Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   "Is scientific genius extinct" asks cub Fox News blogger who can't seem to get any of his phone calls returned, citing a psychology professor who can't get laid   ( foxnews.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, psychology, Fox News, phone calls, genius extinct, natural sciences, theory of relativities, Fossils, human society  
•       •       •

1362 clicks; posted to Geek » on 03 Feb 2013 at 11:59 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



68 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
NFA [TotalFark]
2013-02-03 08:44:16 AM  
 
2013-02-03 10:27:01 AM  
It's like the entire field of engineering doesn't exist. As an EE I can tell you that my area has been exploding in challenge and complexity for the past 100 years. What would have been your entire education has been reduced to a class or a couple weeks of course work. (The Telegraph Equations gets ~2 weeks).

While we know more and more everyday (but no where near as much as the author thinks) we know even less about how to build the things we can imagine. That is very fertile ground for genius.
 
2013-02-03 11:03:33 AM  

NFA: Here's the answer to your question



Damage to your hippocampus
HOLY CRAP!!

Damage to your hippocampus
HOLY CRAP!!

Damage to your hippocampus
HOLY CRAP!!

Damage to your hippocampus
HOLY CRAP!!
 
2013-02-03 11:15:58 AM  
Well, Fox, since we already have all the answers already (God did it), I guess it's a moot point, huh?
 
2013-02-03 11:16:55 AM  

doyner: Well, Fox, since we already have all the answers already (God did it), I guess it's a moot point, huh?


That's what I meant to say.
 
2013-02-03 11:19:09 AM  
That's more of an acknowledgement that science exists than Fox is usually willing to allow.
 
2013-02-03 11:19:20 AM  

NFA: Here's the answer to your question


Science by press release, Yay!
 
2013-02-03 11:40:04 AM  
For the past century, no truly original disciplines have been created; instead new arrivals are hybrids of existing ones, such as astrophysics or biochemistry.

Nanotech?
Genetic engineering?
Metamaterials?

but they were talking about NEW DISCIPLINES (major areas of science, rather than new discoveries creating whole new branches)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Formal_sciences
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cognitive_science
everything to do with AI and what came from that
and to a lesser degree all of computer science
And just because these morons dont know the names of the geniuses in these fields, doesnt mean that there has been then. Turing, Knuth, Dykstra, Hofstadter. So here is a new discipline with geniuses.

The greater humor in the article is that the writer misunderstands how and where those new disciplines came from in the first place. How many times in history has some leader in a discipline stood forward and claimed that there is nothing new to discover? The resistance to new discoveries is immense.
Plate Tectonics (read up on what they THOUGHT before they settled on PT and the resistance to PT)
Cold Fusion - (A small community of researchers continues to investigate cold fusion,[6][11] now often preferring the designation low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR).)

will there be a new discipline? probably not?
ESP would be an example of a new discipline? or would it just fall under biology?
what if we discovered a way to imagine/view/manipulate the "soul"/spirit/ghost?
(and therefore proved that it existed) .... this would be a new discipline.

and has the real problem been that the geniuses have moved to wallstreet to make millions?
LOL
 
2013-02-03 12:02:36 PM  
For the past century, no truly original disciplines have been created; instead new arrivals are hybrids of existing ones, such as astrophysics or biochemistry.
... He said, typing into a computer that he doesn't believe exists.
 
2013-02-03 12:03:21 PM  
No.
 
2013-02-03 12:11:15 PM  
Didn't someone say in the late 1800's that science had already discovered everything?
 
2013-02-03 12:12:57 PM  
anyone else get the feeling that for this blogger "annoying" == theres a black guy running things?
 
2013-02-03 12:14:42 PM  
"Is scientific genius extinct" asks cub Fox News blogger LiveScience writer who can't seem to get any of his her phone calls returned, citing a psychology professor who can't get laid

FTFY, Subs.
 
2013-02-03 12:23:48 PM  

namatad: Nanotech?


To be fair, Nanotech *IS*, more or less, a hybrid discipline. It's this really weird area where chem and physics and engineering and biology all sort of ram into each other at high speeds.

/but yes, it is an exciting and growing field.
//And hopefully, my advisor's work will add another tool to the nanoassembly toolbox.
 
2013-02-03 12:24:05 PM  
Galileo had an easy time of it back in the day, didn't he?

And evolution, why the fundies up the derp on that every week.

It's not the scientific community limiting genius or the nature of the work that's changing. It's the all out attacks by the pagan Christians who insist it's all magic that shouldn't be looked intobecause that's would bequestioning God's genius.
 
2013-02-03 12:24:11 PM  
The whole article is full of ignorance about what science is and what scientists do.
 
2013-02-03 12:25:12 PM  

edmo: Galileo had an easy time of it back in the day, didn't he?

And evolution, why the fundies up the derp on that every week.

It's not the scientific community limiting genius or the nature of the work that's changing. It's the all out attacks by the pagan Christians who insist it's all magic that shouldn't be looked intobecause that's would bequestioning God's genius.


Also people who don't want to spend money for research.

And then complain about how people who don't pay income tax are CLEARLY lazy.
/And then seem to have no idea graduate students *exist*.
//Hooray, modern-day apprenticeship/indentured servitude!
 
2013-02-03 12:29:02 PM  
static.tvguide.comView Full Size

Not sure if serious
 
2013-02-03 12:31:08 PM  

GilRuiz1: "Is scientific genius extinct" asks cub Fox News blogger LiveScience writer who can't seem to get any of his her phone calls returned, citing a psychology professor who can't get laid

FTFY, Subs.


Yeah, but that wouldn't have been greenlit.
 
2013-02-03 12:33:33 PM  

thamike: Yeah, but that wouldn't have been greenlit.


Can't argue with that.
 
2013-02-03 12:45:43 PM  

Kome: No.

 
2013-02-03 12:48:00 PM  
"Future advances are likely to build on what is already known rather than alter the foundations of knowledge," Simonton writes

Yah like Einstein's work was not dependent on others like Newton at all. He just spontaneously emerged from the womb knowing calculus, physics and the theory of relativity. And Darwin's work was in no way influenced by the geologists and naturalists who came before him. Idiot.
 
2013-02-03 12:48:55 PM  

Felgraf: namatad: Nanotech?

To be fair, Nanotech *IS*, more or less, a hybrid discipline. It's this really weird area where chem and physics and engineering and biology all sort of ram into each other at high speeds.

/but yes, it is an exciting and growing field.
//And hopefully, my advisor's work will add another tool to the nanoassembly toolbox.


If biology is a separate discipline from chemistry, because it deals with a smaller set of chemistry but under much greater focus and detail, then nanotech can be a considered a separate discipline from the various "higher order" disciplines from which it borrows.
 
2013-02-03 12:52:53 PM  

namatad: NFA: Here's the answer to your question


Damage to your hippocampus
HOLY CRAP!!

Damage to your hippocampus
HOLY CRAP!!

Damage to your hippocampus
HOLY CRAP!!

Damage to your hippocampus
HOLY CRAP!!


HEAD-ON
Apply directly to the hippocampus
HEAD-ON

Apply directly to the hippocampus

HEAD-ON

Apply directly to the hippocampus
 
2013-02-03 12:57:03 PM  

insano: And Darwin's work was in no way influenced by the geologists and naturalists who came before him.


You know, everyone talks about Origin of Species, but I don't think anyone ever reads it. I finally did. Darwin knew he was proposing a radical new worldview, albeit one that was logical from the evidence. He covers just about every single base you could think of in order to make sure people knew he wasn't just another crackpot.
 
2013-02-03 12:59:19 PM  
No, but we have advanced to the point where  "gentlemen scientists" with a general education no longer possess the detailed in-depth knowledge that is required to contribute to the advancement of most fields of science.

Basically, most of the "easy stuff" has been discovered.
 
2013-02-03 01:05:52 PM  
Isn't everything just a sub-hybrid of math?
 
2013-02-03 01:10:49 PM  

Felgraf: To be fair, Nanotech *IS*, more or less, a hybrid discipline. It's this really weird area where chem and physics and engineering and biology all sort of ram into each other at high speeds.


by that definition, all disciplines are hybrids of physics.
Chemistry is applied Physics
Biology is applied Chemistry

lol
not disagreeing, more complaining that their definition of discipline is ... lacking? or tautological?LOL

whatshisname: Didn't someone say in the late 1800's that science had already discovered everything?


lord kelvin was attributed with saying this (there is some controversy, seems that he was quoted by someone as to have said this ... )
that basically, all that is left is the increase the precision of our measurements. more decimal places.
ROFL

this happened around the same time as lorentz and einstein.
whooops NEW SCIENCE!!


Niveras: If biology is a separate discipline from chemistry

no, biology is applied chemistry.
biology is a subset of chemistry.

unless we want to play games with the definition of discipline.
is quantum physics a separate discipline? really? why not??
nanotech and meta-materials?

this is the never ending ontological problem. everyone creates their own hierarchy.

In order to have this discussion, you need to define exactly what classes properties and/or relationships are going to be used to define a discipline. Without that framework, it is just people arguing about what phylum to put a new fossil in rather that realizing that they should create a new phylum!

(sorry, just read about the burgess shale)
 
2013-02-03 01:15:40 PM  

Niveras: Felgraf: namatad: Nanotech?

To be fair, Nanotech *IS*, more or less, a hybrid discipline. It's this really weird area where chem and physics and engineering and biology all sort of ram into each other at high speeds.

/but yes, it is an exciting and growing field.
//And hopefully, my advisor's work will add another tool to the nanoassembly toolbox.

If biology is a separate discipline from chemistry, because it deals with a smaller set of chemistry but under much greater focus and detail, then nanotech can be a considered a separate discipline from the various "higher order" disciplines from which it borrows.

Hrm, hadn't thought of it that way. Fair point!

namatad: lol
not disagreeing, more complaining that their definition of discipline is ... lacking? or tautological?LOL


Hah, I sort of agree, thinking on it ore. Truthfully, I don't really worry about the "Discipline' all that much: I've never been one for cross-discipline rivalries. =)
 
2013-02-03 01:18:18 PM  
The disciplines of physics, chemistry, biology when they came into being were not "truly original disciplines" - instead they were just renamings of parts of Natural Philosophy.
 
2013-02-03 01:20:25 PM  

Felgraf: Hah, I sort of agree, thinking on it ore. Truthfully, I don't really worry about the "Discipline' all that much: I've never been one for cross-discipline rivalries. =)


dont get me started. I work all day with orthogonal ontologies. Watching amateurs try to discus things so far outside of their knowledge base is entertaining.


on the other hand, if the fluoride/IQ relationship is true, we are all dumber than we could have been?
WTF
 
2013-02-03 01:24:59 PM  

HairBolus: The disciplines of physics, chemistry, biology when they came into being were not "truly original disciplines" - instead they were just renamings of parts of Natural Philosophy.


mhmm
It was fun to learn about the advances in science. Watching each field peel away from Natural Philosophy.
Biology was first. We could cut things open and poke it. See and touch and smell.
Chemistry followed. We had tools which allowed us to separate the elements, combine them, compare them.
Physics was "last". We split the parts of chemistry down even smaller. explaining HOW the atoms and molecules interacted.

everything left is engineering
LOL

/csb - I get paid to work as a semantic engineer. "But your program will never understand semantics!!"
 
2013-02-03 01:55:41 PM  

namatad: Felgraf: To be fair, Nanotech *IS*, more or less, a hybrid discipline. It's this really weird area where chem and physics and engineering and biology all sort of ram into each other at high speeds.

by that definition, all disciplines are hybrids of physics.
Chemistry is applied Physics
Biology is applied Chemistry


imgs.xkcd.comView Full Size
 
2013-02-03 01:59:51 PM  
If they're measuring genius by the number of novel disciplines emerging, then of course it's going to look like geniuses are dying out.  That's not what genius is though.  Genius is the ability to view the world in a fundamentally different way than everyone else.  There are a lot of really smart people in science who are no where close to being geniuses.
 
2013-02-03 02:04:44 PM  
Well, when you live in a world where you think scientists:

* made up geology in order to support their god-hating agenda.
* made up climate change to help get their communist friends elected.
* made up genetics to try to prove that other races and homos are somehow "equal".
* made up evolution to, again, turn everyone atheist.
* made up economics to try to make everyone poor.
* invented birth control in order to turn our entire nation into one big group of whores.
(among a long list of other things)

it's pretty easy to see why they are wondering where the "real geniuses" are.
 
2013-02-03 02:13:16 PM  
Scientific genius is not extinct, but a lot of it is being smothered by people who mean well.
 
2013-02-03 02:19:55 PM  

Millennium: Scientific genius is not extinct, but a lot of it is being smothered by people who mean well.


Creationists don't mean well.
 
2013-02-03 02:30:48 PM  
There have been some fundamental advances in mathematics more recent than Einstein.  Of course, that's not really science.  And it's even less comprehensible to most people.  My guess is that there have been strides as large in other fields, but that they are further removed from the laymen, and so go unnoticed.

But then I guess the question is how much they stem from one 'genius' rather than the work and diligence of many.  In that way it could be attributed to the greater number and quality of the field of scientists, so that it is that much harder for any one to stand out.
 
2013-02-03 02:46:59 PM  

insano: "Future advances are likely to build on what is already known rather than alter the foundations of knowledge," Simonton writes

Yah like Einstein's work was not dependent on others like Newton at all. He just spontaneously emerged from the womb knowing calculus, physics and the theory of relativity. And Darwin's work was in no way influenced by the geologists and naturalists who came before him. Idiot.


Exactly what I was thinking.

Also, what discipline has ever not the hybrid of others?
 
2013-02-03 02:50:25 PM  

nmemkha: No, but we have advanced to the point where  "gentlemen scientists" with a general education no longer possess the detailed in-depth knowledge that is required to contribute to the advancement of most fields of science.

Basically, most of the "easy stuff" has been discovered.


Also, today's advancements aren't comprehensible to those with just a general education.
 
2013-02-03 02:59:11 PM  

impaler: nmemkha: No, but we have advanced to the point where  "gentlemen scientists" with a general education no longer possess the detailed in-depth knowledge that is required to contribute to the advancement of most fields of science.

Basically, most of the "easy stuff" has been discovered.

Also, today's advancements aren't comprehensible to those with just a general education.


Today's advancements are incomprehensible even to many with an advanced education, if that education isn't in the primary field of such advancements. Add onto that the need to hide such advancements until such time as they can be explored for profitability, or packaged for patentability, and you really do realize just how little you know. The gap between discovery and implementation is probably as large now as it was during the Later Middle Ages. There are places on this planet, right now, where various sciences have moved far in advance of what we see on a day to day basis, and you won't see the results of that movement for years or even decades.
 
2013-02-03 03:10:52 PM  

FormlessOne: There are places on this planet, right now, where various sciences have moved far in advance of what we see on a day to day basis, and you won't see the results of that movement for years or even decades.


toss in stuff which is being used by the military or NSA/CIA and the list goes on
 
2013-02-03 03:33:47 PM  
This is all beside the point. A "discipline" is just a way for us to categorise knowledge and organise academics into different university departments. Whether somebody doing a particular type of work is part of this discipline or that discipline, or some "hybrid" discipline is largely a matter of convention.
 
2013-02-03 03:44:54 PM  
But at least I don't have damage to my hippocampus
 
2013-02-03 03:45:52 PM  

FormlessOne: Today's advancements are incomprehensible even to many with an advanced education


I have a degree in physics. I understand most of the words and concepts used when they discus micro-fabrication.

"Intel has already outlined a path to use 193 nm immersion lithography down to 11 nm node "
My best friend does microfab at georgia tech. I "know" how they are playing this game.
And yet, magic.

22 nm - 2012
14 nm - est. 2014
10 nm - est. 2016
7 nm - est. 2018
5 nm - est. 2020
 
2013-02-03 04:21:24 PM  
FTFA: "This isn't the first time someone has predicted that science's most exciting days are over."

Then what the hell are you trying to say? That you can't imagine any breakthroughs so there can't be any?
 
2013-02-03 04:35:44 PM  

thamike: Millennium: Scientific genius is not extinct, but a lot of it is being smothered by people who mean well.

Creationists don't mean well.


They weren't really the ones I was thinking about, though I probably should have. But even they mean well.
 
2013-02-03 05:14:18 PM  

Shadowtag: FTFA: "This isn't the first time someone has predicted that science's most exciting days are over."

Then what the hell are you trying to say? That you can't imagine any breakthroughs so there can't be any?


LOL
 
2013-02-03 05:16:14 PM  

Millennium: But even they mean well.


no
no they do not
creationists do not mean well
the consequences of their actions is a net negative to society as a whole. uneducated mouthing breathing cretins do not actually help society. How does someone who denies reality make an informed decision?
They can not.
 
2013-02-03 06:10:12 PM  

namatad: Millennium: But even they mean well.

no
no they do not
creationists do not mean well
the consequences of their actions is a net negative to society as a whole.


They don't think so. Indeed, they see themselves as holding society together in the face of some very strong impulses to collapse into self-centeredness. If we were to assume for the sake of argument that this were true (after all, they assume it, and we're trying to get into their heads here), who wouldn't call that good intent?

uneducated mouthing breathing cretins do not actually help society.

Way to stereotype.

How does someone who denies reality make an informed decision?
They can not.


An informed decision about what? You speak of information in such general terms that it ceases to have any real meaning. Perhaps they do deny reality about one specific thing -or perhaps they don't; they certainly don't think that they do- but why should this affect anything not directly related to it?
 
Displayed 50 of 68 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report