3 ms·
A lot of the "strings" seem expansions of others or superfluous. For example, it lists "Physicist, philosopher, author, mathematician" for Penrose. I'm not so
by frisco 17y ago
A lot of the "strings" seem expansions of others or superfluous. For example, it lists "Physicist, philosopher, author, mathematician" for Penrose. I'm not so sure that theoretical physics and maths are different enough to qualify you as a polymath, and "author" falls out of being a good physicist; he's not exactly writing fiction on the side.
- piramida 17y agoMy thoughts exactly. Taking this criteria, thousands of people can be listed, author just lists people he heard of. Not like any of them are a new Leo. But yes, even in specialization age there are talented people who are successful in more than one discipline. There are many thousands of them. But "successful" and being world's best is different - there are what, zero people in this list who can be considered top of the crop in more than one listed area?
- chromophore 17y agoI don't agree with you. Read "Shadows of the Mind", your opinions on him might change. I don't think being a Polymath means you have to know mutually exclusive stuff. I don't that's possible in the sciences anyway.