Is scientific genius extinct?

[Jazzy]

Modern-day science has little room for the likes of Galileo, who first used the telescope to study the sky, or Charles Darwin, who put forward the theory of evolution, argues a psychologist and expert in scientific genius.



Dean Keith Simonton of the University of California, Davis, says that just like the ill-fated dodo, scientific geniuses like these men have gone extinct.



Future advances are likely to build on what is already known rather than alter the foundations of knowledge, Simonton writes in a commentary published in today’s (Jan. 31) issue of the journal Nature.



An end to momentous leaps forward?

For the past century, no truly original disciplines have been created; instead new arrivals are hybrids of existing ones, such as astrophysics or biochemistry. It has also become much more difficult for an individual to make groundbreaking contributions, since cutting-edge work is often done by large, well-funded teams, he argues.



What's more, almost none of the natural sciences appear ripe for a revolution.



The core disciplines have accumulated not so much anomalies as mere loose ends that will be tidied up one way or another, he writes.

Full article



In your opinion, is scientific genius extinct? Why or why not?

 

[DrLeftover]

In light of the Mystery Series article posted yesterday....



... ... ... I don't know.



Let me think about that for a bit.



Waitress, yes, miss, Booze, please. Much booze. And maybe some pork rinds. I've got some serious pondering to do. Thank you.

 

[Evil Eye]

Shouldn't think so.



In this age of near-instantaneous global communication, working alone is simply more rare. Our expectations have probably changed as well. We don't find it strange for computers to continuously improve, yet the underlying science obviously took some thinking. (Even if modern computer chips are designed by computers.)