3 ms·

In times of Aristotle, Leonardo Da Vinci, and (to a lesser extent) Benjamin Franklin one person could learn a significant portion of total scientific knowledge.

by pps43 8y ago

In times of Aristotle, Leonardo Da Vinci, and (to a lesser extent) Benjamin Franklin one person could learn a significant portion of total scientific knowledge. That's no longer the case. There could be no more deep generalists.

taneq 8y ago
You can still master 2-3 fields, if not to an international level. There are just far more fields to choose from now.
- pps43 8y ago
  But can someone who knows only two or three fields out of so many that exist now be really called generalist?
  - overgard 8y ago
    I think you’re kinda stuck on scientific fields though. I imagine it’s hard to know all of physics and chemistry for example; but I imagine you could simultaneously be say an excellent painter and also an excellent fiction writer, etc.
alehul 8y ago
So true. There's two types of research; one that builds upon prior knowledge to new conclusions, and another that undermines everything previous to be incorrect or incomplete. The first is done by your average PhD in Physics, for example, while the latter was Einstein and then Heisenberg, Planck, and Born. While someone can be successful in the latter kind (undermining previous knowledge) through a fresh new hypothesis, the former kind of research, and the more common kind, requires understanding everything prior and reaching the current point of knowledge in that field. It's become increasingly hard, as evidenced by the increasing number of years of education it takes to master a subject.
- gus_massa 8y ago
  To undermine previos knowledge you need to understand everything prior and reaching the current point of knowledge in that field, even more than if you want to make some incremental discovery. Einstein, Heisenberg, Planck, and Born had a deep knowledge of the current state of Physics at their time.
  - alehul 8y ago
    While it's necessary to possess a substantial amount of knowledge, I would argue that people who are older and have even more knowledge in the field are usually too accepting of the current information to question it enough to change it. Einstein started working on general relativity at 28, and Heisenberg published the uncertainty principle at 26. While Planck and Born were older for their most famed work (late 30s?), they were still relatively young. I would argue that this seems to show that there is some higher likelihood in a scientific epiphany at a young age, when you've yet to accept information as undoubtedly true, and instead are questioning it as you're learning.

by pps43 8y ago

taneq 8y ago

You can still master 2-3 fields, if not to an international level. There are just far more fields to choose from now.

pps43 8y ago
But can someone who knows only two or three fields out of so many that exist now be really called generalist?
- overgard 8y ago
  I think you’re kinda stuck on scientific fields though. I imagine it’s hard to know all of physics and chemistry for example; but I imagine you could simultaneously be say an excellent painter and also an excellent fiction writer, etc.

alehul 8y ago

So true. There's two types of research; one that builds upon prior knowledge to new conclusions, and another that undermines everything previous to be incorrect or incomplete. The first is done by your average PhD in Physics, for example, while the latter was Einstein and then Heisenberg, Planck, and Born. While someone can be successful in the latter kind (undermining previous knowledge) through a fresh new hypothesis, the former kind of research, and the more common kind, requires understanding everything prior and reaching the current point of knowledge in that field. It's become increasingly hard, as evidenced by the increasing number of years of education it takes to master a subject.

gus_massa 8y ago
To undermine previos knowledge you need to understand everything prior and reaching the current point of knowledge in that field, even more than if you want to make some incremental discovery. Einstein, Heisenberg, Planck, and Born had a deep knowledge of the current state of Physics at their time.
- alehul 8y ago
  While it's necessary to possess a substantial amount of knowledge, I would argue that people who are older and have even more knowledge in the field are usually too accepting of the current information to question it enough to change it. Einstein started working on general relativity at 28, and Heisenberg published the uncertainty principle at 26. While Planck and Born were older for their most famed work (late 30s?), they were still relatively young. I would argue that this seems to show that there is some higher likelihood in a scientific epiphany at a young age, when you've yet to accept information as undoubtedly true, and instead are questioning it as you're learning.