Newton vs da Vinci

Or: Which historical genius would you want to be like?

Do you ever give thought to who was the smartest person ever? Or, compare one supposed historical genius with another? I am more inclined to compare them. The notion of intelligence and smarts has proven to be too difficult to quantify in this context to work out who the smartest is. A comparison though, I have found, reveals more about the way we choose to think and what we choose to learn so that we can be better at what we do.

So, in this article, I am going to compare two people history has decided are geniuses for two rather different reasons: Sir Isaac Newton and Leonardo da Vinci.

One of the things I find most remarkable about Newton is the story of how he solved for the Brachistochrone curve. This is because I am quite fascinated by the related isochronous curves and because of how quickly Newton found the solution compared to others at the time. It was a challenge set by Johann Bernoulli in a scientific journal for all those who read it. It seems that Newton did not read it because Bernoulli sent him a letter directly. While another requested one and a half years to find the solution, Newton found it on the night he read the letter (after getting home from work at The Royal Mint).

What strikes me about da Vinci is how he used the scientific method to find knowledge to help him with things as diverse as inventing machines for specific tasks and his painting. He got his hands dirty – literally. He would dissect people so he could then understand their form – allowing for better paintings. He also paid detailed attention to what he saw – using his studies of light to revolutionise the use of shadows to enhance the 3D effect in paintings. He never learned mathematics or Latin and never pursued any formal advanced studies. He was not part of the contemporary scientific community. But with the knowledge he gained, he evolved insights for ideas on mechanisms and inventions such as a strut bridge, an automated bobbin winder, a rolling mill, a tensile strength tester of wire and a lens-grinding machine.

While Newton invented the reflecting telescope, it is hard to imagine him making such advances in art or contemplating numerous types of mechanisms and inventions like da Vinci did. While da Vinci showed considerable scientific expertise, it is hard to imagine him deriving formulae for natural phenomena.
It is indeed as if each of them had powerful brains made for different things, and one could not expect one to also be good at what the other did.

But is this true?

If we go back in time further again, then we can consider Archimedes. He was definitely inventive. Think of things like: the Archimedes' screw, the compound pulley, a crane used to lift and drop attacking Roman ships, an odometer. He also came very close to inventing calculus without algebra and only geometry – making him all the more impressive.

Could Newton have achieved even more if he got his hands dirty? He did put on disguises to bust counterfeiters so he was the type to get visceral if needed – if only he put that ability to something scientific or technical.

What would da Vinci have achieved if he could have applied mathematics to his inventions for faster optimisation and assessment? He certainly had the mental capacity to learn and master mathematics – imagine if he could have used mathematics to find the most viable invention ideas to progress further.

Or, would they each have lost what made them unique and impressive?

We will never know, and each can, regardless, be very content with what they did achieve.

But it is hard to imagine any harm in them broadening their skills to augment those they already have.
​
And that’s the lesson for you as a global engineer. As you move from one role to another, think about the new skills you might need – and then develop them. Even now, think about skills that could help you just a little or might help in the future – and then develop them.