My intent is not to start a STEM vs. Humanities/Social Science shit thread...but its one thing that I find common is when ever we asks questions about "Who you think the smartest man ever was" the answers tend to be mostly physical scientists or mathematicians..with the casual author or philosopher, social scientist thrown in
Now I don't believe science is an inherent superior field than the humanities/social science..I think every field is important, but is there a reason why most people answer scientists and mathematicians
Does something like General Relativity really require deeper thought than say Joyce's Ulysses
is someone like Von Neumann automatically smarter than Shakespeare?
its always hard to define what "intelligence" is in the first place,
continued: I don't believe scientists are inherently smarter than social scientists/humanities
I'm asking if top tier scientists are required to think deeper than ss/h people
Brody Russell
Probably
I think something like Ulysses is a product of not just pure thought but also creativity and other elements
while something like General Relativity is something that requires a sort of pure thought, whatever that means
but i understand your premise
Cameron Peterson
Start with the goddamn Greeks, how many times we'll have to repeat it
Daniel Walker
I don't think its that controversial
someone like Grothendieck, I think, probably has to think deeper than someone like Chomsky...not to say Grothendieck is more intelligent than Chomsky (whatever that means)
but the nature of the work requires Grothendieck to dig deeper about things
Isaac Butler
can humanities cucks just admit that they're not as smart already?
Tyler Fisher
Define 'deep'.
Michael Rogers
really dumb subject for a thread
Liam Baker
Different parts of the brain. Intellectual aptitude isn't something that's measured nearly as easily as IQ fags think it is. That's like asking whose "more athletic" between a ballerina and a rugby player.
But it is worth noting that Einstein, when working on his theory of relativity, did it all in his head. He would literally imagine himself moving at the speed of light and then work out the mathematics of his observations. Tesla did the same thing, designing, adjusting, and testing everything he invented in his "headspace" before ever touching a pencil to paper. Which is fucking absurd levels of mental capacity. Granted, Einstein would get lost on his way home everyday and couldn't tie his own shoes and Tesla wasn't any less weird, but the depth of intellectual work they could achieve is absolutely unparalleled.
It's easier to measure STEM achievements because of the objectivity. Recognizing the depth of thought and "intelligence" behind something artistically creative is unmeasurable, let alone comparable with those achievements
Gabriel Campbell
They both require depth of thought, but through different mediums.
Christian Parker
Intelligence is easily summed up to branches of processing. This is why geniuses can be weirdos, their levels of processing occurring directly within the confines of their body are so immense it's difficult to transition outside of that. Thus the surrounding world makes less sense.
Robert Fisher
Different type of brains
Gabriel Green
Not picking sides, (truly intelligent people are so often gifted in both fields) just a thought about the inherent bias society has towards recognizing science.
The inability of a concept to be conveyed to a layperson is the hallmark of a great scientific achievement. Not having the framework of language to comprehend it, your typical guy on the street will give a blank stare and decide it is above them. A writer that uses the same level of technical complexity would by lambasted as pretentious and unreadable by that same layperson.
Scientific achievement is also seen as more practical. A car that fucks up the planet less is of more interest to your average Joe than elucidating and incorporating a complex philosophy into their life, regardless of which is more beneficial to them.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences Heh, I last visited that page 5 years ago when I was a pseud. Glad to see "Naturalistic intelligence" is still on the list. This theory is really intelligently divided into neat little subsections perfectly :^)
Ryan Lee
that is not a fair argument because often science requires a much more complex explanation by nature while alot of "complex" writing is up to the author
you can't just simplify General Relativity in a discussion without missing many key moments..
compared to say shit like Deleuze who could of easily wrote in a much simpler manner and chose not too, for whatever preconceived reason
Blake Cruz
quantcum physics or some high level math is much deeper thought than social science. consider the mathematical ideas of dimensions and then consider what philosophers or humanities majors would say about dimension s
Cameron Fisher
>could of Normally I'd happily reach a middle ground, but I'm too triggered by your lack of critical thought that allowed this phrase into your vocabulary.
Jose Brown
ok superior philosophy man
Levi Collins
i think Plato was the smartest because he discovered/invented the world of Forms and Ideas which contains all the possibilities of things. he also had that idea about how knowledge is actually a form of recollection so he knew himself that he hadn't invented anything but merely discovered/rediscovered it.
however, most people would answer scientists and mathematicians because it's foreign to them in their daily life, which scientists have made easier for us, in fact, because most people prefer to simplify their lives, and it gives scientists an ego boost, which leads to more inventions, which make our lives easier/better.
i suppose when we're rating anything it's all subjective and temporal, etc.
or perhaps it depends on how you measure/define "depth".
i think most people find knowledge of obscure things to be a sign of intelligence for the very fact that they're unknown to them. but the world is a totality of facts that can either be very specific (microcosmic) or very generic (macrocosmic) or counterintuitive/nonsensical, t. Wittgenstein, etc. so that in the end the search for depth nullifies the shaded area of the unknown and makes all things clearer and less murky. perhaps we mistake murkiness or mysteriousness for depth. we think we're at the bottom of the ocean but it's really just the muddy banks of a shallow lake.
maybe that's what it's like to become a god/ubermensch...
