Shakespeare Vs. Einstein

[Kimbell175113]

If the question were about painting or singing, then definitely no. But as many have said, writing drama in iambic pentameter - with very specific goals in each line, scene, whatever - contains a lot more than just pure artistic ability. Shakespeare had to get information to the audience, have characters get information to each other, and find the best way to exploit structure, vocabulary, etc. Same thing with sonnets, basically.

And would it be possible to be an important physicist with only average logical skills, if one had a unique imagination that could conceive of things in new and helpful ways without necessarily figuring them out mathematically first?

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]

And would it be possible to be an important physicist with only average logical skills, if one had a unique imagination that could conceive of things in new and helpful ways without necessarily figuring them out mathematically first?

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably not today. To achieve credibility, the amount of background education required is pretty extensive.

[Kimbell175113]

I should have used a different word than 'skills.'

Let's say we clone Picasso and give him all the background education we decide is necessary for physics-y goodness. Would he be able to get by on that and his own kind of intelligence? would he be better off than a random person? does one kind of intelligence bleed into the others? I think you know what I'm saying.

[samsonite2100]

[ QUOTE ]
Noam Chomsky is very smart, and a brilliant writer, and has an encyclopedic knowledge of many subjects, but his logical abilities are some of the worst I have ever seen. Spectacularly bad. Almost to the point where I think he has a mental defect where it comes to logic. Which makes him particularly dangerous, precisely because he is so intelligent, well spoken, and knowledgeable. Ordinary people, who are not equipped by our public education system to identify even the simplest of logical fallacies, find people like Chomsky very impressive.

The point being that someone can be very intelligent while conspicuously lacking in logical skills.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm curious how you can describe Chomsky as "smart and a brilliant writer," while also describing him as having terrible logical ability. Can you elaborate on this? It's an earnest question as I haven't read any of Chomsky's books--just a couple of shortish articles here and there.

[drzen]

[ QUOTE ]
Noam Chomsky is very smart, and a brilliant writer, and has an encyclopedic knowledge of many subjects, but his logical abilities are some of the worst I have ever seen. Spectacularly bad. Almost to the point where I think he has a mental defect where it comes to logic. Which makes him particularly dangerous, precisely because he is so intelligent, well spoken, and knowledgeable. Ordinary people, who are not equipped by our public education system to identify even the simplest of logical fallacies, find people like Chomsky very impressive.

The point being that someone can be very intelligent while conspicuously lacking in logical skills.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've said more about yourself than about Chomsky, I think. Have you read his work in linguistics?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The answer to that is the answer to the question whether he could write a great sonnet.


[/ QUOTE ]

You should go to the horse's mouth:

[ QUOTE ]

I would have been out of my element a little bit in Sociology or Psychology but not to the point that I couldn't have made up for it with sheer thinking ability. Art or even Literature is a different story.


[/ QUOTE ]

From a DS post in his very own forum.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

But is it really that good?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, it is. Billy Bob Thornton notwithstanding, the Bard is in the top 2 or 3 all time in lit. Hands down. No question.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm curious how you can describe Chomsky as "smart and a brilliant writer," while also describing him as having terrible logical ability

[/ QUOTE ]

Writing (as with all arts) is often about creating an emotional attachement with your reader, making them want to continue and to know further the characters and the story. Intriguing characters and stories can make up for deficiency's in other areas (look at the popularity of soaps). These skills translate into non-fiction aswell, getting the reader involved and attaching his mind to the who, what and where makes it pleasureable for the reader and makes him want to continue. However none of this makes the points they are making correct, logical or moral. it makes them effective commuicators of ideas not effective creators of ideas.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Noam Chomsky is very smart, and a brilliant writer, and has an encyclopedic knowledge of many subjects, but his logical abilities are some of the worst I have ever seen. Spectacularly bad. Almost to the point where I think he has a mental defect where it comes to logic. Which makes him particularly dangerous, precisely because he is so intelligent, well spoken, and knowledgeable. Ordinary people, who are not equipped by our public education system to identify even the simplest of logical fallacies, find people like Chomsky very impressive.

The point being that someone can be very intelligent while conspicuously lacking in logical skills.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm curious how you can describe Chomsky as "smart and a brilliant writer," while also describing him as having terrible logical ability. Can you elaborate on this? It's an earnest question as I haven't read any of Chomsky's books--just a couple of shortish articles here and there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just read any of his political writings. As an example, he claims to support free speech while also supporting university "speech codes", which is just code for restricting free speech.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Noam Chomsky is very smart, and a brilliant writer, and has an encyclopedic knowledge of many subjects, but his logical abilities are some of the worst I have ever seen. Spectacularly bad. Almost to the point where I think he has a mental defect where it comes to logic. Which makes him particularly dangerous, precisely because he is so intelligent, well spoken, and knowledgeable. Ordinary people, who are not equipped by our public education system to identify even the simplest of logical fallacies, find people like Chomsky very impressive.

The point being that someone can be very intelligent while conspicuously lacking in logical skills.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've said more about yourself than about Chomsky, I think. Have you read his work in linguistics?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm talking specifically about his politics. See my previous response regarding speech codes.