If that’s the case there’s about eight of them in New York City.
The genuine polymath is still one in a million
31–40 of 67 posts
Re: The genuine polymath is still one in a million
#32One thing that struck me at an exhibit of Leonardo's notebooks is how totally wrong he was about so many things. It wasn't mentioned in the exhibit but for every one thing he was correct about, it seemed like there were many many, dozens perhaps, that he was completely incorrect about. Some of the ideas seem preposterous now, although it's difficult to view them appropriately as they would have been at the time. This…
Same goes for Isaac Newton. He’s practically been elevated to godhood for his contributions to calculus and physics. What about his occult studies, alchemy, and chronology [1]? It seems only historians (academic and amateur), Newton buffs, and compulsive Wikipedia clickers know or care about these weird ideas that were so important to Newton. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_occult_studie...
10 successes and 1000 failures is more valuable than 1 success and no failures.
Re: The genuine polymath is still one in a million
#33One thing that struck me at an exhibit of Leonardo's notebooks is how totally wrong he was about so many things. It wasn't mentioned in the exhibit but for every one thing he was correct about, it seemed like there were many many, dozens perhaps, that he was completely incorrect about. Some of the ideas seem preposterous now, although it's difficult to view them appropriately as they would have been at the time. This…
Same goes for Isaac Newton. He’s practically been elevated to godhood for his contributions to calculus and physics. What about his occult studies, alchemy, and chronology [1]? It seems only historians (academic and amateur), Newton buffs, and compulsive Wikipedia clickers know or care about these weird ideas that were so important to Newton. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_occult_studie...
I don't think this sort of thing is rare, or a reflection of the time period he lived in or his status as an extreme outlier in historical influence.
Many scientists spend a portion of their time in oddball or fruitless pursuits and sometimes it takes them over, particularly as they get older.
Linus Pauling and Vitamin C is one thing that comes to mind.
There was some scientist whose name I can't remember, was asked how he could be occupied by crazy ideas or obsessions and he said that these ideas came to him in exactly the same way as his deep scientific insights.
Re: The genuine polymath is still one in a million
#34One thing that struck me at an exhibit of Leonardo's notebooks is how totally wrong he was about so many things. It wasn't mentioned in the exhibit but for every one thing he was correct about, it seemed like there were many many, dozens perhaps, that he was completely incorrect about. Some of the ideas seem preposterous now, although it's difficult to view them appropriately as they would have been at the time. This…
Same goes for Isaac Newton. He’s practically been elevated to godhood for his contributions to calculus and physics. What about his occult studies, alchemy, and chronology [1]? It seems only historians (academic and amateur), Newton buffs, and compulsive Wikipedia clickers know or care about these weird ideas that were so important to Newton. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_occult_studie...
Were these studies inconsistent with a curious mind and the limitations of knowledge at the time? In any research, some avenues of investigation are fruitful and others are not.
When people look back on us 300 years from today, they'll likely find many cases of geniuses working on things that seem naive or misguided in retrospect.
Re: The genuine polymath is still one in a million
#35This is the focus of my main keynote presentation topic, On Being a Deep Generalist . Specialisation came to the fore during the Industrial Revolution and achieved a form of preeminence in the 20th Century that hadn’t existed elsewhere in human history when knowing, at depth, a wide variety of skills and disciplines was either essential for survival or in order to be considered a well-rounded individual. The internet…
What's the definition of Deep Generalist that you have in mind?
Re: The genuine polymath is still one in a million
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same goes for Isaac Newton. He’s practically been elevated to godhood for his contributions to calculus and physics. What about his occult studies, alchemy, and chronology [1]? It seems only historians (academic and amateur), Newton buffs, and compulsive Wikipedia clickers know or care about these weird ideas that were so important to Newton. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_occult_studie...
Were these studies inconsistent with a curious mind and the limitations of knowledge at the time? In any research, some avenues of investigation are fruitful and others are not. When people look back on us 300 years from today, they'll likely find many cases of geniuses working on things that seem naive or misguided in retrospect.
You can say the same thing about the limitations nowaadays. Looking back from the future we’ll have learned a lot of things that we are thinking now will be seen as preposterous when more knowledge is covered.
Re: The genuine polymath is still one in a million
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was told by a doctor that in his 1980s biology class, the professor opened by saying, "half of what I'm going to teach you is wrong - we just don't know which half". I imagine it's similar with Leonardo, and likely with our own state-of-the-art knowledge. We are all broken clocks, and the trick is to figure out which part of our knowledge is wrong.
They say that about advertising spend too. I think it was David Ogilvy but I'm too lazy to look it up.
That is wishful thinking on their part IMO. Saying that half of X is wrong makes X look like half true. It could be false in a much higher proportion
Re: The genuine polymath is still one in a million
#38One thing that struck me at an exhibit of Leonardo's notebooks is how totally wrong he was about so many things. It wasn't mentioned in the exhibit but for every one thing he was correct about, it seemed like there were many many, dozens perhaps, that he was completely incorrect about. Some of the ideas seem preposterous now, although it's difficult to view them appropriately as they would have been at the time. This…
Is it apt comparing being right about things to a broken clock? Unlike a clock, there's no guarantee that anyone might eventually be right about anything. Sure, a monkey at a typewriter will eventually produce Shakespeare's complete works, but the chance is pretty much negligible.
Re: The genuine polymath is still one in a million
#39When it comes to modern/living polymaths, it's worth mentioning Noam Chomsky. He did groundbreaking work in formal language theory that is fundamental to lots of theory of computation. He basically (re)invented modern linguistics. Then there's the media analysis work of Manufacturing Consent. Then there's the unending political criticism. It's pretty staggering.
Re: The genuine polymath is still one in a million
#40Not so much "genuine", but rather celebrity polymath. There are plenty of polymaths who have no interest in fame and fortune, and simply keep to themselves.
This is so true and so overlooked. I think there are a lot more intelligent people, in general, who have absolutely no desire and need to advertise it