FIVE: EXCELLENCE AND ITS IDENTIFICATION
Excellence in human achievement is often measured by names and works that appear frequently in history, like Beethoven, Shakespeare, and Einstein. While fame is a part of this, it is not the only factor; true excellence reflects the quality of the accomplishments. The discussion encompasses what defines excellence in arts and sciences, challenges in judging this excellence, and the methods used to identify and compile these notable achievements. The chapter aims to validate how these methods effectively recognize true excellence.
Excellence in Scientific Accomplishment
Scientific achievement involves discovering and applying truth in areas like physics, biology, chemistry, and medicine. Truth is about how ideas match with reality, meaning true ideas can be tested and confirmed, while false ideas cannot. A scientific idea that has not been proven wrong and can be consistently repeated is seen as closer to the truth. In the hard sciences and mathematics, excellence comes from finding truth. In technology and medicine, it involves using truth to achieve results.
Philosophy, which is related to science, has more difficulty proving what is true because it lacks clear ways to measure it. Scientific truth is not fixed; it changes as we learn more, reflecting our best understanding at the time. Deciding which scientific achievements are the most important can be tricky because various factors influence this. However, major scientific discoveries often have effects beyond the science itself. Generally, there is a good connection between how historians view the significance of an event and the excellence of discovering scientific truths.
Excellence in the Arts
Excellence in the arts can be assessed using objective standards of high aesthetic quality rather than just personal tastes. This concept emphasizes that artistic quality is more complex than merely being beautiful. While many people believe aesthetic standards are purely subjective, history shows that some standards do exist and have been debated. It is suggested that some artworks endure across cultures and time, implying that their quality may be objectively superior. Although personal opinions about what is beautiful can vary greatly, there are certain inherent qualities in artworks that universally elicit specific feelings. This distinction between personal sentiment and critical judgment is important, as it suggests that while everyone’s feelings about art are valid, it is still possible to identify and judge the aesthetic quality of different works. Ultimately, recognizing excellence in the arts involves understanding these inherent qualities and how they affect our perception of artistic merit.
The Genetic Roots of Aesthetic Responses
Research is uncovering the biological origins of beauty, aligning with traditional views on aesthetic appreciation. Human responses to art and music can vary, and our ability to appreciate these qualities is often linked to our level of knowledge. Knowledgeable individuals experience and understand art, music, or other subjects on a deeper level than those less informed. For example, someone who understands baseball will interpret a game differently than a casual fan, leading to a more nuanced appreciation of what’s happening.
This dynamic is also observed in hobbies, such as gardening or wine tasting, where experts notice and value aspects that novices may overlook. The assessment of quality, while influenced by personal feelings, can include objective components based on expertise. The concept of "disinterestedness" suggests that judgments can be made without personal bias, allowing knowledgeable individuals to admire works outside their personal taste. This detachment challenges the idea that aesthetic judgments are solely emotional.
Despite subjective preferences, there are shared understandings in each field that shape expert opinions. This leads to the notion that excellence in art can be measured, albeit indirectly. The attention experts give to certain works can reveal their intrinsic quality, independent of personal sentiment. For instance, experts are more engaged with complex works like Bach’s music because they offer greater depth and challenge. The qualities that capture the attention of informed audiences reflect deeper aesthetic values rather than individual feelings.
Your Opinion of Expertise in Your Own Field of Expertise
Experts are often viewed skeptically today, especially in legal and media contexts where opposing experts can share contradictory views. Nevertheless, most people have expertise in areas of their own lives. There's a common tendency for individuals to dismiss the importance of expertise in fields they know little about while rejecting amateur views in areas they understand well. This difference stems from the empirical understanding that when we lack knowledge, we can't truly evaluate expertise, but when we are knowledgeable, we have reasons to critique amateur opinions.
However, it's important to acknowledge that not all experts uphold their field's integrity. Some may be influenced by trends rather than genuine quality, and others may misrepresent their knowledge. Yet, a broader consensus among critics can help identify the genuine qualities of a work of art, as individual biases often cancel out when many opinions are pooled together.
The comfort with statistical distributions affects how people perceive expert opinions. Some struggle with the idea that a respected critic might dislike a renowned artist, while others accept that outliers exist but recognize the value of a consensus. The belief is that high aesthetic quality can be measured through collective expert evaluations.
Recognizing expertise requires humility. One can personally dislike a well-regarded artist's work but should not dismiss their recognized place in the art world. Personal taste does not equate to a valid judgment of quality. For example, one may not enjoy a famous composer, yet acknowledging that they hold a significant reputation is more reasonable.
A central issue arises when questioning if all contemporary artists and movements, like John Cage or Andy Warhol, are comparable to historical figures like Brahms and Titian. Some current experts challenge conventional beauty standards, but a preference for classic aesthetic principles remains valid. Historical aesthetics have been a topic of inquiry for over two millennia, establishing that certain works can be evaluated against standards of excellence.
The 20th century saw a decline in the serious study of aesthetics, driven by thinkers like Benedetto Croce and John Dewey who argued against objective beauty standards. This led to postmodernism, which often rejects the idea of objective truths in favor of cultural context. This shift has marginalized traditional aesthetic inquiry, leading to confusion in how art is evaluated today.
Choosing to align with classic aesthetic theories over postmodernism is a reasoned decision, grounded in a long intellectual tradition. Despite the scarcity of strict postmodernists outside academia, the broader culture exhibits a reluctance to make judgments in various fields, including the arts. This nonjudgmental mindset is inherently contradictory, as refusing to acknowledge differences in quality itself constitutes a judgment.
Claims of nonjudgmentalism ignore the reality that all observations involve some level of opinion. It is impossible to evaluate works without making comparisons and judgments, however nuanced. Rejecting high aesthetic quality equates to a refusal to engage seriously with art, which is essential for meaningful human experience. Thus, acknowledging the existence of high aesthetic quality is crucial, although it may be complex to determine.
The Operational Measures of Excellence
The discussion of excellence is complex and doesn't have clear answers, but measuring greatness can be approached through a structured framework. The idea that people's reputations can indicate their importance dates back to 1869 with Francis Galton, who was among the first to use data to support this idea. He analyzed biographical dictionaries and obituaries to classify people based on their reputation, which he defined as the combined opinions of their time and later evaluations.
Issues arose in determining whether someone's reputation came from their achievements or their social status and if success was due to skill or chance. Despite these challenges, methods for measuring eminence evolved. Key works in historiometry helped identify notable individuals and measure their significance based on how much space they received in various reference works.
For example, studies ranked artists by the number of references in influential art histories. Lists of top artists from different sources consistently featured many of the same names, suggesting a shared understanding of their importance. Comparisons between these lists led to adjustments in rankings, revealing a more accurate assessment of artists' excellence. High correlations among different sources support the idea that knowledgeable critics tend to focus on the same important figures, reflecting a common understanding of excellence in their fields. This method can similarly apply to significant historical events.
What Is a Correlation Coefficient?
A correlation coefficient is a number between –1 and +1 that shows how strongly two things are related. A positive correlation means that as one thing increases, the other does too, while a negative correlation means that as one increases, the other decreases. A correlation of 0 indicates no relationship. A correlation greater than ±0.7 is considered high in social sciences. The closer the number is to +1 or –1, the stronger the relationship between the two phenomena.
The Inventories: An Overview
Inventories of human accomplishments are lists of important people and events that show what humans can achieve. Deciding what counts as an accomplishment involves thinking about what matters. The concept is similar to a résumé, which highlights original discoveries and unique creations rather than just individual efforts. These inventories focus on humanity's best achievements and are organized into twelve categories, including literature, visual arts, music, and different fields of science and philosophy.
The Omitted Categories of Accomplishment
Two major categories of human achievement, commerce and governance, are not included in the inventories. These areas were judged to be less reliable than those for arts and sciences because of their different developmental processes. Some specific areas within the arts, like architecture and dance, were also omitted due to inconsistent treatment in various sources. Architecture data was not combined with visual arts because it presented different challenges, while dance documentation was insufficient. The social sciences were excluded as well due to inconsistent detail and the evolving nature of fields like anthropology, which shifted focus over time.
Inventories for scientific endeavors include separate lists for related individuals and events. Coverage is intended to be global. In contrast, inventories for the arts and philosophy are based only on persons rather than their works, largely due to the issues surrounding attribution in artistic traditions. Some regions, like Japan and the Arab world, were left out of specific inventories due to their philosophical ties to other cultures or the anonymous nature of much of their art.
Two key terms are used to measure prominence: significant figures and index scores. Significant figures are those mentioned in at least half of the relevant sources. Index scores provide a more detailed look at how significant figures compare, based on the amount of attention they receive across different sources, allowing for comparisons within and across inventories.
Short Answers to Basic Questions
The validity and reliability of measures of importance can be checked in two main ways. The first is face validity, which means seeing if the rankings seem reasonable to someone who knows about the topic. The second is statistical reliability, which looks at whether the scores stay the same when different groups of sources are used. For example, many of the reliability scores for these measures are very high, showing a strong agreement among experts from the last half of the 20th century.
It's also essential to think about whether the people and events included in the inventories would be the same if someone else made a list. The method used to create these inventories employs a 50-percent rule to ensure that the samples remain consistent. This means if two different people created similar inventories, they would likely include many of the same significant figures. However, this doesn’t mean one set is the only correct list; there can be differences based on how selections are made.
A key issue is whether current trends or fashions influence these rankings. This concern is valid, especially for recent figures, as opinions can change over time. To avoid this bias, the Inventories stop at the year 1950. Although this means some recent figures are left out, there is still a lot of significant material from earlier years to analyze.
When looking at figures from the past, the influence of fashion varies. In sciences and mathematics, significant discoveries are usually recognized over time, so fashion has less effect. In the arts, the cut-off date helps reduce the chances of missing artists who were not appreciated during their time. While fashion can still change the reputation of famous figures from before 1900, many have consistently been seen as important over the years.
The way these inventories are put together helps reduce the impact of trends on popularity. For example, using many different sources over a long period helps protect against sudden shifts in what is popular. Also, better access to artworks and compositions in the last decades helps people appreciate past figures more accurately.
Biases like Eurocentrism, sexism, racism, chauvinism, and elitism also need to be considered. These inventories tend to focus a lot on white males. Nonetheless, the approach taken includes separate lists for non-European traditions to provide a balanced view. While there are still inequalities in representation, especially in sciences, the significant discoveries often stand the test of time across cultures.
National chauvinism, or bias based on nationality, can affect Western inventories. Some authors may favor their own country’s figures more than others. To tackle this issue, a mix of sources from various countries is used. However, literature can be different because language barriers mean that each country may focus on its own authors more.
Sexism is another important topic; it recognizes that women have faced barriers to achievement. Yet, significant accomplishments by women are documented in the inventories, especially in recent years when there has been more focus on women's achievements. Racism also plays a role, as people of color were often underrepresented historically, but their contributions have not been ignored in reputable sources used for these inventories.
Lastly, there’s a question of elitism. This concerns whether the focus on excellence in accomplishments excludes certain people. The book and its method aim to highlight significant achievements without regard to social class or wealth, concentrating solely on the quality of contributions made.
Excellence in human achievement is often measured by names and works that appear frequently in history, like Beethoven, Shakespeare, and Einstein. While fame is a part of this, it is not the only factor; true excellence reflects the quality of the accomplishments. The discussion encompasses what defines excellence in arts and sciences, challenges in judging this excellence, and the methods used to identify and compile these notable achievements. The chapter aims to validate how these methods effectively recognize true excellence.
Excellence in Scientific Accomplishment
Scientific achievement involves discovering and applying truth in areas like physics, biology, chemistry, and medicine. Truth is about how ideas match with reality, meaning true ideas can be tested and confirmed, while false ideas cannot. A scientific idea that has not been proven wrong and can be consistently repeated is seen as closer to the truth. In the hard sciences and mathematics, excellence comes from finding truth. In technology and medicine, it involves using truth to achieve results.
Philosophy, which is related to science, has more difficulty proving what is true because it lacks clear ways to measure it. Scientific truth is not fixed; it changes as we learn more, reflecting our best understanding at the time. Deciding which scientific achievements are the most important can be tricky because various factors influence this. However, major scientific discoveries often have effects beyond the science itself. Generally, there is a good connection between how historians view the significance of an event and the excellence of discovering scientific truths.
Excellence in the Arts
Excellence in the arts can be assessed using objective standards of high aesthetic quality rather than just personal tastes. This concept emphasizes that artistic quality is more complex than merely being beautiful. While many people believe aesthetic standards are purely subjective, history shows that some standards do exist and have been debated. It is suggested that some artworks endure across cultures and time, implying that their quality may be objectively superior. Although personal opinions about what is beautiful can vary greatly, there are certain inherent qualities in artworks that universally elicit specific feelings. This distinction between personal sentiment and critical judgment is important, as it suggests that while everyone’s feelings about art are valid, it is still possible to identify and judge the aesthetic quality of different works. Ultimately, recognizing excellence in the arts involves understanding these inherent qualities and how they affect our perception of artistic merit.
The Genetic Roots of Aesthetic Responses
Research is uncovering the biological origins of beauty, aligning with traditional views on aesthetic appreciation. Human responses to art and music can vary, and our ability to appreciate these qualities is often linked to our level of knowledge. Knowledgeable individuals experience and understand art, music, or other subjects on a deeper level than those less informed. For example, someone who understands baseball will interpret a game differently than a casual fan, leading to a more nuanced appreciation of what’s happening.
This dynamic is also observed in hobbies, such as gardening or wine tasting, where experts notice and value aspects that novices may overlook. The assessment of quality, while influenced by personal feelings, can include objective components based on expertise. The concept of "disinterestedness" suggests that judgments can be made without personal bias, allowing knowledgeable individuals to admire works outside their personal taste. This detachment challenges the idea that aesthetic judgments are solely emotional.
Despite subjective preferences, there are shared understandings in each field that shape expert opinions. This leads to the notion that excellence in art can be measured, albeit indirectly. The attention experts give to certain works can reveal their intrinsic quality, independent of personal sentiment. For instance, experts are more engaged with complex works like Bach’s music because they offer greater depth and challenge. The qualities that capture the attention of informed audiences reflect deeper aesthetic values rather than individual feelings.
Your Opinion of Expertise in Your Own Field of Expertise
Experts are often viewed skeptically today, especially in legal and media contexts where opposing experts can share contradictory views. Nevertheless, most people have expertise in areas of their own lives. There's a common tendency for individuals to dismiss the importance of expertise in fields they know little about while rejecting amateur views in areas they understand well. This difference stems from the empirical understanding that when we lack knowledge, we can't truly evaluate expertise, but when we are knowledgeable, we have reasons to critique amateur opinions.
However, it's important to acknowledge that not all experts uphold their field's integrity. Some may be influenced by trends rather than genuine quality, and others may misrepresent their knowledge. Yet, a broader consensus among critics can help identify the genuine qualities of a work of art, as individual biases often cancel out when many opinions are pooled together.
The comfort with statistical distributions affects how people perceive expert opinions. Some struggle with the idea that a respected critic might dislike a renowned artist, while others accept that outliers exist but recognize the value of a consensus. The belief is that high aesthetic quality can be measured through collective expert evaluations.
Recognizing expertise requires humility. One can personally dislike a well-regarded artist's work but should not dismiss their recognized place in the art world. Personal taste does not equate to a valid judgment of quality. For example, one may not enjoy a famous composer, yet acknowledging that they hold a significant reputation is more reasonable.
A central issue arises when questioning if all contemporary artists and movements, like John Cage or Andy Warhol, are comparable to historical figures like Brahms and Titian. Some current experts challenge conventional beauty standards, but a preference for classic aesthetic principles remains valid. Historical aesthetics have been a topic of inquiry for over two millennia, establishing that certain works can be evaluated against standards of excellence.
The 20th century saw a decline in the serious study of aesthetics, driven by thinkers like Benedetto Croce and John Dewey who argued against objective beauty standards. This led to postmodernism, which often rejects the idea of objective truths in favor of cultural context. This shift has marginalized traditional aesthetic inquiry, leading to confusion in how art is evaluated today.
Choosing to align with classic aesthetic theories over postmodernism is a reasoned decision, grounded in a long intellectual tradition. Despite the scarcity of strict postmodernists outside academia, the broader culture exhibits a reluctance to make judgments in various fields, including the arts. This nonjudgmental mindset is inherently contradictory, as refusing to acknowledge differences in quality itself constitutes a judgment.
Claims of nonjudgmentalism ignore the reality that all observations involve some level of opinion. It is impossible to evaluate works without making comparisons and judgments, however nuanced. Rejecting high aesthetic quality equates to a refusal to engage seriously with art, which is essential for meaningful human experience. Thus, acknowledging the existence of high aesthetic quality is crucial, although it may be complex to determine.
The Operational Measures of Excellence
The discussion of excellence is complex and doesn't have clear answers, but measuring greatness can be approached through a structured framework. The idea that people's reputations can indicate their importance dates back to 1869 with Francis Galton, who was among the first to use data to support this idea. He analyzed biographical dictionaries and obituaries to classify people based on their reputation, which he defined as the combined opinions of their time and later evaluations.
Issues arose in determining whether someone's reputation came from their achievements or their social status and if success was due to skill or chance. Despite these challenges, methods for measuring eminence evolved. Key works in historiometry helped identify notable individuals and measure their significance based on how much space they received in various reference works.
For example, studies ranked artists by the number of references in influential art histories. Lists of top artists from different sources consistently featured many of the same names, suggesting a shared understanding of their importance. Comparisons between these lists led to adjustments in rankings, revealing a more accurate assessment of artists' excellence. High correlations among different sources support the idea that knowledgeable critics tend to focus on the same important figures, reflecting a common understanding of excellence in their fields. This method can similarly apply to significant historical events.
What Is a Correlation Coefficient?
A correlation coefficient is a number between –1 and +1 that shows how strongly two things are related. A positive correlation means that as one thing increases, the other does too, while a negative correlation means that as one increases, the other decreases. A correlation of 0 indicates no relationship. A correlation greater than ±0.7 is considered high in social sciences. The closer the number is to +1 or –1, the stronger the relationship between the two phenomena.
The Inventories: An Overview
Inventories of human accomplishments are lists of important people and events that show what humans can achieve. Deciding what counts as an accomplishment involves thinking about what matters. The concept is similar to a résumé, which highlights original discoveries and unique creations rather than just individual efforts. These inventories focus on humanity's best achievements and are organized into twelve categories, including literature, visual arts, music, and different fields of science and philosophy.
The Omitted Categories of Accomplishment
Two major categories of human achievement, commerce and governance, are not included in the inventories. These areas were judged to be less reliable than those for arts and sciences because of their different developmental processes. Some specific areas within the arts, like architecture and dance, were also omitted due to inconsistent treatment in various sources. Architecture data was not combined with visual arts because it presented different challenges, while dance documentation was insufficient. The social sciences were excluded as well due to inconsistent detail and the evolving nature of fields like anthropology, which shifted focus over time.
Inventories for scientific endeavors include separate lists for related individuals and events. Coverage is intended to be global. In contrast, inventories for the arts and philosophy are based only on persons rather than their works, largely due to the issues surrounding attribution in artistic traditions. Some regions, like Japan and the Arab world, were left out of specific inventories due to their philosophical ties to other cultures or the anonymous nature of much of their art.
Two key terms are used to measure prominence: significant figures and index scores. Significant figures are those mentioned in at least half of the relevant sources. Index scores provide a more detailed look at how significant figures compare, based on the amount of attention they receive across different sources, allowing for comparisons within and across inventories.
Short Answers to Basic Questions
The validity and reliability of measures of importance can be checked in two main ways. The first is face validity, which means seeing if the rankings seem reasonable to someone who knows about the topic. The second is statistical reliability, which looks at whether the scores stay the same when different groups of sources are used. For example, many of the reliability scores for these measures are very high, showing a strong agreement among experts from the last half of the 20th century.
It's also essential to think about whether the people and events included in the inventories would be the same if someone else made a list. The method used to create these inventories employs a 50-percent rule to ensure that the samples remain consistent. This means if two different people created similar inventories, they would likely include many of the same significant figures. However, this doesn’t mean one set is the only correct list; there can be differences based on how selections are made.
A key issue is whether current trends or fashions influence these rankings. This concern is valid, especially for recent figures, as opinions can change over time. To avoid this bias, the Inventories stop at the year 1950. Although this means some recent figures are left out, there is still a lot of significant material from earlier years to analyze.
When looking at figures from the past, the influence of fashion varies. In sciences and mathematics, significant discoveries are usually recognized over time, so fashion has less effect. In the arts, the cut-off date helps reduce the chances of missing artists who were not appreciated during their time. While fashion can still change the reputation of famous figures from before 1900, many have consistently been seen as important over the years.
The way these inventories are put together helps reduce the impact of trends on popularity. For example, using many different sources over a long period helps protect against sudden shifts in what is popular. Also, better access to artworks and compositions in the last decades helps people appreciate past figures more accurately.
Biases like Eurocentrism, sexism, racism, chauvinism, and elitism also need to be considered. These inventories tend to focus a lot on white males. Nonetheless, the approach taken includes separate lists for non-European traditions to provide a balanced view. While there are still inequalities in representation, especially in sciences, the significant discoveries often stand the test of time across cultures.
National chauvinism, or bias based on nationality, can affect Western inventories. Some authors may favor their own country’s figures more than others. To tackle this issue, a mix of sources from various countries is used. However, literature can be different because language barriers mean that each country may focus on its own authors more.
Sexism is another important topic; it recognizes that women have faced barriers to achievement. Yet, significant accomplishments by women are documented in the inventories, especially in recent years when there has been more focus on women's achievements. Racism also plays a role, as people of color were often underrepresented historically, but their contributions have not been ignored in reputable sources used for these inventories.
Lastly, there’s a question of elitism. This concerns whether the focus on excellence in accomplishments excludes certain people. The book and its method aim to highlight significant achievements without regard to social class or wealth, concentrating solely on the quality of contributions made.