Sorry, crackpots, there will never be another Einstein

The archetype of the lone genius — the individual who, against all odds, revolutionizes human understanding — has captivated us for centuries.

Figures like Galileo, Newton, and Einstein have become cultural icons, often portrayed as solitary pioneers whose brilliance transcended the contributions of others. This myth has shaped not only how we understand legitimate scientific discovery but also how we perceive and sometimes celebrate so-called “crackpots.”

I wrote about the spectrum of crackpot theories, from inane conspiracies to sophisticated nonsense, earlier. Predictably, it received backlash from… well… crackpots.

Some crackpots don’t know they are crackpots, and some wear it like a badge of honor, but all just really want to be the “next Einstein.”

Whether they are a retired engineer or an overambitious prodigy, there’s no shortage of wannabe Einsteins today. But for all the inspired scientists of the last hundred years, there is a distinct lack of paradigm-shifting heroes. The reason is simple — there will never be another Einstein, and there never was one.

Einstein, lone genius

Ahh, the lone genius — an intrepid maverick forging discoveries in isolation. This image resonates with popular portrayals of Galileo, Newton, Einstein, and others as solitary pioneers who changed the world through sheer intellectual bravado with the more eccentric elements of their personalities magnified by modern storytelling.

Why does the public embrace these figures?

The answer lies in the way we consume stories. A lone genius provides a clean, dramatic narrative. Everyone loves the underdog, the rebel who claims to see what the establishment has overlooked. Molding themselves to the flawed archetype, crackpots self-style as heroic loners appearing to stand outside the system just as Galileo seemed to stand against the Church.

The tragedy is that the “lone genius” is a grossly distorted memory of scientists. Einstein, the obscure patent clerk turned absent-minded professor who succeeded because of his quirks rather than in spite of them, is a myth.