tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post3728707851795611213..comments2024-03-25T11:49:21.281-07:00Comments on The Splintered Mind: On the Winnowing of GreatsEric Schwitzgebelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-86241397041140023702007-08-14T08:03:00.000-07:002007-08-14T08:03:00.000-07:00Thanks for the interesting comments, folks! I lik...Thanks for the interesting comments, folks! I like your suggestion of Chomsky, Lee. Certainly, he was historically important to linguistics -- on a par, perhaps, with Piaget's influence in developmental psychology.<BR/><BR/>You raise a good point, Genius, about the changing politics of academia making it more egalitarian and less amenable to the domination of a few "giants". That seems likely to be one factor.<BR/><BR/>Although I don't know enough about the Darwin/Wallace thing to have an informed opinion, I do agree with you, Anibal, that to some extent the "star" serves a sociological function of being a name people can attach to a field. Fields need stars for public consumption and will invent them if genuine Darwins and Einsteins and Newtons don't exist. I'm inclined to think that this is what's up with Watson & Crick and with Hawking. I take this idea to fit quite naturally with my explanation of the winnowing of greats with distance: Whoever is mentioned most in summaries of the field starts to be the public representative of the field and to look head-and-shoulders above the rest.Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-83153913743673371642007-08-14T03:10:00.000-07:002007-08-14T03:10:00.000-07:00What about the effects of merchandising, "hypism" ...What about the effects of merchandising, "hypism" or overrating of marketing and other sociological factors outside of the very standard of talent and greatness. <BR/><BR/>I consider for example Darwin. The idea of evolution by means of some of mechanism that selects the most adaptbale traits in organisms, was first proposed by Wallace (and even before by Empedocles, Ghoethe...) but Darwin because of his most linkages and ties with the scientific establishment(and also becuase of his great mind!) finally was the co-opted for the annals of history.<BR/><BR/>In many ways the "star" scholar at the forefront of any field is just to make the field recognizable by the layman, i think that the rest, in the mean percentile, are the real supporters of the course of science and knowledge.<BR/><BR/>Neverthless, i wonder, like you, where are the new Darwins, and Newtons, i start to worrying and missing them!Anibal Monasterio Astobizahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03121020811080165520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-7256423829702799292007-08-14T00:57:00.000-07:002007-08-14T00:57:00.000-07:00Er - I have read a bit of Chomsky’s stuff and.. I ...Er - I have read a bit of Chomsky’s stuff and.. I didn't find it very great. Personally in some areas (pretty central ones) I thought he was obviously wrong (rather like some of his political analysis - and possibly perpetuated for the same sort of reasons) still I guess a whole field of people support his views so maybe I should defer to them.<BR/><BR/>Then again I don’t really believe in "giants" at all. I don’t think any man stands above the fray quite like that, more like a normal distribution in actual talent. <BR/><BR/>HOWEVER the people at the top get much more/better publications and credit because firstly how society works (which I will address after this) and because rationally they are taken to be those who you are more able to bet that they will have a good idea given how well you know them (i.e. self fulfilling stretching of the top end). Similar effect to what you described, Eric.<BR/><BR/>What also might be happening then is that the market for ideas could be becoming more competitive, therefore someone like Darwin can no longer take a position in a field and totally dominate thought by dint of his control over the field (i.e. leverage his leverage to get more leverage). If markets were inefficient and there were few blind reviews going on and many articles published based on names etc then the giants might be giants of social networking as well as ‘large people’ of their field.Geniushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11624496692217466430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-9158577541786394392007-08-13T14:13:00.000-07:002007-08-13T14:13:00.000-07:00How about Chomsky? Surely he counts as a great?If ...How about Chomsky? Surely he counts as a great?<BR/><BR/>If straddling a field means cutting across the sub-disciplines then I'm not sure, because of my ignorance, that Marx would count as straddling philosophy. Of course he straddled disciplines - philosophy, economics, sociology etc.<BR/><BR/>If straddling is sufficient or nearly sufficient for greatness, then surely David Lewis counts. Of course that Rawls is a candidate suggests straddling is not necessary.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com