Polymathy at the Royal Institution of Great Britain

Let’s get back to talking about definitions of polymathy. In the modern era, some good definitions come from a 2007 presentation at the Royal Institution of Great Britain with the fascinating title of “What happened to the polymaths?” The Royal Institution is one of the leading science museums in Great Britain and certainly one of the oldest, having been founded in 1799.

At this presentation, Oliver Morton, who was then the Chief News and Features editor at Nature, proposed a rigorous definition of the polymath as “someone who makes contributions to four widely conceived as distinct areas of science and culture” at a “professional level.” This is a pretty serious definition.

John Whitfield, who is the author of a biography of the British polymath D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson, argued that a polymath was one who made “a contribution to more than one field that would stand on its own.” This seems like a much looser definition in that it only requires expertise in two fields as opposed to four fields, but it still is pretty strict because it requires a contribution to the field. That means that the person has to be a world class expert who is doing cutting edge stuff in the field. This would knock out anyone who is undeniably an expert in the field, but who has not added to the sum total of knowledge in the field.

Finally, Andrew Robinson, who is the author of a biography of another British polymath, Thomas Young, thought that a polymath had to have broad learning and curiosity that led to something original. This is a more general definition, but it still knocks out the person who just knows a lot about something, but who has not advanced the field.

Are these good definitions? What about the plain old scholar who knows a lot about something, but who is not a cutting edge thinker in the field? More on that later.