Throughout history, and especially during the 20th century, there were scientists and learned men famous for their work: Einstein, Newton, Galileo, Darwin, whoever. But the 21st century doesn't seem to have any famous scientists. I am not counting "science communicators" like Bill Nye or Neil Tyson.
Why don't we have famous scientists anymore? :
Anonymous :
14 hours ago :
№ 13983
>>13985
>>13983 (OP)
As science progresses its breadth widens, so it becomes harder for an individual to be singularly important; progress requires more and more knowledge of a given domain, and means more work that requires teams of distinct specialists to be carried out, which spreads the credit as well. Advances will likely also be increasingly incremental. Then consider that breadth will likely correspond to technical depth, so it will also be more difficult to articulate to the average person, which is where science communication becomes its own role and an individual scientist's work becomes opaque to the public.
As someone doing a PhD in a science, there are definitely living people I and my colleagues would consider famous, but they'd be mostly unknown to the public or even beyond our field (or sub-fields). And if you talk to these internally famous scientists they'd tell you about the many collaborations and incidental events that built their careers and discoveries or inventions.
This issue of breadth probably isn't the sole factor, but I think it's a big one, and the first that came to mind.
Anonymous :
13 hours ago :
№ 13985
>>13998
I agree with >>13985 that it's largely because of the scale and breadth of modern science. But I also think it's due to the lack of humanistic education among STEM types, which means that even very gifted scientists tend to be uninspiring writers. Of course some very smart people are just poor communicators and that can't easily be changed. But there must be a certain number of gifted scientists who could also write excellent books and so on if a literary sensitivity had been cultivated within them.
>>13983 (OP)
As science progresses its breadth widens, so it becomes harder for an individual to be singularly important; progress requires more and more knowledge of a given domain, and means more work that requires teams of distinct specialists to be carried out, which spreads the credit as well. Advances will likely also be increasingly incremental. Then consider that breadth will likely correspond to technical depth, so it will also be more difficult to articulate to the average person, which is where science communication becomes its own role and an individual scientist's work becomes opaque to the public.
As someone doing a PhD in a science, there are definitely living people I and my colleagues would consider famous, but they'd be mostly unknown to the public or even beyond our field (or sub-fields). And if you talk to these internally famous scientists they'd tell you about the many collaborations and incidental events that built their careers and discoveries or inventions.
This issue of breadth probably isn't the sole factor, but I think it's a big one, and the first that came to mind.
It is *because* of science communicators, as well as the apathy, and decline more broadly, of the press. As a part of the increasingly specialized field of media, science communicators have displaced both mainstream coverage, and scientists' own lectures and publications for the general public. What science stories are done by major news outlets typically reaches out to self-proclaimed experts on twitter rather for remote interviews rather than track down actually significant professionals. The Einstein tongue-out photo was famously a result of him being hounded by press photographers all day during a birthday event held at Princeton. The press just don't go that hard in the paint for anything today, in the US anyways.
I agree with >>13985
>>13983 (OP)
As science progresses its breadth widens, so it becomes harder for an individual to be singularly important; progress requires more and more knowledge of a given domain, and means more work that requires teams of distinct specialists to be carried out, which spreads the credit as well. Advances will likely also be increasingly incremental. Then consider that breadth will likely correspond to technical depth, so it will also be more difficult to articulate to the average person, which is where science communication becomes its own role and an individual scientist's work becomes opaque to the public.
As someone doing a PhD in a science, there are definitely living people I and my colleagues would consider famous, but they'd be mostly unknown to the public or even beyond our field (or sub-fields). And if you talk to these internally famous scientists they'd tell you about the many collaborations and incidental events that built their careers and discoveries or inventions.
This issue of breadth probably isn't the sole factor, but I think it's a big one, and the first that came to mind.
that it's largely because of the scale and breadth of modern science. But I also think it's due to the lack of humanistic education among STEM types, which means that even very gifted scientists tend to be uninspiring writers. Of course some very smart people are just poor communicators and that can't easily be changed. But there must be a certain number of gifted scientists who could also write excellent books and so on if a literary sensitivity had been cultivated within them.