>invented calculus, a completely new field of mathematics at 22 while on holiday from university and then converted his findings into the general mathematics of the day so the royal society, a society with the greatest scientists of the day, could understand him >not a genius
'In September of that year, Newton had a breakdown which included sending wild accusatory letters to his friends Samuel Pepys and John Locke. His note to the latter included the charge that Locke "endeavoured to embroil me with woemen"'
Good lord. Although to be honest, this is nothing compared to Cavendish - "Cavendish was taciturn and solitary and regarded by many as eccentric. He only communicated with his female servants by notes. By one account, Cavendish had a back staircase added to his house in order to avoid encountering his housekeeper because he was especially shy of women."
The flynn effect has been measured since 1930 and has measured the IQ of plebs. Plebs have seen their standard of living increase year on year since testing began. Jumping back centuries, you're extrapolating out of your ass.
There is no difference between the most intelligent people today and those during newton's time. They were not malnourished peasants. Your claim will be laughed at by any geneticist.
>>7779450 You're saying the average human IQ has always been 100. Since humans evolved from monkeys, this implies that monkeys' average IQ has also always been 100, which is demonstrably wrong. 2000 years ago the average IQ was below clinically retarded. Just look at the ancient Greek philosophers. Their reasoning is stupider than that of a toddler.
>>7779472 If Newton was so smart, then why did he never go further than calculus? Why didn't he invent some higher math? Because he was only a genius IN COMPARISON to his contemporaries. By today's standard he's average at best.
>>7779490 >If Newton was so smart, then why did he never go further than calculus? Why didn't he invent some higher math? Because he was only a genius IN COMPARISON to his contemporaries. By today's standard he's average at best.
>he thinks high intelligence guarantees discoveries.
>>7779490 >Why didn't he invent some higher math? Because he was only a genius IN COMPARISON to his contemporaries. By today's standard he's average at best.
>If Euclid was so smart, then why did he go no further than basic geometry...By today's standards he's a first year undergrad at best >If Euler was so smart, then why did he go no further than elementary number theory...By today's standards he's average at best >If Fermat was so smart, then why couldn't he prove his last theorem....By today's standards he's average at best
>>7779523 It's only elementary because you've seen it done. Let's try again, since this concept is apparently too difficult for you to grasp. Have you ever heard of Columbus' egg? The story goes that Columbus was having dinner with a group of Spanish nobles, one of them asked quite why they should celebrate some achievement, after all it was simple enough to do and there are plenty of people in Spain who could have done it. So Columbus asked them to balance an egg on its tip, they all failed. Columbus then put a small dint in the top and balanced it.
>The moral is everything seems trivial after someone has the insight to do it.
You see this in every branch of science, take the work of Cauchy, Gauss, Euler, Newton, at the time ground-breaking and revolutionary, today it's trivial, taught to undergrads in a month.
It might also be worth noting that none of the geniuses that mentioned above had levels of rigour that would pass as standard today.
Scientific discoveries are not determined solely by intelligence. I'll use you're bonner for IQ as an example. During the last century, a very smart man hypothesised that, if he could gather the most intelligent children (as supposedly measured by iq) from around the country and provide them with an elite level education, he'd be able to produce geniuses that would revolutionize fields and make new discoveries. The iq cut off was very high, something like 150-160.
Guess what happened? The majority of them became successful in business, academia, and so on. Yet none of them revolutionized any fields or made new discoveries. Ironically, some the children that didn't make the cut, because their IQ was deemed too low, later went on to win Nobel prizes.
Making discoveries is influenced by a lot more than just intelligence. There's very little difference in intelligence between the top scientists, if any. You need to be in the right place at the right time and have a lot of luck. Quite literally. Many scientific discoveries were complete accidents, after which new conclusions about the world could be made. It's an ever growing snowball.
>>7779629 But it is still valuable to me that people pursued the dream and searched ways of converting elements to each other and not resorted to some dogma as is the case with most scientific theories
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.