Skip to main content

Will we ever see another scientific genius?

A genius in captivity
The whole concept of genius is a very arbitrary one, something that struck me very strongly while reading Genius - a very short introduction for review. Part of the problem seems to be that the same label is applied to (say) the arts and the sciences, yet the criteria are very different.

To be a genius in the arts seems based on public acclaim and on the need for that acclaim to last - yet it is ultimately purely subjective. The author of the book clearly thought, for example, that Virginia Woolf was a genius - something I found totally mind-boggling. Genius in art is ultimately a matter of fashion.

In science there are very different criteria. If artistic criteria were applied, you would probably label Stephen Hawking a genius, yet most of his colleagues would simply see him as a very good scientist. However, when you find a real scientific genius like Newton, Einstein or Feynman it's very hard for anyone to argue because it's not such a subjective, publicity driven concept, but rather based on the fundamental level of their contribution to scientific knowledge.

Having begun to think about scientific genius as a result of reading the book, I do wonder if there will ever be another true genius in the field. Most geniuses in science had very limited scientific qualifications when they did their great work. Neither Newton nor Einstein had a PhD at the time. A fair number had very limited scientific training - Faraday springs to mind. Darwin, for that matter, did his great work well outside his area of expertise. Genius in science seems to have come from the ability to span different areas of thought, to bring breadth of knowledge and originality to bear, rather than concentrating on a tiny area of expertise.

It does seem likely that our current scientists, who don't seem to be allowed to think at all before they get their PhDs, are simply too constrained to ever produce a work of genius. You have to have too much technical and mathematical training to have the freedom of thought required.

I'm not saying that great work won't be done in the sciences - but this is the age of the narrow-focussed team, not the individual, broad-thinking genius. And in some ways that's rather sad.

Photograph from Wikipedia


  1. Couple of quick comments. I don't know if I agree with Virginia Woolf being a genius either, but critical evaluation of her works by literature academics is what justifies her place as one of the more important authors of the 20th century--her work is very good,and original. I don't know what you mean by public acclaim. Public acclaim would suggest Stephen King is a "genius" if we buy into your comment, yet no-one would make such an absurd claim.

    I think your reference to Newton et al in comparison to current science is simplistic. Let's use physics since that seems to be your model. Physics now is Big Physics. It requires money, large equipment, and collaboration to do important work. In comparison, Faraday et al did their work in a completely different milieu.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Mirror, mirror

A little while ago I had the pleasure of giving a talk at the Royal Institution in London - arguably the greatest location for science communication in the UK. At one point in the talk, I put this photograph on the screen, which for some reason caused some amusement in the audience. But the photo was illustrating a serious point: the odd nature of mirror reflections. I remember back at school being puzzled by a challenge from one of our teachers - why does a mirror swap left and right, but not top and bottom? Clearly there's nothing special about the mirror itself in that direction - if there were, rotating the mirror would change the image. The most immediately obvious 'special' thing about the horizontal direction is that the observer has two eyes oriented in that direction - but it's not as if things change if you close one eye. In reality, the distinction is much more interesting - we fool ourselves into thinking that the image behind the mirror is what's on ou