I wonder whether the phenomenon you describe isn't partly due to its having become a lot easier to convert brains to dollars. Presumably being smart has always been an advantage relative to the goal of acquiring wealth, but prior to the 1950s, what were the most intellectually demanding high-paying jobs? I'm thinking civil engineering, mechanical engineering, actuarial statistics, and the management of very large and complex organizations (like militaries and big banks). No doubt there are others I'm missing, but it seems pretty clear that these days, there are a lot more high-paying jobs that require a really good brain than there were 70 years ago: just think of the commercial demand for data analysts, software developers, and biomedical researchers. Maybe the would-have-been Einsteins, Turings, and Darwins are getting scooped up by Google and Genentech, where they're too busy getting rich to make epoch-making discoveries.
As you say, perhaps greatness is staring us in the face, and we don't see it. Or we refuse to see it, status quo bias being extremely powerful. I would like to submit a candidate for greatness, a modern Isaac Newton: Andrew J. Galambos (1924-1997). Galambos left his job as a working astrophysicist to found the Free Enterprise Institute, where he created courses and lectured from 1961 until the mid 1980s when ill health prevented him from continuing. Central to his teaching was what he called the theory of volition. His associates came up with the name "volitional science," and it stuck. In his basic course, catalog number V-50, he said, "In this Course there is an integration of Volitional Science comparable to and intellectually derivable from and dependent upon Isaac Newton's integration of physical science..." What he was saying was that he had done for social science what Newton did for physical science. A bold claim, and one he seldom repeated. As his student for five years, I believe he was right. Sadly, he didn't publish much, but a well-edited transcript of several of his lectures has been published, titled Sic Itur Ad Astra.
Interesting, but how much recognition has Galambos gotten among mainstream social science researchers? That will determine what his reputation will be.
The matter of scarcity of famous great minds today is a red herring. We lack great works on general. If we compare the last 70 years with the previous 70 years or even the 70 years before those, it's easy to see that technical and scientific progress has halted and became derivative and incremental. From the internal combustion engine to flight and space in about 100 years. And now 50 years to even get back to the moon (new manned mission date unknown, and we get ho-hum spaceship developments hailed as cutting edge that the ussr already played with in the 80s).
Same for other stuff, from electric light, television, lasers, x rays, computers, EVs, nuclear power, DNA, the transistor, the cpu, internet (a sixties development), vaccines, antibiotics.
Since those fundamental and huge shifts, the pacing of new inventions in the past 70 years has been glacial, and their nature incremental. That's regardless if the creators of those older inventions are famous or not (most aren't).
The scarcity of famous great minds today is a red herring. We lack great works on general. If we compare the last 70 years with the previous 70 years or even the 70 years before those, it's easy to see that technical and scientific progress has halted and become derivative and incremental. From the internal combustion engine to flight and space in about 100 years. And now 50 years to even get to the moon (new manned mission unknown, spaceship developments hailed as cutting edge that the ussr already played with in the 80s).
Same for other stuff, from electric light, television, lasers, x rays, computers, EVs, nuclear power, DNA, the transistor, the cpu, internet (a sixties development), vaccines, antibiotics.
Since those fundamental and huge shifts, the pacing of new inventions in the past 70 years has been glacial, and their nature incremental.
Hawking and Feynman are two that rate pretty high.
There are numerous people with non-mainstream theories on physics e.g. Donald Hoffman, Penrose, Mike McCulloch, that may in the future be considered great if their idea becomes the mainstream consensus.
It is quite possible that the feminization of academia destroyed the status rewards and incentives for brilliant and original (male) thought. Where is the brilliant female thought? Probably the same place it's always been...
I wonder whether the phenomenon you describe isn't partly due to its having become a lot easier to convert brains to dollars. Presumably being smart has always been an advantage relative to the goal of acquiring wealth, but prior to the 1950s, what were the most intellectually demanding high-paying jobs? I'm thinking civil engineering, mechanical engineering, actuarial statistics, and the management of very large and complex organizations (like militaries and big banks). No doubt there are others I'm missing, but it seems pretty clear that these days, there are a lot more high-paying jobs that require a really good brain than there were 70 years ago: just think of the commercial demand for data analysts, software developers, and biomedical researchers. Maybe the would-have-been Einsteins, Turings, and Darwins are getting scooped up by Google and Genentech, where they're too busy getting rich to make epoch-making discoveries.
As you say, perhaps greatness is staring us in the face, and we don't see it. Or we refuse to see it, status quo bias being extremely powerful. I would like to submit a candidate for greatness, a modern Isaac Newton: Andrew J. Galambos (1924-1997). Galambos left his job as a working astrophysicist to found the Free Enterprise Institute, where he created courses and lectured from 1961 until the mid 1980s when ill health prevented him from continuing. Central to his teaching was what he called the theory of volition. His associates came up with the name "volitional science," and it stuck. In his basic course, catalog number V-50, he said, "In this Course there is an integration of Volitional Science comparable to and intellectually derivable from and dependent upon Isaac Newton's integration of physical science..." What he was saying was that he had done for social science what Newton did for physical science. A bold claim, and one he seldom repeated. As his student for five years, I believe he was right. Sadly, he didn't publish much, but a well-edited transcript of several of his lectures has been published, titled Sic Itur Ad Astra.
Interesting, but how much recognition has Galambos gotten among mainstream social science researchers? That will determine what his reputation will be.
The matter of scarcity of famous great minds today is a red herring. We lack great works on general. If we compare the last 70 years with the previous 70 years or even the 70 years before those, it's easy to see that technical and scientific progress has halted and became derivative and incremental. From the internal combustion engine to flight and space in about 100 years. And now 50 years to even get back to the moon (new manned mission date unknown, and we get ho-hum spaceship developments hailed as cutting edge that the ussr already played with in the 80s).
Same for other stuff, from electric light, television, lasers, x rays, computers, EVs, nuclear power, DNA, the transistor, the cpu, internet (a sixties development), vaccines, antibiotics.
Since those fundamental and huge shifts, the pacing of new inventions in the past 70 years has been glacial, and their nature incremental. That's regardless if the creators of those older inventions are famous or not (most aren't).
The scarcity of famous great minds today is a red herring. We lack great works on general. If we compare the last 70 years with the previous 70 years or even the 70 years before those, it's easy to see that technical and scientific progress has halted and become derivative and incremental. From the internal combustion engine to flight and space in about 100 years. And now 50 years to even get to the moon (new manned mission unknown, spaceship developments hailed as cutting edge that the ussr already played with in the 80s).
Same for other stuff, from electric light, television, lasers, x rays, computers, EVs, nuclear power, DNA, the transistor, the cpu, internet (a sixties development), vaccines, antibiotics.
Since those fundamental and huge shifts, the pacing of new inventions in the past 70 years has been glacial, and their nature incremental.
Hawking and Feynman are two that rate pretty high.
There are numerous people with non-mainstream theories on physics e.g. Donald Hoffman, Penrose, Mike McCulloch, that may in the future be considered great if their idea becomes the mainstream consensus.
It is quite possible that the feminization of academia destroyed the status rewards and incentives for brilliant and original (male) thought. Where is the brilliant female thought? Probably the same place it's always been...
https://barsoom.substack.com/p/academia-is-womens-work