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
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,
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...
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