinking and honest recitation of this article.

Yes, like Stephen Hawking . . . However, I'm pretty sure Stephen Hawking didn't travel back from the future to tell us that this guy was wrong and then just decide to stay in this time. The article is talking about his thought on the future, no?

Once again . . . where did he say "genius" as in insight or capability quotient is going away. He is talking about icons who are exalted, due to their genius status. His reasons are cleary laid out and ration. Whether you or I agree is a different matter.

At this point, you are backtracking because you can't fit your hyperbolic cliff jumping into the article. He didn't claim that genius as a concept wouldn't exist. He didn't claim there wouldn't not be geniuses. He never claimed we know everything, so no need for geniuses. He even said that he hopes he is wrong. But you keep claiming these things . . . why? Did you even read the article or his original commentary in Nature (you know opinion piece, not scientific paper).

Well, you and all the geniuses keep laughing it up then . . . me and the rest of the mentally challenged, critical thinking, reading comprehension crowd think that intentional misrepresentation and hyperbole of an article to further your personal biases, is willfully ignorant and deceitful. So I guess . . . laugh it up fuzzball. We'll keep laughing at you!

reply to post by solomons path

---

Where do I start . . . with confirmation bias. Please show me where he says "geniuses" won't exist? He is talking about the single guy that finds a new field . . . He is coming to that conclusion based on our current paradigm for research. You are inserting a lot that isn't there. Again . . . comprehension shouldn't include your emotional response to the message.

your right, you are i shouldn't try to write a serious article while i cry with laughter
i am really sorry you dont see the humour in this

You're not the only one that disagrees with him . . . so do most scientists that phys.org spoke with on the subject.

as i clearly layed out in the op
MY definition of genius differs to the author. and in the internet age the general consensus of genius has changed
ie
(computer genius)

However . . . nothing of what you are inferring his point to be is backed up by what he said. So the absurd response I see is by those that suffer from a lack of critical thinking and honest recitation of this article.

i am honestly laughing my face off right now, please dont be offended its not you who causing my fits of laughter,
how about addressing WHAT i said, "the power of the internet to gather knowledge" a lone home grown inventor, steve jobs lol
seriously "every foundation of science has been covered uuuuummmmmm gravity? dark matter ? dark energy
the missing 90% of the universe, really i could go on but .......

Yes, like Stephen Hawking . . . However, I'm pretty sure Stephen Hawking didn't travel back from the future to tell us that this guy was wrong and then just decide to stay in this time. The article is talking about his thought on the future, no?

yes but think about this for there to be a steven hawkin type here now in our time,
what forces of nature would prevent another hawkin type in the future,
say in a slum in india, who would without realising it give an answer to the question of gravity,
and turn the theory of gravity on its head, a lone thinker, annonomously sending the answers to the interwebz

Once again . . . where did he say "genius" as in insight or capability quotient is going away. He is talking about icons who are exalted, due to their genius status. His reasons are cleary laid out and ration. Whether you or I agree is a different matter.

superstar geniuses? are you saying the measurement is from fame not impact on the modern world,
a fame superstar genius? ie being a genius for being a superstar?

At this point, you are backtracking because you can't fit your hyperbolic cliff jumping into the article. He didn't claim that genius as a concept wouldn't exist. He didn't claim there wouldn't not be geniuses. He never claimed we know everything,

he claimed,

This is because, he says, we've already discovered all the most basic ideas that describe how the natural world works

Read more at: phys.org...

phys.org...

let me translate, my humour language from this passage,
we have already discovered all the most basic ideas that describe (how we think) the natural world works.
because we already know how "all the basics" (and i asume 100% correct) this statement becomes the basis for a lone genius to point out the flaws in the basic understanding, revolutionizing the feild and being proclaimed a genius (my definition of genius) and maby just for laughs

so no need for geniuses. He even said that he hopes he is wrong. But you keep claiming these things . . . why? Did you even read the article or his original commentary in Nature (you know opinion piece, not scientific paper).

i am glad this is an opinion pieace, if this was printed by anyone else i wouldnt have bothered doing much more than laugh (my point is the guy or girl who proves his thesis would by (my) definition be a genius lol

Well, you and all the geniuses keep laughing it up then . . . me and the rest of the mentally challenged, critical thinking, reading comprehension crowd think that intentional misrepresentation and hyperbole of an article to further your personal biases, is willfully ignorant and deceitful. So I guess . . . laugh it up fuzzball. We'll keep laughing at you!

dont take it so personally, no need to get put out by my sence of humour,

i think of this as a challenge, prove one of the concepts of the basis of our knowledge is incorrect and become a genius by falsifying his premise that we are right about the basics

dont get but hurt, have a laugh at the circular reasoning

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER

---

This rather reminds me of the MD who tried to convince me that because of modern medicine, evolution in the human species is dead.

What a load of horse pucky.

All things change and continue to evolve in symbiosis with their various pressures and niches; this includes human achievements.

reply to post by XPLodER

---

What about the flying saucer drive mechanism.
Oh yeah some people know that but most do not.
Sorry.

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
reply to post by XPLodER

---

What about the flying saucer drive mechanism.
Oh yeah some people know that but most do not.
Sorry.

good point another tesla,
another newton,
another bach

why would they not just say some thing like,

you can explain alot of this stuff by knowing..........

genius

xploder

reply to post by rickymouse

---

Science seems to have become pretty dogmatic. Or maybe it always was, but now it is more in the open. Probably the second option, that seems to apply to a lot of situations in this day and age.

reply to post by XPLodER

---

This isn't really a fresh idea. I think I have already heard this during a Philosophy of science class years ago.

It is very likely correct to say that there won't be a single person redefining physics as we know it. The basics are all in place. We know it works well because all our current technology depends on it. Since our technology works, we know the science behind it is correct.

That in no way means that there are no geniuses. Except, the discoveries they make are much more specialized. They may be as brilliant as the discoveries by Newton and Einstein etc, but they won't dramatically change the way we think in general, especially to the general public. In the select group of people who have enough knowledge on the subject it may well be a earth shattering discovery though.

It also has to do with the mental capability of the human brain. Even if somewhere in the future we find a completely new model that describes nature even better than our current models, it will very likely be so complex that no single person can come up with it. It would have to be the result of a cooperation of hundreds, maybe thousands of “Einsteins”. You see this for example happening at CERN.

reply to post by -PLB-

---

...there won't be a single person redefining physics as we know it. The basics are all in place. We know it works well because...

there are such glaring, gaping, holes in physics.

what about the negative-valued solutions (advanced wave) to Klein-Gordon? this alone is proof positive that we can only account for *at best half* of theoretical phenomena ...and that modern science is intellectually dishonest when it suits them.

not to mention that Klein-Gordon (relativity) is not reconciled with quantum mechanics. in physics alone, there's room for at least one more superstar.


and until we have a suitable explanation for consciousness, many superstars will be required.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by XPLodER

---

This isn't really a fresh idea. I think I have already heard this during a Philosophy of science class years ago.

It is very likely correct to say that there won't be a single person redefining physics as we know it. The basics are all in place. We know it works well because all our current technology depends on it. Since our technology works, we know the science behind it is correct.

That in no way means that there are no geniuses. Except, the discoveries they make are much more specialized. They may be as brilliant as the discoveries by Newton and Einstein etc, but they won't dramatically change the way we think in general, especially to the general public. In the select group of people who have enough knowledge on the subject it may well be a earth shattering discovery though.

It also has to do with the mental capability of the human brain. Even if somewhere in the future we find a completely new model that describes nature even better than our current models, it will very likely be so complex that no single person can come up with it. It would have to be the result of a cooperation of hundreds, maybe thousands of “Einsteins”. You see this for example happening at CERN.

thank you for you post,
i concede that i may have let my assumption run away with me,
but it seemed crazy that the giants of science of yesteryear wouldn't play a part (even isolated)
or even be on the radar of average and scientific people
sounded like heresy.

i like to point out that some of the greatest inventors were lone scientists,

tesla would be a prime example. without him our world would be very different indeed

after a power nap i now realise that after a re read,
i was being a bit harsh

but i still stand by my statement,
there will always be a "hawking" or "tesla" or einstien able to bend their brains around great problems to provide useful solutions.

xploder

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by -PLB-

---

...there won't be a single person redefining physics as we know it. The basics are all in place. We know it works well because...

there are such glaring, gaping, holes in physics.

what about the negative-valued solutions (advanced wave) to Klein-Gordon? this alone is proof positive that we can only account for *at best half* of theoretical phenomena ...and that modern science is intellectually dishonest when it suits them.

Uh, this is why physics isn't mathematics. Physics isn't intellectually 'dishonest' when it says some mathematical solutions are 'unphysical' because they aren't backed by experimental evidence, in fact quite the opposite.

We don't have to account for theoretical phenomena---other than coming up with better theories---we have to account for experimental phenomena.

And the Klein Gordon equation hence does not describe any known physical particle.

Pokemon discovered in Venezuela
  Posted 14 days ago with 47 member flags

89-Year-Old Man Develops Bladeless Bird-Friendly Wind Turbine
  Posted 11 days ago with 45 member flags

Amazing snowflake images that you have never seen before.
  Posted 14 days ago with 44 member flags

Energy Solutions THEY don\'t want you to know about
  Posted 14 days ago with 35 member flags

High speed video reveals the bizarre physics of an ordinary water droplet
  Posted 4 days ago with 32 member flags

Does this video show a working self propelled magnetic engine?
  Posted 7 days ago with 31 member flags

Viruses: alive or not?
  Posted 11 days ago with 30 member flags

NASA reveals secrets it has hidden on the Curiosity rover.
  Posted 17 days ago with 29 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: