Knowing it all

[FlFishOn]

Can anyone know it all in, oh, say mathematics? Obviously it is impossible today, even in a small subset of some small corner of some math specialty. Well, maybe in that tiny area you could be the world's leading expert and know it all.

So who was the last man (I guarantee it wasn't a woman) to know all of mathematics? I'm thinking Newton or earlier. But even then there was a measure of specialization. Would we need to go as far back as Pythagoras?

Now try the same thought experiment WRT all of science. There likely was never anyone that knew it all save the first man to understand the first quantum of science.

[DougShrapnel]

Some smart guy figured this out. I forget who he mentioned was the last person to know it all, but I remember the year was around 1914 that the last person who knew it all died.

"So who was the last man (I guarantee it wasn't a woman)" You are a very strange person to think this says something. As it clearly relates to social conditioning and not inate ability. I'm not saying that there isn't any relation between sex and inate math/scientific ability, just that using this as an example or proof is really, really strange of you.

[guesswest]

I'm interested here in the division between 'knowing it all' and 'being able to figure it all out', in relation to mathematics. If you talk about Newton knowing all mathematics, even if that's true at face value I can't see that it really makes sense. Because tools that emerged as later developments weren't free standing, they were extrapolations of existing math. They already existed to be known I guess is my point.

On the male/female thing I am in agreement though. It's not because men have any greater ability, it's because almost everyone that had exposure to academic circles and discussion was male.

[FlFishOn]

[ QUOTE ]
"So who was the last man (I guarantee it wasn't a woman)" You are a very strange person to think this says something.

[/ QUOTE ]

C'mon, it cuts the field of inquiry in half. I also bet my entire personal BR (including real estate) that it's true, 100-1 odds for any taker.

[FlFishOn]

"They already existed to be known I guess is my point."

Think along the lines of knowing all the mathematics that have been published and are not incorrect.

Also, that male/female thing is on my mind thanks to Larry Summers, misunderstood genius.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm interested here in the division between 'knowing it all' and 'being able to figure it all out', in relation to mathematics. If you talk about Newton knowing all mathematics, even if that's true at face value I can't see that it really makes sense. Because tools that emerged as later developments weren't free standing, they were extrapolations of existing math. They already existed to be known I guess is my point.

[/ QUOTE ] I'm sure there are alot of people that could "be able to figure it all out" It is just that the human lifespan isn't long enough to get to the specialities using it's limited intellect. The guy I'm qouting, without actually being able to quote him, used what was all ready considered to be correct knowledge, not all that was possible.

[ QUOTE ]
On the male/female thing I am in agreement though. It's not because men have any greater ability, it's because almost everyone that had exposure to academic circles and discussion was male.

[/ QUOTE ] Of course this doesn't rule out gender bias in math/sciences, but it is certainly the more likley senario than what flafish is thinking.

[guesswest]

What I meant is, Pythagoras knew addition . But did he 'know' 344+235+42+123+54+22+234+12243+162+1, or could he 'figure it out'. If by knowing we're just talking about possessing the information to figure something out, I can't see how it's different from Newton not knowing theories that subsequently emerged based on principles he did understand.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
C'mon, it cuts the field of inquiry in half. I also bet my entire personal BR (including real estate) that it's true, 100-1 odds for any taker.

[/ QUOTE ] Are you betting that the reason isn't social conditioning? Or just that it's true that the last person that could be considered to know it all was a man?