Standing on Giants... But Be Careful of Heights

 About a month ago, I wrote about the importance of “standing on the shoulders of giants,” in my note "Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: The Unsung Path to Innovation". My advice then was simple: when embarking on a new project or tackling a complex problem, follow the wisdom of Newton—find your giants, climb on their shoulders, and use the elevated view to dream bigger and contribute to humanity’s understanding.

Well, life has a funny way of teaching lessons, and after a recent event, my enthusiasm for climbing those metaphorical shoulders has waned. Sometimes, when you climb too high, you risk falling flat on your backside—painfully.

A Roller Coaster of Peer Review

As a member of several publishing boards, part of my job is determining whether a submitted paper deserves to grace the pages of an academic journal. Recently, I had to evaluate a paper on foundations of quantum mechanics, which, as you might imagine, had stirred up quite the debate among its reviewers. Two gave it positive, albeit superficial, reviews, while one reviewer passionately tore it apart, backed by meticulous analysis.

Now, quantum mechanics is close to my heart, so I dove in headfirst. The paper referenced Freeman Dyson, particularly his work “Why is Maxwell’s Theory So Hard to Understand?”. Dyson, as many in the field will know, is no lightweight. The man’s a legend—he’s responsible for everything from Dyson spheres to eternal intelligence. If there’s a Mount Olympus for physicists, Dyson is sitting comfortably at the top.

But then things started to get interesting...

Enter Dyson's World of Confusion

As I waded through Dyson's work on Maxwell’s electrodynamic theory, I couldn’t help but admire his writing. He starts strong, with captivating lines like:

"The importance of Maxwell's work was not obvious to his contemporaries... For more than twenty years, his theory of electromagnetism was largely ignored. Physicists found it hard to understand because the equations were complicated. Mathematicians found it hard to understand because Maxwell used physical language to explain it.”

I was nodding along enthusiastically. Yes, yes! Physics and math not always seeing eye-to-eye—makes perfect sense.

Then, Dyson drops this gem about modesty (or the lack thereof):

"Modesty is not always a virtue. Maxwell’s modesty set back the progress of physics by twenty years. Mendel’s modesty set back biology by fifty years. If people make great discoveries, they should not be too modest to blow their own trumpets."

Ah! A philosophical nugget! And there I was, suddenly hit with an uncomfortable realization. I’d been too modest with my own work—my EEQT theory. Out of some misplaced humility, I even skipped presenting my own research at an international conference I helped organize. What was I thinking? As Dyson says, modesty sometimes just gets in the way of progress!

Physics or Philosophical Puzzle?

But just as I was patting myself on the back for learning this life lesson, Dyson took a turn into some rather strange territory.

"The conventional unit of electric field strength is the square root of a joule per cubic meter... a square root of a joule is not a unit of anything tangible... The unit of electric field strength is a mathematical abstraction.(...) It means that an electric field-strength is an abstract quantity, incommensurable with any quantities that we can measure directly.”

Wait, what?

At this point, my brain started doing somersaults. Dyson wasn’t talking about some esoteric theory or the philosophical implications of physics—he was talking about electric field strength. This is something you can measure, right? I mean, you can feel a magnetic field pulling a compass needle, and the Lorentz force acts on charges in an electric field. These aren’t just abstract notions.

I was genuinely torn. Am I in the wrong universe? Has the physics I know and love been lying to me all these years? Maybe I should go back to elementary school physics or, as Dyson would suggest, just trust the giant and move on without asking too many questions. Perhaps, dear reader, you can help me untangle this mess?

The Verdict: A Paper with No Punch

Now, back to that quantum mechanics paper with the mixed reviews. After slogging through the Dyson-inspired bits, I realized the author had presented an entertaining read but brought nothing new to the table. It was like watching a well-acted movie with a plot you’ve seen a thousand times—pleasant, but no surprises.

Even though the author represented the Boeing Corporation (a bit of a giant themselves), I had to do the unthinkable. I recommended rejection. Sometimes, saying “no” is a duty, even when you’d rather say “yes.”

Lessons from the Fall

So, what have I learned from this strange journey through Dyson, modesty, and physics?

1. Climbing on giants' shoulders is risky—you might see further, but the fall can be harder. Proceed with caution.
2. Modesty isn’t always a virtue. Sometimes, it holds you back more than it helps.
3. Not all giants are infallible. Even the best minds can baffle you, leaving you questioning your very existence—or at least your understanding of electric fields.

And with that, I’ll step off these lofty shoulders, bruised but wiser, ready to approach my next project with both caution and confidence.

Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: The Unsung Path to Innovation

Acknowledging the Giants

In a world obsessed with originality, the allure of being the first - of standing out as a lone genius - is tantalizing. Yet, the greatest breakthroughs often come not from the solitary thinker but from those who understand and build upon the monumental work of their predecessors. This idea, eloquently summarized by Sir Isaac Newton, reminds us: “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.”

Newton: If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.

Newton's Humility

Imagine Newton, arguably one of the most brilliant minds in history, humbly acknowledging the contributions of those who came before him. Newton’s revelation about gravity, famously inspired by a falling apple, wasn’t conjured in a vacuum. It was the culmination of years of scientific inquiry, drawing on the insights of giants like Kepler, Galileo, and Descartes. Newton’s genius lay not just in his original thinking but in his ability to synthesize and expand upon existing knowledge.

The Metaphor Explained

Consider the metaphor of standing on the shoulders of giants. It’s an act of both humility and audacity. You’re acknowledging the immense contributions of those before you while daring to reach even higher. It’s a reminder that innovation is a collective endeavor, a relay race where each runner passes the baton of knowledge.

Shakespeare's Inspiration

Yet, the importance of building on past knowledge extends beyond science and technology. In the arts, we see it too. Shakespeare, the quintessential literary genius, drew heavily from classical sources and historical texts. His ability to weave old stories into new, captivating narratives is a testament to the power of standing on the shoulders of giants. (see however [2])

Embracing Past Knowledge

So, what does this mean for us today? In an era where the pressure to be original is immense, let’s not forget the value of the work that has come before us. Embrace the insights of those who have paved the way. Dive into the rich pool of existing knowledge and use it as a springboard for your own ideas. Recognize that originality and tradition are not mutually exclusive but are, in fact, symbiotic.

Seeing Further and Dreaming Bigger

Dreaming bigger 

By standing on the shoulders of giants, we gain a vantage point that allows us to see further and dream bigger. We honor the past, enrich the present, and pave the way for future giants to come. After all, in the grand tapestry of human knowledge, each thread, no matter how innovative, is intertwined with countless others.

Newton's Wisdom

So, the next time you embark on a new project or seek to solve a complex problem, remember Newton’s wisdom. Seek out the giants. Stand tall on their shoulders. And from that elevated view, strive to see further, dream bigger, and contribute your unique thread to the ever-growing tapestry of human understanding.

The Source

Here is the relevant except from a letter from Isaac Newton to Robert Hooke, dated Cambridge Feb. 5 1675 [1]:

At ye reading of your letter^) I was exceedingly well pleased & satisfied wth your generous freedom,  &  think you have done what becomes a true Philo­sophical spirit. There is nothing wch I desire to avoyde in matters of Philosophy more then contention, nor any kind of contention more then one in print:  & therefore I gladly embrace your proposal of a private correspondence. What's done before many witnesses is seldome wthout some further concern then that for truth: but what passes between friends in private usually deserves ye name of consultation rather then contest,  & so I hope it will prove between you &  me. Your animadversions will be therefore very welcome to me:  for though  I was formerly tired wth this subject, & have not yet nor I beleive ever shall  recover so much love for it as to delight in spending time about it; yet to have  at once in short ye strongest or most pertinent Objections that may be made,  I could really desire, & know no man better able to furnish me wth them then  your self  In this you will oblige me.  And if there be  any thing els in my  papers  in wch you  apprehend  I  have  assumed  too  much,  or not done you right, if you please to reserve your sentiments of it for a private letter, I hope you will find also that I am not so much in love wth philosophical productions but yt I can make them yeild to equity & friendship.  But, in ye meane time you  defer  too  much  to  my  ability  for  searching  into  this  subject.  What(S) Des-Cartes  did  was  a  good  step.  You  have  added  much  several  ways,  & especially in taking ye colours of thin plates into philosophical consideration. If I have seen further it is by standing on ye sholders of Giants. 

I modern English: In his letter to Robert Hooke, Isaac Newton expresses his appreciation for Hooke's open and generous approach. Newton emphasizes his dislike for public disputes in scientific matters and prefers private correspondence to avoid unnecessary conflicts. He welcomes Hooke's feedback and objections to his work, acknowledging Hooke's capability in providing valuable insights. Newton shows willingness to correct any mistakes or oversights in his papers if pointed out privately, prioritizing truth and friendship over pride in his scientific achievements. He praises the contributions of Descartes and Hooke, and famously remarks that his own accomplishments are built upon the work of great predecessors.

References:

[1]  The Correspondence of Isaac Newton, Volume 1, H. W. Thurnbull (ed.), Cambridge University Press 1959

[2] ChatGPT supplies (on inquiry) the following information:

"The strongest evidence cited by those who believe William Shakespeare was not the author of "Hamlet" and other works attributed to him generally falls into several categories:

Shakespeare's Limited Education:

Critics argue that Shakespeare's limited formal education, having only attended the local grammar school in Stratford-upon-Avon, would not have provided him with the extensive knowledge of classical literature, languages, and courtly life evident in his works.

Lack of Manuscripts:

No original manuscripts of Shakespeare's plays or poems in his handwriting have been found, which some see as suspicious given the volume of work he produced.

Baconian Theory:

This theory suggests that Sir Francis Bacon, a well-educated philosopher, statesman, and writer, was the true author of Shakespeare's works. Proponents point to perceived similarities in the writing styles and the use of knowledge Bacon possessed that Shakespeare supposedly did not.

Oxfordian Theory:

Another popular theory proposes Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford, as the true author. Supporters argue that de Vere's education, travels, and courtly experience align more closely with the content of the plays. They also point to de Vere's use of a pseudonym due to his noble status.

Authorship Question:

The general authorship question raises doubts based on the lack of detailed biographical information about Shakespeare's life, particularly during his supposed writing years. Some argue that other writers, who left more detailed records of their lives and works, might be better candidates."