Having had two days for our readers to mull over the first list of influential scientists, we are now presenting part two. This was submitted with the original list as a list of 20, so some of the names mentioned in the first list’s comments are absent – but fear not – it is only a matter of time before we will see the third set of ten as we document the greatest influential minds in science.
“I much prefer the sharpest criticism of a single intelligent man to the thoughtless approval of the masses.”
Kepler was a German mathematician and astronomer. A key figure in the 17th century scientific revolution. He is best known for his eponymous laws of planetary motion, codified by later astronomers based on his works Astronomia nova, Harmonices Mundi, and Epitome of Copernican Astrononomy. They also provided one of the foundations for Isaac Newton’s theory of universal gravitation.
Kepler also incorporated religious arguments and reasoning into his work, motivated by the religious conviction that God had created the world according to an intelligible plan that is accessible through the natural light of reason. Kepler described his new astronomy as “celestial physics”, as “an excursion into Aristotle’s Metaphysics”, and as “a supplement to Aristotle’s On the Heavens”, transforming the ancient tradition of physical cosmology by treating astronomy as part of a universal mathematical physics.
“A person who has been punished is not thereby simply less inclined to behave in a given way; at best, he learns how to avoid punishment.”
B. F. Skinner was an American psychologist and inventor. He invented the operant conditioning chamber, innovated his own philosophy of science called Radical Behaviourism, and founded his own school of experimental research psychology—the experimental analysis of behaviour. His analysis of human behaviour culminated in his work Verbal Behaviour, which has recently seen enormous increase in interest experimentally and in applied settings. In a recent survey, Skinner was listed as the most influential psychologist of the 20th century (above Sigmund Freud).
“Pleasures flit by – they are only for yourself; work leaves a mark of long-lasting joy, work is for others.”
Mendeleev was a Russian chemist and inventor. He is credited as being the creator of the first version of the periodic table of elements. Using the table, he predicted the properties of elements yet to be discovered.
“Everything that is possible demands to exist”
Gottfried Leibniz was a German scientist and mathematician. He invented infinitesimal calculus independently of Newton, and his notation is the one in general use since then. He also invented the binary system, foundation of virtually all modern computer architectures. He was, along with René Descartes and Baruch Spinoza, one of the three greatest 17th-century rationalists. Leibniz also made major contributions to physics and technology, and anticipated notions that surfaced much later in biology, medicine, geology, probability theory, psychology, linguistics, and information science. He also wrote on politics, law, ethics, theology, history, and philology, even occasional verse. His contributions to this vast array of subjects are scattered in journals and in tens of thousands of letters and unpublished manuscripts. As of 2008, there is no complete edition of Leibniz’s writings.
“Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration.”
Edison was an American inventor who developed many devices that greatly influenced life around the world. Dubbed “The Wizard of Menlo Park” by a newspaper reporter, he was one of the first inventors to apply the principles of mass production and large teamwork to the process of invention, and therefore is often credited with the creation of the first industrial research laboratory. Edison is considered one of the most prolific inventors in history, holding 1,093 U.S. patents in his name, as well as many patents in the United Kingdom, France and Germany. He is credited with numerous inventions that contributed to mass communication and, in particular, telecommunications.
“Mathematics is written for mathematicians.”
Copernicus was a Polish astronomer and mathematician who was the first astronomer to formulate a scientifically based heliocentric cosmology that displaced the Earth from the centre of the universe. His epochal book, De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres), is often regarded as the starting point of modern astronomy and the defining epiphany that began the Scientific Revolution. Among the great polymaths of the Renaissance, Copernicus was also a physician, classical scholar, translator, Catholic cleric, jurist, governor, military leader, diplomat and economist. Among his many responsibilities, astronomy figured as little more than an avocation — yet it was in that field that he made his mark upon the world.
“It is the lone worker who makes the first advance in a subject; the details may be worked out by a team, but the prime idea is due to enterprise, thought, and perception of an individual.”
Fleming was a Scottish biologist and pharmacologist. He published many articles on bacteriology, immunology, and chemotherapy. His best-known achievements are the discovery of the enzyme lysozyme in 1922 and the discovery of the antibiotic substance penicillin from the fungus Penicillium Notatum in 1928, for which he shared the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1945 with Howard Florey and Ernst Chain.
“All science is either physics or stamp collecting.”
Rutherford was a New Zealand physicist and chemist who became known as the father of nuclear physics. He pioneered the orbital theory of the atom through his discovery of Rutherford scattering off the nucleus with his gold foil experiment. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1908.
“Fortune favors the prepared mind.”
French chemist and biologist, Louis Pasteur is best known for his remarkable breakthroughs in the causes and prevention of disease. His experiments supported the germ theory of disease, also reducing mortality from puerperal fever (childbed), and he created the first vaccine for rabies. He was best known to the general public for inventing a method to stop milk and wine from causing sickness – this process came to be called pasteurization. He is regarded as one of the three main founders of microbiology, together with Ferdinand Cohn and Robert Koch. He also made many discoveries in the field of chemistry, most notably the asymmetry of crystals.
“There is nothing more practical than a good theory.”
Scottish mathematician and physicist. His most significant achievement was the development of the classical electromagnetic theory, synthesizing all previous unrelated observations, experiments and equations of electricity, magnetism and even optics into a consistent theory. His set of equations—Maxwell’s equations—demonstrated that electricity, magnetism and even light are all manifestations of the same phenomenon: the electromagnetic field. From that moment on, all other classical laws or equations of these disciplines became simplified cases of Maxwell’s equations.
Maxwell also developed the Maxwell distribution, a statistical means to describe aspects of the kinetic theory of gases. These two discoveries helped usher in the era of modern physics, laying the foundation for future work in such fields as special relativity and quantum mechanics. He is also known for creating the first true colour photograph in 1861.
Maxwell is considered by many physicists to be the nineteenth century scientist with the greatest influence on twentieth century physics. His contributions to the science are considered by many to be of the same magnitude as those of Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein. In 1931, on the centennial of Maxwell’s birthday, Einstein himself described Maxwell’s work as the “most profound and the most fruitful that physics has experienced since the time of Newton”.
For the most influential scientists numbered 1 to 10, see the first list in this series.
This article is licensed under the GFDL because it contains quotations from Wikipedia.
Contributor: Mongoose
























February 27th, 2009 at 1:36 am
Haha, i knew this list was coming after all the comments from the first list.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:38 am
yes mee too.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:39 am
i always thought Edison would top it all off
February 27th, 2009 at 1:44 am
Still too physics-heavy, but I’m glad Pasteur was on here. He should be in the Top 10 for sure. Debunking the theory of spontaneous generation, anyone?
The inclusion of Edison is going to start a huge debate in these comments….
February 27th, 2009 at 2:15 am
Nice list thanks for part two Mongoose.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:30 am
Repetitive guns on the list, g – best African scientist would be Desmond Tutu no doot, heard he makes a killer corktail with absynthe and muti, calls it the ‘Dez Tuti’
February 27th, 2009 at 2:38 am
why do i have this strange feeling that some people won’t be too happy about this….
February 27th, 2009 at 2:47 am
A sequel list so soon?
Gottfried Leibniz knew how to work it…
February 27th, 2009 at 2:56 am
Not enough greeks, man… just not enough greeks.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:57 am
Flemming is a wonderful example of established scientist getting the credit over their less well established students. It was one of his lab assistants who made the mistake in not covering petri dishes and postulated the microbes were destroyed. However, as is so often the case even today, as head of his lab, flemming took all credit (true he did expand the theory and test it leading to the purification of pennicilin so probably deserves his place)
February 27th, 2009 at 3:05 am
@Corey
Yes. It will. =D
Edison stole all his inventions. But at least Tesla got his due on the other list. #3, was he?
February 27th, 2009 at 3:06 am
Notable ommisions: Robert Koch, Van Leeuwenhoek, James Watson, Francis Crick, and Rosalind Franklin!? Without the latter three, biology as an entire field would be nowhere near where it is today. They have done more for their field than many in these first two lists. I hope a third list will rectify this.
(PS there is a slight bias towards my field but this list was very physics heavy)
February 27th, 2009 at 3:09 am
“All science is either physics or stamp collecting.”
Ironic, don’t you think, that he went on to receive the NP in chemistry and NOT physics
February 27th, 2009 at 3:57 am
i agree that b.f. skinner was influential, but i still think freud and jung hugely influenced western culture too.
and i still vote for the inclusion of:
*gregor mendel for genetics of trait inheritance.
*crick, watson, & franklin for DNA.
*fritz haber & carl bosch for nitrogen based fertilizer synthesis (which is HUGE for world food production).
count me amongst the people who want edison off the list! yes, he was famous, now and in his time. yes, he was friends with henry ford and influenced him. and yes, he had a lot of patents in his name.
but first off, he was more of an engineer and an entrepreneur than a scientist.
second, it is widely acknowledged that most of “his” inventions were created or perfected by his army of assistants, yet he took all the credit and any profit they earned!
lastly, you lifted his blurb here from wiki’s intro, yet left off the only part of it that actually makes him seem like he might belong on the list: “Edison originated the concept and implementation of electric-power generation and distribution to homes, businesses, and factories – a crucial development in the modern industrialized world. His first power plant was on Manhattan Island, NY.” -if that line is even true…
February 27th, 2009 at 4:36 am
Jabar ibn Hayan, father of chemistry. Where is he??
February 27th, 2009 at 4:38 am
Really enjoyed these two lists Mongoose. I’m hard pressed to think of anyone that hasn’t already been mentioned as a possible addition and add my “vote” to Gregor Mendel.
Anyhoo I had a good, long five minute think about it and came up with Bruce Heezen. Admittedly he’s not hugely influential on a global scale but his work studying and mapping the Mid-Atlantic Ridge (ably assisted by Marie Tharp) led to the eventual realisation that continental drift was in fact possible (sorry for doubting you Alfred), found evidence that something down there was moving a lot and laid some of the groundwork for the Theory of Plate Tectonics. Lots of people were involved in developing that theory but I am bound by personal bias to give a marine geologist the shout out
February 27th, 2009 at 4:42 am
& i dont understand how this skinner guy deserves to be on the list more than Oppenheimer, Feynman or The Father of ‘electricity’ : Faraday.
February 27th, 2009 at 5:22 am
No 17,
‘This Skinner guy’ probably is one of the greatest scientists of our time. Sick and tired of ignorant people, who do not recognise psychology as a scientific subject and underestimate the achievements of the greatest in our field.
February 27th, 2009 at 5:28 am
How on earth does a psychologist get on this list over Feynman, Faraday, Lavoisier, or Mendel?
February 27th, 2009 at 5:31 am
Little known fact: Gottfried Leibniz is also the inventor of Aqua Net.
February 27th, 2009 at 5:38 am
Didn’t anyone read that Mongoose was planning to have more than one list in the first one? Why does it surprise people to have it so soon?
Good list, Mongoose!
February 27th, 2009 at 5:39 am
I have no doubt Edison was a brilliant entrepreneur & quite possibly a good scientist in his own right.
But, the very fact that he can go around electrocuting animals, just to run a malicious campaign to discredit someone else’s work (when his own current was equally, if not more lethal) makes him lose respect in my mind.
An interesting article on Edison’s alleged inventions.
http://jawadonweb.com/?page_id=900
February 27th, 2009 at 5:40 am
Great list Mongoose!
Looking forward to more such lists.
February 27th, 2009 at 5:44 am
No blacks on either list, why is that?
February 27th, 2009 at 5:51 am
Because, unfortunately, science has been a white dominated field for hundreds of years. It can be said that middle eastern and chinese scientists predominated during the so called dark ages, but the last two hundred years have seen a significant switch.
I’m sure the author of the list would be happy to consider any suggestions you would like to make.
February 27th, 2009 at 5:56 am
12. cymraegbachgen87 and 14. lo add some great names for biology and genetics. Someone should write a more biology and chemistry oriented list!
@24. Daryl – Probably because blacks didn’t get the opportunity to work in the science field until relatively recently. In, say, 100 years, I’m sure there will be more influential black scientists for lists like these.
February 27th, 2009 at 6:24 am
Still not a single one form the Ancient World?
February 27th, 2009 at 6:31 am
Thomas Edison was not a scientist.
Becoming a scientist requires a lot more than holding a bunch of patents.
By this rationale, Ron Popeil is also a scientist.
February 27th, 2009 at 6:35 am
Woo Hoo!!! Good to see some psychologists out there! B.F. Skinner is the only true psychologist but Leibniz was very important as well. Let’s see some more psychologists like Piaget, Bandura, or even Milgram (though his methods are questionable).
Before anyone give me crap about it (because people have in the past) psychology IS a science because it is tested like any other science with empirical observational methods, experimental and control groups, and stringent experimental guidelines.
Don’t put Freud. He didn’t do any actual psychological experiments as we know it now. Plus he was an ass. He was extremely important to the field, but he was an ass.
February 27th, 2009 at 6:47 am
Cool scientists lists. I like their quotes. Very insightful and thought provoking.
February 27th, 2009 at 6:50 am
Great second list! I’m glad to see some of the names I wondered about from list one.
24 Daryl:
Simply how history has been recorded and how the field has progressed. It’d be hard to replace these individuals with someone completely random since these weren’t spontaneous discoveries but rather compounding on information gleaned from those around them.
Some notable black scientists:
-Dr. Daniel Hale Williams – conducted first successful open heart surgery
-Dr. Richard Drew – advancements in blood research. Set up the world’s first blood bank
Here are some other scientists I think might be list-worthy: Sir Charles Lyell (Father of modern Geology), Robert Koch (Microbiology), Alfred Kinsey (Behavioral Science). Although, I’d still question Kinsey’s inclusion as he seemed more history keeper than experimental scientist… But he’s the sex doctor! There’s bound to be some good quotables from him, right?
February 27th, 2009 at 7:00 am
Thomas Edison does NOT belong here. He was most definitely NOT a scientist either by our definition today and barely by the definition then. He was a resourceful, sometimes ruthless, always imaginative inventor and businessman–but he was no scientist.
And I wouldn’t have included BF Skinner either–for similar reasons.
And really, by now, an ancient Greek or two should have shown up on one of these lists. I try to keep my Hellenophile ways in check as much as I can, but honestly, this is a tad ridiculous.
February 27th, 2009 at 7:04 am
Edison was a communist.
February 27th, 2009 at 7:08 am
Agreed, a number of sources out there state that Edison “borrowed” ideas from other scientists and inventors. Read up on the Tesla – Edison rivalry, a lot of good books out there about it.
February 27th, 2009 at 7:09 am
Geesh how could I forget Lyell? Good call gabi319!
Another notable black scientist: Dr Percy Julian. He was a chemist and did pioneering work synthesisng hormones.
February 27th, 2009 at 7:19 am
I’m look forward to seeing more specific lists of scientists. Biologists, Chemists, Astronomers, Computer Scientists. It would have been cool to those first then end with the best of each field.
February 27th, 2009 at 7:24 am
Still no Salk. Oh well. Maybe Part III?
February 27th, 2009 at 7:24 am
Ok, if we are talking ancient contributions, then it opens up a big pandora’s box here.
For anyone interested in reading up on ancient Indian scientists, check out the following links:
http://satyameva-jayate.org/2008/04/28/ancient-indian-scientists/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ancient_Indian_scientists
Lots of great information there.
February 27th, 2009 at 7:26 am
I think it would be stretching things to add Rosalind Franklin to this list; indeed, she contributed to the development of the understanding of DNA structure…but so did others. And it was ultimately Watson and Crick who built the double-helix.
Also, I note that some are calling for the inclusion of Franklin whilst totally omitting mention of Maurice Wilkins (who, incidentally, received the Nobel along with W & C).
The vast majority of profound scientific discoveries are the result of the cumulative works of many scientists – but it is usually the the individual who has the “eureka” moment who captures the glory.
February 27th, 2009 at 7:52 am
You still left off almost all of my suggestions from the first list, so I’m disappointed. This list definitely does *not* reflect the most Influential Scientists, had you included the list cymraegbachgen87 suggested, or Randall suggested, or Anon suggested, or lo suggested, or I suggested, then you would have had a list of truly influential scientists. As it is, you seem to have a list of scientists, and non-scientists, whose name you could remember.
Not a good list. I’m sorry, good try, very good try, but poor execution.
February 27th, 2009 at 7:53 am
Chuck Norris.
February 27th, 2009 at 7:56 am
Scientists are just magicians. Science is just some men trying to control other men through nature. Who cares about it? (Here come all the comfort and progress freaks.)
February 27th, 2009 at 7:59 am
I would like to see a list of the top crazy female mad scientist or influential scientists. I love this site.
February 27th, 2009 at 8:31 am
I want to put to consideration the name of Aristoteles again.
I doubt any other individual has had the influence he had over science for hundreds and hundreds of years. True, today that influence has disappeared but this is supposed to be a historical list, isn´t it?.
¿Best scienctist? Certainly not.
¿Most influential? Yes, and by a long shot.
February 27th, 2009 at 8:40 am
In support of Aristotle I offer this: He is the creator of the scientific method. Science wouldn’t be science without him.
February 27th, 2009 at 8:41 am
#42:
“Scientists are just magicians. Science is just some men trying to control other men through nature. Who cares about it? (Here come all the comfort and progress freaks.)”
Bob – Don’t be so quick to bash scientists—it’s showing your ignorance. Before science and before the enlightenment period, life was pure struggle with no enjoyment. You farmed enough for your family to survive and prayed so that you would get into heaven after you died—that’s it.
Here is just one tiny example of what science has provided us (others, if you are reading this feel free to contribute too). The next time you have surgery, be thankful that a scientist created anesthesia. Just a little over a hundred years ago, surgeries typically involved amputations (while the patient was awake). The main focus of a physicians training back then was to be able to work fast (to minimize the struggle of the patient), not be weak at the bloodcurdling screams and the flood of blood, and be able to cauterize the wound right afterward. Physician’s assistants typically got fingers cut off from the procedure—since they had to hold the limb down that was being amputated.
So, you owe every bit of comfort that you have in your life to these “magicians” and “progress freaks.” If it wasn’t for the great thinkers in the enlightenment period that spawned a scientific era, you’d be out in the field right now sowing corn.
February 27th, 2009 at 8:43 am
Benjamin Franklin, anyone?
Should have been in top 10 maybe top 5.. Edison should also be up higher… IMHO
February 27th, 2009 at 8:54 am
Nice… just as I was about to get ready to comment on the original list and say.. what about Kepler, maxwell and Copernicus instead of a few of the other top ten… you submit this list … great.. I still think that Kepler is too under rated by most people and he is on your lists as well.. he should at least be some where on the top ten… he paved the way for Galileo and Newton with his calculations on the orbits and planetary motion and his work on optics … still great lists…
February 27th, 2009 at 9:02 am
18. Eve – “Sick and tired of ignorant people, who do not recognise psychology as a scientific subject…”
Do you mean like Scientologists?
This list and its predecesor has caused quite the heated debate. I’m glad to see people arguing on a list that requires more thought process than “Top 10 Brunettes” (sorry Randall).
At first glance, this list looks very textbook correct, but those who know their stuff have showed the fallacy. The choices weren’t ideal, but I liked the overall quality of the writing.
February 27th, 2009 at 9:17 am
Is it just me, or does Edison bear an uncanny resemblance to Alan Rickman in that picture?
February 27th, 2009 at 9:23 am
Plenty of puffs for Gregor Mendel and the DNA folks to be included in the continuing list series. I haven’t had time to scroll down the entire contents of both lists yet, but from what I have seen there is one notable absentee:
Ivan Pavlov. His work on conditioned reflex and behaviourism was seminal. Besides which his name has spread into popular culture via those dogs, which must surely strengthen the title ‘influential’? Nobel ditto.
From the point of view of personal bias, I’d also re-inforce an earlier call for Carl von Linné (Linnaeus). The man was a giant, who revolutionised, codified and standardised our entire nomenclatural system for the organic world: as the binomial system of taxonomy. Standard forms and rules for describing new species comparatively were added to this. He also published a vast number of taxa of all kinds himself.
February 27th, 2009 at 9:30 am
josh, (46),
“#42: Bob – Don’t be so quick to bash scientists—it’s showing your ignorance.
… you owe every bit of comfort that you have in your life to these “magicians” and “progress freaks.” If it wasn’t for the great thinkers in the enlightenment period that spawned a scientific era, you’d be out in the field right now sowing corn.”
Oh, and the irony. Least of all would he have a computer to type into, or an internet whereby to express his antideluvian opinion!
February 27th, 2009 at 9:34 am
I am loving that psychology is a field on this list. Skinner, Jung, Maslow and so many others have made the way we as a people think about each other. I don’t think people even know they are discussing psychology sometimes, but it is in our everyday lives. You can’t call somebody an introvert without thanking Carl Jung, and you can’t discuss a person’s basic needs without a shout out to Maslow.
And to Hmmm: I don’t see it really but I see how you can. Does that make sense?
February 27th, 2009 at 9:43 am
51. Anon: Put me down as one of the Gregor Mendel supporters. However, much to my shame, though I thought of several important scientists who were excluded from the list as a whole, Pavlov and von Linné slipped my mind. I did juggle Nobel for quite a while, finally, sadly, dismissing him. I could be talked into reinstating him.
Then there were the “soft” sciences. I completely ignored the soft sciences, but is that fair? I think it is. I think they deserve a separate list, as they worked in such different fields.
February 27th, 2009 at 9:44 am
#33. Of all the of arguments as to whether or not Edison belongs here, yours is by far the stupidest.
February 27th, 2009 at 9:45 am
You would have thought from the comments from the earlier list that Mongoose would have known that the inclusion of Edison was going to start a shit storm, so it’s possible that was intentional, which is fine.
Screw Edison.
42. Neil
“Scientists are just magicians.”
No, ministers are magicians – any moron named Bob knows that.
February 27th, 2009 at 10:01 am
cymraegbachgen87, I believe I have your name decoded. Is it a boy (male, man) who is a fluent speaker of Welsh?
February 27th, 2009 at 10:02 am
To the Watson and Crick fans out there – yes the double helix was a great discovery – the helical structure was first proposed by Linus Pauling, and research supported by thousands of hour of diligent and complex analysis by the X-ray crystallographers and Rosalind Franklin
So the list entry would have to be:
Pauling, X-ray crystallographers, Franklin, Watson and Crick
February 27th, 2009 at 10:04 am
Edison wasn’t a communist… He was an alien.
February 27th, 2009 at 10:17 am
Bill Gates is the alien
February 27th, 2009 at 10:22 am
Boring….
February 27th, 2009 at 10:24 am
how about ford he is a Scientist we hope to see more Scientist
February 27th, 2009 at 10:24 am
Scientists
February 27th, 2009 at 10:25 am
segue, (54),
Nobel himself? Sorry! Riiight. Actually, I expressed myself badly, or too curtly (wot, agen?). It was intended as Pavlov’s Nobel making him more apt for inclusion.
February 27th, 2009 at 10:28 am
can we really have a list (or 2 or 10) like this and include none of the ancients? are they getting their own list instead? it’s a giant oversight to just skip them. just an example, but i think ibn sina (avicenna) shouldn’t be skipped over.
and while i’m very happy to see pasteur and fleming on here (i, and others, suggested them after list one) why have you so ignored the biological and geological sciences?
mongoose, do you happen to be a physicist, mathematician, chemist, or computer science guy yourself (are you even a guy? if not no offense)?
what about james hutton or charles lyell for geology?
what about alfred wegener for continental drift -which opened the door to our current understanding of plate tectonics?
these, and the people i suggested up at #14, are just that, suggestions that came to mind -maybe there are others who were more important in their areas of science that others will now point out- but how can you just ignore whole areas of science like genetics or geology, or the botany and biology that figure into agriculture and sustain our species?
it would be a lie to say these areas of science haven’t influenced humanity and our understanding of our planet as much -or more- than mathematicians and physicists. i think your bias is showing.
February 27th, 2009 at 10:33 am
32. Randall, if ever there was a “scientific” psychologist, that has to be Skinner.
His behaviorism theories along with Watson´s represented the american response (against a more cognitive european approach) to the practical uses of psychology.
He adapted and innovated ways for applying the experimental method to the field.
His main intention was to make psychology a science (as opposed to Freud).
I believe he belongs to this list, unless you believe (as Kant did) that psychology will never become a real science, which opens another debate.
February 27th, 2009 at 10:39 am
oh…psychosurfer! You shouldn’t have….
February 27th, 2009 at 10:42 am
Yay Skinner!
February 27th, 2009 at 10:47 am
“He was a resourceful, sometimes ruthless, always imaginative inventor and businessman–but he was no scientist.
And I wouldn’t have included BF Skinner either–for similar reasons.”
I fail to see how Skinner fits that description.Listen, if you accept psychology as a legitimate science (I’m aware that many people don’t) then Skinner most certainly belongs on this list. I do, however, agree with you on the Edison front – Edison was an intellectual thief and a glory-hunting conman. Having many patents to one’s name does not make one an inventor any more than it does a scientist.
February 27th, 2009 at 10:52 am
konichiwa YOHEI
February 27th, 2009 at 11:03 am
#18 you mean there’s another eve out there and she’s into psychology! I was all giddy that a B.F. Skinner was added and I was going to make a comment, but there’s another eve that beat me to it! Psychology along with Anthropology is defined in the science world as a soft science therefore meaning usually the scientific method is thrown out the window, but science is still used in the subject to an extent, but also reinforced with emotion. And with soft sciences you have to approach it with a perfect balance of logic and emotion, whereas in hard sciences such as chemistry and biology you can only approach it with logic. And yes, I agree with psychosurfer, Skinner probably is the most scientific of all famously known psychologists…
February 27th, 2009 at 11:07 am
psychosurfer:
I realize this, which is why I didn’t belabor the point. On the other hand, let’s face facts. While some of Skinner’s work hasn’t exactly been discredited, it’s certainly been challenged and called into question. Certainly Skinner was influential; there’s no question of that. But then so was Edison “influential.” But Edison was not a scientist, and I drag my heels very heavily at calling Skinner one.
It’s actually pretty hard to see how psychology ever *could* become a “real science,” in certain specific terms. I never say never, but for the present, I wouldn’t have included psychology or medicine under the same tent as physics, astronomy, chemistry, biology, etc.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Still too physics-heavy
“All science is either physics or stamp collecting.”
-Ernest Rutherford
February 27th, 2009 at 11:13 am
I’m glad that aristotle isin’t on the list yet. His ideas were many and great but one of this ideas I believe impeded scientific advancenmets until Galileo disproved them. His idea was that mathematics was too perfect to apply to an imperfect world and that observations had to be done from a rational and observational view point not from a practical one using mathematics. This was the mentality for almost a millenium and a half until Galileo wrote Dialoges i believe. Its a conversation from two imaginary guys. Simplicio that represent aristotelean view and another guy that represented galileos view.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:16 am
71. Randall
You said it
February 27th, 2009 at 11:19 am
Glad to see kepler on the list.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:20 am
65. I have to disagree that the scientists in the other fields were as influential as physicists or mathematicians .. physics, math and astronomy have all but proved that Religion is not true.. more than the other sciences could, besides Darwin thats why is is as high as he is…… and that in itself is almost enough to reign as most influential…
The other sciences are extremely important and they all help to move humanity along, thank god for it… but when Newton discovered the gravitational force that gave us a mechanics and the basis for the industrial revolution which then toppled the kings and queens of Europe….That was unleashed when we discovered the first force…. Then Faraday and Maxwell gave us the magnetic force, which gave us the internet, telecommunications, ipods, lasers ect.. then Einsteins theories unlocked the nuclear force which unlocked the mystery of the stars, amongst other things… Id say those are amongst the most influential sciences and discoveries to change humanities direction..
I mean we are all on listverse and god knows we spend more than our fair share of our daily time on our computers and the internet…. and thats Physics… very influential….
and when humanity uses earth up and we need to immigrate through space and eventually become a galactic empire.. which will eventually happen if we make it that far… it will be on the shoulders of these giants that we will be able to colonize outerspace….. through physics, math, astronomy…. and for that I think that those sciences edge out the others….
.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:30 am
How has science proved religion wrong? There’s still plenty of room for religion in there, especially in quantum mechanics. Bet you didn’t know Einstein, although didn’t believe in organized religion, believed in God…
And just so no one thinks I’m a religious zealot, I’m an astrophysicist, I believe in God, but not in organized religion (anything run by man is doomed to corruption).
February 27th, 2009 at 11:32 am
In terms of “influence”, what about Thomas Midgley, Jr. He “had more impact on the atmosphere than any other single organism in Earths history” according to one historian.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:33 am
LONG LONG AGO IN A GALAXY FAR FAR AWAY…
“…and when humanity uses earth up and we need to immigrate through space and eventually become a galactic empire.. which will eventually happen if we make it that far… it will be on the shoulders of these giants that we will be able to colonize outerspace…..”
DA DA DADADA DA DA DADADA DADUH DUHDUHDUHDUH
February 27th, 2009 at 11:41 am
and when humanity uses earth up and we need to immigrate through space and eventually become a galactic empire.. which will eventually happen if we make it that far…
And another thing, if we do make it that far, it will prove Einstein’s theory of relativity wrong. Unless we are just colonizing the solar system. Space is too spread out to explore, even at 99.9% speed of light it would take us 6 years to get to the nearest star and back. Meanwhile everyone on earth would have seen 134 years pass according to the theory of relativity.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:47 am
55. azalea, I wasn’t serious haha. if i really cared about edison i would make an actual argument.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:49 am
78. castroy
Not religion, but rather the belief that there is God out there….
February 27th, 2009 at 11:51 am
76. cpena82-
ah, but you say this probably because you never stop and consider that none of this could have been achieved without people having food to eat and being in relatively good health.
you probably received vaccinations in your life, and count on modern medicine to keep you well today.
you eat plants that were bred for millennia to concentrate their desirable traits, and once mendel opened the door of for understanding the genetics behind this it was taken to a new level, animals (if you eat them) were bred the same way. then the understanding of DNA took all this a step even further. and fertilizing the plants that directly feed people, and feed our livestock and industry, increased yield to the point that it may literally have allowed you to be born, as less land could now support far more people then ever before.
sorry, but this is more influential than someone who refined calculous. the fact that we have the time and technology to sit around using computers and the internet to debate this is a byproduct of scientific advances in the other fields. people in parts of the world now who still live in third world (or worse) economies don’t spend their time doing advanced or theoretical maths unless it will feed their family or help their sick child or parent -and in direct terms it never will!
i’m sorry, but to say the other fields aren’t also important simply proves you take them for granted, don’t understand them, or both.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
#52: Anon-
Good mentioning of Carl Linne (Carolus Linnaeus). He definitely progressed our ability to navigate through the relationships of species—a vital component to understanding evolution.
I think it’s funny how he changed his name to sound more “scientific.” He truly devoted his life to taxonomy!
February 27th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Castroy…. your an astro physicist.. you clearly have a better understanding of science than I do.. I am a bartender.. HOWEVER… I do not believe there is much room for religion with those sciences.. maybe not through direct facts, but through a line of logic… We know that the universe is huge and beautiful, and that we as humanity can continue to further our learning and understanding of the cosmos.. we also know that when man made religion he did not know of all those things (galaxies, black holes, ect) that lay beyond our little earth… example- sun god… Science showed that was just ignorance….. and I dont know about you.. but if I look at an exerpt from the bible then look through a telescope and see the Andromeda… I laugh… but maybe that is just me…. I am not saying there is a possibility of a God I guess.. just not man made religion… Science may eventually disprove a god altogether, it has not done that yet…
Einstein did not believe in God..
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly.”
Also if you have not noticed we continue to develop science into ways we thought were impossible before… cutting edge science is saying that there will be possible ways to travel faster than light.. and thats not mentioning worm holes or even black holes as possible ways of travel.. who knows what string theory will have in store for us…. We will be traveling faster than light sometime in the future.. that is inevitable if we continue on….
TEX: I love star wars… its too bad we dont live in the Galactic empire today.. that would be sweet..
February 27th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Informative but far from complete. I would argue that although very influential, Edison is not a scientist. And still no Michael Faraday. For shame.
caStroY; we’ll just have to learn to bend space/time; a possibility according to Einstein’s theories, and no need to negate his other ones.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
76. cpena82-
another thing-
if human beings are ever really able to leave our planet and live off planet permanently, do you have any idea how important understanding plant biology and physiology on every possible level will be? what do you think those humans will eat?
producing food and all the micro-nutrients humans need to live in space would be a giant challenge, with no “resupply” from earth it might not even be possible.
and if you’re thinking that at such a point that we’re leaving the planet “chemistry” will allow us to produce all foods out of beakers, then you really are living in sci-fi fantasy land!
even if such a thing were somehow, someday possible it would only be because of an intensive understanding of human biological needs and the plants, animals, and minerals of earth -on a level that we need biology and genetics to understand!
at this point, only plants and some bacteria are known to convert sunlight into biologically available energy. some other bacteria (like those found at deep-sea vents) can convert non-sunlight chemical energy into biologically available energy.
do you know why this is more important than physics if you want to leave the planet? because physics won’t prevent you starving to death.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
#86: cpena82 -
“Science may eventually disprove a god altogether, it has not done that yet”
Science cannot answer questions that are not operationally defined. Therefore questions like, “what is the meaning of life,” “does God exist,” etc. will not be tackled by science because such questions are too abstract and are thus beyond our capabilities to answer.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
76. cpena82-
WELL THEN – put down the light saber and pick up that cocktail shaker and lets get happy!!!
February 27th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
cpena82:
Read that again. Einstein did not believe in a PERSONAL god (neither do I, neither did Joseph Campbell, neither did Henry Miller, neither do most Buddhists) but that is by no means the same as being an atheist; it is not the same as not believing in god at all. Einstein regularly referenced “god” as a concept and even as an actualizing force—just not as an “individual.”
You’re wrong that the sciences have left little room for god. In fact, they have nothing to do with god, except insofar as we ought to insist on a god who obeys his own rules–otherwise the universe would be chaos. Now yes, if you’re a fundamentalist Christian you feel threatened by science because your worldview is, in every essence, opposed to the rational and the awakened mind is anethema to you. But most of us know that “god” is a mystery not so easily compartmentalized and drawn so precisely as scripture SEEMS to draw and describe him, if one interprets it literally. We know it’s folly and arrogance to think that god could be so simple and the nature of existence itself so easy to hold with words. But then anyone who really puts thought to this, rather than adhering to a literalist view, has already risen above the childish and limiting view of god that the fundamentalist takes–primarily because the fundamentalist is unimaginative, afraid, and wants his or her life rigidly demarcated—and thus has to try to rigidly demarcate the lives of others.
All science has done is allow us to greatly expand our imaginations about god. It hasn’t dispensed with him, or it, or whatever god is or may be.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
I totally agree cpena82.
Perhaps it will always be like the first explorers of oceans, and journeys to other systems will take years, and be fraught with danger. I do believe we will get there, if our science advances faster than our consumption. It moves at such breakneck speed I believe it will. No one knows for sure.
The discoverer of a concept that allows for interstellar travel. They will be the most influential scientist(s) in lists of the future. The possibilities….
February 27th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Lo.. great points… survival is the bottom line.. those sciences are the most influential when it comes to humanity… you have swayed me… This list I guess is better suited to be titled the most famous scientists…
February 27th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
72. Randall, maybe not under the eye of logical positivism, but you have to grant that the definition of science is changing, and will tend to raise credit upon “softer science” as technology and data provides more verifiable and practical means to prove theories.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
c -
o -
c -
k -
t -
a -
i -
l -
don’t ever use this word or you’ll end up in moderation
February 27th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Whether Einstein believed in God or not shouldn’t really matter that much. Atheists and Theists can be extremely intelligent.
Why should I object to people believing in God? The same way I would object if people believing in Superman pretended to others it was true, and forced others to live their way or suffer in eternity.
Just because it was written millennia ago does not make it any more accurate. How is Ganesh or Xenu less believable than Jehovah? Why? Because its the way people are brought up.
I believed my Sunday school dogma until I studied science in school. We need knowledge now more than ever oddly, to survive the knowledge we already have. Only if it presents tangible results and benefits is it useful. Religion was extremely useful in the past, but we are beyond that. Its comfort blanket of eternity would be nice, but we are just meat.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Randall
I guess I need to be more clear when I write.. I did not mean the possibility of a God.. I do not discount that as a possibility nor do I think that science does…. I meant that it disproves religion or at least helps the argument against it. And believing in God as a concept or an actualizing force should have another term besides God, because that could be easily taken out of context. Maybe science could call it…?? i dont know.. The supreme force…
here is the definition of God in Websters
“1god
Pronunciation:
\ˈgäd also ˈgȯd\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god
Date:
before 12th century
1capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe bChristian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship ; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3: a person or thing of supreme value
4: a powerful ruler”
February 27th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
psychosurfer:
Which is why I said I never say “never.”
I’m not so sure the definition of science can or should ever change to that extent, however. Economics, anthropology, sociology and psychology are surely valid academic and professional disciplines. And certainly science as a tool can and is applied to them with great success. But whether they will ever be actual sciences in their own right, in the same regard that physics, chemistry, et al are—I’m very doubtful.
But why do we need that? We don’t refer to the “science” of history, and yet we all consider history, itself, to be a very valid and vital discipline in the humanities. It’s always seemed to me that sociologists, economists, and perhaps to some extent psychologists have pushed the idea of their disciplines being “science” because they feel it confers upon them a greater degree of gravitas. I sense a kind of insecurity in that. Psychology is a very valid and important field of study. It’s a shame that some people who don’t understand such disciplines have to be smoke-and-mirrored into lending them credence as long as we refer to them as “science” and pretend they can fill that role in the same way that say, chemistry can.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
boring
February 27th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
93. cpena82, maybe Maslow´s pyramid of needs makes it clearer:
http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/psychology/maslow_pyramid.html
February 27th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
cpena82:
Well, perhaps… but if you mean that science has disproved the sillier claims of religion—sure, hell yes. But of course a fundamentalist can always respond that god can do whatever the hell he wants and that’s that. So you’re back to square one with *those* cats.
Other than that, however, it depends on the particular “religion” that you adhere to or truck with. Me, I was brought up Presbyterian. A fine, solid, no-thanks-we’ll-go-our-own-way religion for the most part. I haven’t been to church in over ten years though. (I even took a shot at Catholicism back then, because my wife at the time was Catholic—but it didn’t take). Do I adhere to the points of order of the Prebyterian faith? Nah, I guess not. But it basically boils down to that “I don’t know.” I DO believe there is a “god,” but not a personal one—I’m not sure what god is but I imagine consciousness and the underlying mystery of existence has a lot to do with him or it, whatever.
I suppose in that sense you may have a point—that science has informed my worldview to the extent that I can no longer have an ultra-simplistic view of god—it’s more complicated than that, for me. But then again, Buddhists often take a similar view of “god,” and Buddhism has been around for a very, very long time. (2500 years or more, in fact). They were not informed by science, but rather by a more deeply spiritual and mystery-tinged view of what existence is.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
93. cpena82-
well, i’m happy to have convinced at least one person in LV history to see another point of view!
please understand that i don’t think physics or pure mathematics aren’t valid and wonderful parts of science. they are, and i’m glad for them. i just get annoyed when people forget that other fields of science are “great” as well.
now this isn’t to convince you (as i don’t need too), but i was thinking, what if someone argues that quantum physics is more “important” than plate tectonics in geology?
all well and good, unless they live in an area that could be affected by an earthquake, volcano, or tsunami! the point is all the branches of science affect each other, it’s very hard to rank their relative “importance.” for that reason, it’s wrong that this list series seems to ignore certain whole fields of science in favor of mathematics and physics.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
98. Randall, that´s precisely why I disagree with the american psychology school although its study is fundamental for institutional recognition by the people in suits and ties.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
josh, (85),
“#52: Anon-
Good mentioning of Carl Linne (Carolus Linnaeus). He definitely progressed our ability to navigate through the relationships of species—a vital component to understanding evolution.”
Thanks. He also made it possible to lump and co-ordinate this vast body of knowledge competently and concisely in the literature, and even to a degree to carry much of it about within our own heads (as I do!).
“I think it’s funny how he changed his name to sound more “scientific.” He truly devoted his life to taxonomy!”
Like ‘aluminium’ you mean? Hahaha!
Aluminum. I’m going to complain. That word’s too ‘ANCIENT’ BRITISH!
February 27th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
64. Anon: ~ah~ That makes *much* more sense!
****
95. TEX
c -
o -
c -
k -
t -
a -
i -
l -
don’t ever use this word or you’ll end up in moderation:
Oh TEX, I guess you weren’t here when we solved this one…coqtail.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
lo:
I am defintely biased towards mathematicians/physicists, I won’t deny it. Also, this list was written before the first was submitted. I originally submitted it as a Top 20 list. I know many people disagree with some of my choices but what it eventually comes down to is that this is my list and I can add (and exclude) whomever I please.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Randall, (91),
“cpena82:
Read that again. Einstein did not believe in a PERSONAL god (neither do I, neither did Joseph Campbell, neither did Henry Miller, neither do most Buddhists) but that is by no means the same as being an atheist”
Strictly and semantically absolutely correct, Randall. Unfortunately atheism is so often popularly used to define the rejection of a PERSONAL god (most usually in the Christian context) that it has come to be understood by large numbers (almost certainly the vast majority) as such. I’m strictly a potential monotheistc pantheist, I suppose! But for general and LV purposes, and to avoid ambiguity, I put myself down as an atheist. I.e. one who has rejected the concept of a supernatural, interventional deity, or a privileged place for Mankind in the infinite scheme of things. However I see and sense integration, intellectual force and infinite potential creativity beyond ourselves, elements which are not covered for me by nihilism or atheism s.s.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
segue, so you’ve started studying the welsh then? (about “cymraegbachgen87″) i’m still impressed, language queen!
February 27th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
just here for the commentary
February 27th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
106. Mongoose- at least you know your bias exists, you wouldn’t be human without a bias of some kind.
yes, it is your list (series) to make as you see fit, no argument there. perhaps it’s a good thing that we don’t all agree with all of your choices, as it’s inspired good discussion here in the comments.
so i’m assuming jamie did both intros (does he write all the intros? i didn’t know that he wrote any of them) and when he said “a second list or maybe more” he was thinking of making the “maybe more” himself. is this correct? if so, then the rest of us or jamie will have to write the “ancient scientists” “most influential scientific discoveries” or whatever this list leads to.
thanks for writing the list, i think people talking (and arguing) science is always a good thing
February 27th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Randall-
Since you claim that pscyhology is not a “true” science, I am curious how you define a “true” science. It is true that psychology cannot be studied in the way that chemistry or physics is; however, you must look at the subjects that each respective field studies. Chemistry analyzes physical properties that can be carefully manipulated. Such specific properties are precisely identified without much variation—therein lies the precision of the nature of chemistry: its subject.
Psychology, on the other hand, deals with subjects that have mass variation. Personalities range tremendously on the “Big Five” factor model of personality traits (i.e., O.C.E.A.N.). It is definitely a challenge for psychology to put the abstract into operational terms—something that can be done with empirical evidence and other improved methodologies. Therefore, it is inevitable that psychology will be not as precise (thus far—after all it is a relatively new discipline) as chemistry. However, does that make it an inferior science?
If so, is it not that psychology is rigorous in sharpening its methods to identify various important human ailments? For example, psychology has examined and identified the phenotypic relationship of certain genetic disorders, so that a clinician can identify the disorder early in life to begin necessary intervention. I find this human exploration valuable, and thus I find psychology as a science valuable.
That being said, I have an open mind. That is why I would like for you to elaborate specifically on your views of psychology and why it should not be considered as a true science as chemistry or physics is.
P.S. – I don’t include Freud in the category of scientific psychology, I am talking about modern day psychology.
Thanks in advance.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
81. caStroY
You are mistaken – there is no room for religion in science. Quantum physics, there’s nothing mystical about it.
What are you talking about, nonlocality?
Also – I tried the speed of light argument the other day, only I used the distance equals energy approach. Most people here are half-ass intelligent, they either get it or they don’t – the ones that don’t – never will.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
boring….more bizarre lists!
February 27th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
segue -
coqtail – gotcha, thanks
February 27th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
What do you mean half-ass intelligent? must be alone up there
February 27th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Anon:
Okay, I won’t argue with this. But MY interpretation of “atheist” is purely and simply “someone who does not believe in the existence of god, as he/it is ‘defined’ by any religions or spiritual ’systems’ throughout human history.” So if you want to call that god a “personal god,” then be my guest. In that case, by your reasoning, I would be, technically, an atheist. But I don’t consider myself an atheist, as I certainly believe there IS a consciousness behind existence, that is eternal…
February 27th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
mongoose-
p.s. i realize saying list (series) just now was wrong. i meant to imply that i knew 1&2 were halves of one list, but it sounds like i meant the opposite. sorry.
i was trying to clarify -do you plan on making any more “scientist” lists?
February 27th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Josh:
I don’t necessarily DENY that psychology is a “kind” of science–(at least an applied science)—I’m not an enemy of psychology nor do I disdain it as a discipline. (I thought I made this obvious). But you seem to be defining “science” by WHAT it examines and studies, which is erroneous; science, rather, is defined by a system, a process, and to me what is “true” science (or pure science if you like) is that which employs the scientific method. And if you interpet the definition of the method strictly (which I think is only appropriate) it doesn’t seem that the social sciences can entirely operate by that definition.
I’m out of time so can’t comment further just now. I’ll try to come back to this later.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Leibniz was fucking brilliant… have you guys read some of his stuff? Look at the way he writes, it’s beautiful. Up there with Goethe! Anyway, don’t take him for granted. It’s because of his mind that a good chunk of what makes sense to most of us even does. Or maybe I’m exaggerating but the guy had an incredible mind. A colony of souls!!! =]
Ha, anyway. There’s no reason to call a hypothesis for physics laws initiation “God.” God suggests something with some sort of concern for sentient creatures, and there’s no reason to give yourself an ego boost by thinking this force gives a rat’s ass about human beings that live to die…
113. Amanda – Come on. This list is one of the most interesting here. These are people that will be remembered as long as there are other people… Amanda #5694595645.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
115. WHAT?!
as compared to the few that are half-ass stupid
it’s sort of a colloquial complement
February 27th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Randall
hate to see ythe pause, you were making an excellent argument
February 27th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Ahem… by the way, atheism means you don’t believe in God in any way. There’s that consideration of what defines “God” but honestly it assumes ANY type of God.
The term for believing in a universe initiating God with no other purpose relevant to us is deism, of course… but everyone knows that. Favorite deists are Voltaire and Jefferson.
The two aren’t any more related than most other standpoints though oddly many consider them to be. Whatever, they are on acid. Don’t speak of them as if they have much to do with one another.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
TESLA WAS ROBBED BY EDISON!!!!
February 27th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
For those who consider physics will be the foundation of the dream to take us as colonisers to the stars at speeds beyond light. In how long?
Apart from creating ‘ecosystems in space’ to provide self-perpetuating food production processes during those voyages, lo’s humble biologists, botanists and ecologists may offer a more disturbing scientific down-to-earth background. That we are degrading and threatening the biosystems of the planet to such a degree as to be seriously risking not giving ourselves nearly enough time to begin to develop that space migration technology even.
Consider when Homo sapiens stood on the moon. How much further have we got a human in person into space meanwhile? Take a look at surveys of the earth’s vegetation then, already much depleted, and compare them with space shots now, less than 50 years on …
Perhaps we’ll get away with it. Perhaps not. I don’t know. I dearly hope so for everything I value, but my gut feeling tends to pessimism.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Friedrich – I that really you?
good novel involving deism – “Sirens of Titan”, Kurt Vonnegut
122. Sanja22
WE KNOW!!! He screwed a lot of people, previous posts lean way toward ousting him.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Randall (116),
Randall, ‘purely’ we are effectively in total accord in our visions. It’s only in the application of labels, which are the practical form of human communication, that we differ. It would be useful if it were possible in everyday exchanges to apply the scientific definitions atheist sensu lato and atheist sensu stricto, and that everyone understood what was intended. Personally I never have and never would consider myself an atheist s.s.!
It might be interesting to get the views on this matter of others in LV who have labelled themselves atheists. lo, for example.
February 27th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Nietzsche, (122),
You’re talking ‘pure’ again. No problem except that most people throughout LV talk ‘applied’ when they use these terms. No point, it seems to me, in defining our words in a way that are 100% correct and understood by 1% of those we address, rather than 100% wrong and understood by 99%!
Had I said 100 years ago I had a gay time in Paris, my meaning would have been clear to me and 100% of those I was addressing, I’m sure. Were I to make the same comment today, intending the sense understood 100 years ago (which is still perfectly valid), I’d be lucky if even 1% were with me!
(Thinks, will this get me into moderation, or is it immoderate enough to get away with it?)
February 27th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Thought so.
I wonder if gai will get through?
February 27th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Yes
February 27th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Tex- quit kissing ass and bring your comments and opinions to the table
February 27th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
this is josh by the way—i just registered with this name
February 27th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Nietzsche, (122),
Further to my 127, when and if it comes out of moderation.
“There’s that consideration of what defines “God” …”
Quite. I’m not happy labelling the outcome of my mental delvings into this, as ‘god’. I.e. a Universe which itself ultimately appears to be an infinite self-organising Supergaia. Any more than I am in calling myself an atheist. The word god and everything it engenders simply carries too much baggage around. Frankly, these concepts are way beyond our capacity to express them anyway, as is being pointed out in another topic. We therefore have to bumble along with whatever inadequate perspectives, terminology and systems of effective communication, under any given circumstances, our limited finite existence can offer.
February 27th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
I can’t believe some of the idiocy in some of these comments. Like #42 Bob……. ARE YOU SERIOUS!!! Forgive me but people who make statments like that should be rounded up and pushed into active valcanos. Just for the irony of it, right before we shove them in we say “Maybe doing this will please your god and fix your problems since science is just a silly fake magic thats only trying to control you!” and right before they hit the magma pool in the bottom of the valcano their whole lives will flash before their eyes and it could all be summed up with the word DUUUUUHHHHHHRRR!!!!
February 27th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
“Top Catholic Scientists:
(also some other non scientific contributions, as well as a list at the bottom of other “Great Christian Thinkers”) — Sorta a punch in the face to the idea that Atheism offers an intellectual advantage.”
Just pulled this latest plum straight out the other Top Scientists cake. It demonstrates precisely what I mean by applied use of the word atheism to define or at least imply those who are not specifically Christian.
February 27th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
129. Schizotypical
I’m not jumping in on the atheist definition deal – my simplistic view wouldn’t stand a chance, gave up spending time on that many years ago.
but here ya go -
There is no agenda in physics or for physicists. It’s just the examination of physical law through analysis of natural phenomena. As it currently stands most physical law works against mankind making any substantial migration out of this solar system, much less to distant parts of the galaxy. Doesn’t matter what you got to eat.
You want to know how far mankind is going to make it?
The answer to that is the same as the answer to this question:
What is the ultimate result of specialization of a species in nature?
If you know the answer to that, and some of us do, then you’re on your way to understanding the realistic possibilities of how far the human race might go in the future.
February 27th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
anon-
interesting that you’d ask about my “atheism.” a few years back (5 maybe?) a very good friend and i sat up in her kitchen debating over beers ’till 4am about if i was an atheist or not. you’d think this would be easy to settle!
at first she wanted me to admit being an agnostic (it’s worth noting this friend is not a member of any organized religion herself, this is just the sort of thing the people i tend to befriend like to talk about). i said it was my understanding that agnostics do indeed believe in a divinity, they just believe that due to the nature of human limitations something actually divine would be outside our scope of understanding, that the true nature of divinity itself is unknowable by definition, but it does exist.
or (type 2 agnostic) they are uncertain of god’s existence, but when they use the term they mean “God” -they may be debating internally, but the divine entity they’re considering is a version of the “people of the book’s” human-like God. -i don’t fall into either of these groups.
it came down to this in the end: i don’t believe that any form of divinity with a personality or other anthropomorphic features exists.
i think it’s likely that some sort of universal “life force” or “energy” (god, could i sound more new-agey?) does exist, i feel like it exists, but i don’t think it has an individual consciousness, it definitely doesn’t have a “personality,” and i certainly don’t have any “proof” of it, however much i want it to exist. -i’m thinking this may actually be somewhat similar to yourself and randall? my friend maintained that this meant i wasn’t an atheist.
the problem is, what is the name for this? i feel i haven’t fully explained all the details of my thoughts on this topic, what does one do when one lacks many hours and someone asks?
so i use atheist as a shorthand, because most people get that. i want them to be absolutely sure that i do not believe in “God” the father, son, or holy ghost, i’m not wavering, i’m not saying maybe, i’m saying such a thing does not exist. and atheist gets this message across quickly and firmly, so i use it.
February 27th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
hey this is relly josh changing my name again
February 27th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Good to see Skinner here! I’m glad Psychology is widely recognised as a science. Scientology is trying to bring it down (more specifically, Psychiatry). Scientology is the pseudo-science!
February 27th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
“Psychology is widely recognised as a science”
WHEN PIGS ARE WIDLEY KNOWN TO FLY
February 27th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
WIDELY
February 27th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
lo:
I am not sure if I will write anymore. I did originally plan on making it a Top 30 list, but I just never got around to it. Maybe someone else should continue the series, maybe get a different point of view.
February 27th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
lo, (136),
Aptly and practically put, re-inforcing my useage. Atheist s.l.
February 27th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
139. TEX
““Psychology is widely recognised as a science”
WHEN PIGS ARE WIDLEY KNOWN TO FLY
140. TEX
WIDELY”
Had you corrected that to WIDDLY, you could have claimed to be taking the piss.
February 27th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Actually, Psychology is considered a science. There are 3 different types of sciences, which you may know, physical science ( physics, chemistry, biology), humanities (music, art and literaure) and social science (anthropology, psychology and sociology).
February 27th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
I cant help but think of all scientists who have constants named after them, rolling in their graves as they see Edison here… RAWRGHGHGHGH.
Faraday? cmon! Fermi?
February 27th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
112. TEX
Lol, its hard to explain some concepts to some people. Some people flat out won’t believe me when I tell them about relativity, imagine that!
I guess I should have explained myself better. I personally don’t believe that we as humans will ever reach a supreme and total understanding of the universe, thus there will always be room for “God”. On the other hand if we do reach a supreme knowledge of everything, then I suppose that would either prove\disprove a concept of God. But until we can know everything, there will always be room for God, in some form or other.
I think the problem with most people’s concepts of God is that it is formulated by what they were taught in sunday school (ie. a big man with a beard sitting on a cloud watching over us). The nature of God is impossible to wrap our minds around, just like trying to draw a cube or something in 7 or 11 dimensions, or understanding an infinite universe. Of course, science has proved wrong people’s past interpretations of God\gods wrong, but I guess what I’m trying to say that God is the unknown to us.
More specifically, what I was referring to in quantum physics I guess is kinda hard to explain but I’ll try. I was thinking more like things like the uncertainty principle, which states that we cannot know both the velocity and position of a particle. So there are limits that are built into nature which restrict the knowledge that we can have.
I guess that will have to do, I know its a bit jumbled, I just can’t get it out clearly, but at least I tryed…
BTW – nonlocality is very cool stuff
February 27th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
108. lo: segue, so you’ve started studying the welsh then? (about “cymraegbachgen87″) i’m still impressed, language queen!
****
Well, I’m going to need Gaelic, but I just got interested in Welsh, so yes, I guess I’m learning a bit of it. I found a site on.line which will give you a lesson a day, and I’ve signed on for Gaelic and Welsh.
February 27th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
114. TEX: segue – coqtail – gotcha, thanks
****
My pleasure, but the real thanks go to Anon who figured out the coq challenge.
February 27th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Ages and ages ago, when I was in college studying Psychology, it was drilled into our heads that in order to be a science, Psychology needed to be limited to the study of human BEHAVIOR, something that can be quantified and subjected rigorously to the scientific method. Freud was NOT considered to be a scientist, therefore his “conclusions” had to be taken with a (large) grain of salt unless and until they could be proven scientifically. I don’t think all colleges held this same idea – I was in the University of Colorado. As we learn more about the workings of the human anatomy, especially the brain, we will be able to study “thought” in a more scientific manner. Psychotropic drugs are widely used today, and these meds DO go through all the scientific testing that all other prescription drugs do (or should, anyway…) in the US.
That’s what we were taught. I would like for Psychology to be a hard science, but IMHO, there is still too much of the social science involved. Also, almost nothing I learned at school actually helps me when I am dealing with emotionally-disturbed children. I find that nurturing, love and attempting to draw out the child’s fears and anger in whatever gentle way I can is what seems to make a difference. I admit, I go by instinct, not science. Most psychologists, social workers, and therapists I know say the same thing.
I have to admit that Psychology has a long way to go before it can be considered a hard science. It’s not impossible, but rather impractical, to be scientific when dealing with people in emotional turmoil. I hope some day we will have answers and treatments ready at hand that will change lives in trouble… it will take a lot of scientific research to get there.
My point is that I don’t believe Psychology is a hard science, it is still very much a social science, with very few absolutes and no clear path to follow.
February 27th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
131. Anon:…“There’s that consideration of what defines “God” …”
****
Some years ago, someone asked me about my beliefs. Not really wanting to get into it with them I said I was a “Monodeisiet”.
February 27th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
I think Fleming would be a good candidate for number 1. He has possibly saved more lives than any person ever.
February 27th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
What about Gauss? He influenced everything form number theory to physics. I beleive he should be number one.
February 27th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
CALLING ALL LV FRIENDS AND REGULARS, AND ANY OTHERS WHO MAY BE CONCERNED WITH WHAT I’M ABOUT TO INFORM.
One or more sickos have e-stalked me and discovered my actual real-life identity. He/she/they is/are trying to intimidate and scare me by revealing little cryptic bits of information which will mean nothing to the rest of you, but tell me what they have found out so far. There are also cryptic physical threats which may or may not be intended seriously. Almost certainly not, but you never know.
The precise site of this is Post 365 of 10 Debunked Scientific Beliefs Of The Past.
I imagine part of the strategy will be to gradually let you all know more and more about me and eventually reveal my name. Well, tough shit. I’m not hiding and I’m not playing. If Jamie can get by with his name and much else about him known to all, then so can I. If this/these sickos really are psychopaths as well, I’m not going to ruin the rest of my life cowering under the table either. Nothing to fear but fear itself.
I’m going over to confront the bastard(s) shortly after I’ve watching a favourite TV serial. (Let me finish my game of bowls before I clobber the Spanish Armada. Hahaha.)
I’d be so grateful for your collective moral support all the same. Many, many thanks.
February 27th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Wow thats messed up, it probably dosen’t mean much but you got my support
February 27th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Wow, Anon I just checked out the comment. That’s a little more difficult to understand than the Walmart codes form a couple of days ago. Seriously though Anon, you have my moral support.
I guess some people have too much time on their hands.
“Good luck”
February 27th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
anon- i read it too, other than some veiled threats that i can’t connect because of not knowing you in real life, it sounds like someone with too much time and too little confidence.
even if it truly is some “rich, powerful, and connected” person why would they bother doing you or your friends harm in real life, because you made them feel stupid on an internet entertainment site? honestly, wouldn’t a person who really had these resources be able to think of oh, one hundred or so, much more worthwhile things to do unless they were pathetic beyond measure?
you have my support, absolutely.
February 27th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Anon:
I assume the Ourisia Polyantha is a plant you are studying…
I would report this to your neighborhood police in case he does come looking for you – at least they’d have a heads-up. (But I’ve got a tendency to be extra careful…) I’m sure he is just trying to scare you and nothing will come of it, but please be careful anyway. You definitely have my support.
Can JFray get any info on the sender? Do you think banning him will help? Good luck.
February 27th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
You know where I stand, now and always Anon. I am by your side.
February 27th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Anon: is that what all that was about? I just don’t understand some people. For what it’s worth I’m behind you all the way.
February 27th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
BooRadley, (157),
Yeah, got it in one Ourisia polyantha is a very significant plant in our career. It did indeed cost us a long search. You’d either have to know someone who knows us well botanically, or have read a fairly obscure piece of my published writing to know that, which is perhaps the most creepy aspect of the affair so far. I’ve never mentioned that plant here. Whoever it is knows that. The ‘Walmart code’ was all intended for my delectation. No doubt the idea was to play cat-and-mouse with me for as long as possible.
Well I’ve forstalled that by standing up, throwing shit back at it and telling it to do its worst.
Yes, we’ll be as careful as needs be without getting paranoid.
Thanks everyone so far. What good friends we have on LV.
February 27th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
TEX- “Also – I tried the speed of light argument the other day, only I used the distance equals energy approach. Most people here are half-ass intelligent, they either get it or they don’t – the ones that don’t – never will.”
that is referring to something he was telling me.. and I completely get it.. there is no argument when it comes to the speed of light and how it works.. its pretty black and white and is a very fundemental concept.. as is the theory of relitivity these days… well if science is something that interests you….. and you are wrong that if someone didnt get that .. they never will.. simple explaining would do the job…..
However to assume that we could not go to further areas of the universe one day because of the restrictions of the speed of light is pretty closed minded. And I would say that people who believe that line of thought are the people who will never get it (But not half-ass intelligent)…. the speed of light is most likely not the end of the line.. there are ways to get around the laws of physics… like ripping the fabric of space-time.. worm holes.. warping space in various ways… sure we dont know how to do that now.. that doesnt mean that we wont know how to do that in the future… If history has taught us anything its that the impossible (black holes, invisible cloak, warping space and time) becomes possible…..
So kudos for memorizing the laws of light and speed… but there is a good chance we will get around that in the future…
February 27th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
anon-
what comes up when you google yourself? i can’t try it, obviously, but check it if you haven’t. if this person had your name, it’s possible that a simple internet search pulled up the Ourisia polyantha association. even if your published piece is in an obscure journal regular google may pull up the title, if the idiot was searching from a university or large public library IP address s/he may have full access to archives of more obscure publications the institution subscribes to.
it’s totally possible that the idiot learned this by combining dumb luck, a search engine, and lack of a life of their own, not an “in” into your life.
February 27th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Anon-
That’s kinda freaky…do you bear arms?
February 27th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
josh, (163),
Only to blast rabbits off the cabbage patch. P’raps that’s all we’ve got though! Our opposite neighbour’s a drug dealer. Trouble is he’s a knicker-wetting coward, so that ain’t much use.
February 27th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
anon-
i don’t think idiot’s paying anyone to gather intel on you!
because i just found out your real name too, using only 3 one word facts i learned on LV and google!
it was in the first thing that came up. i was able to confirm this by googling “Ourisia polyantha” chile, and comparing the results.
so it’s likely he did the first search and was using the Ourisia polyantha bait to see if he was right.
i think this person is not a real threat.
February 27th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Anon-
Lo is right. I know your name! Dun dun dunnn. Don’t worry, I’m just a harmless college student (not the psychotic type that performs school shootings).
This guy is pressing your buttons…don’t let him win (thus far you haven’t).
-Josh Harrison
February 27th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
on that note-
everything “the e-stalker” learned about you is from a chapter available on “google books” -you take great specimen shots in the field
so that’s all he knows. google me and all you’ll find are facebook friends and some pictures of turtles (one of which was published). if he knows your name it’s not the end of the world.
laura ostrenga
February 27th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
lo,
I’ve been ‘checking myself out’ too, and agree pretty strongly with you. I’d actually overlooked that the Ourisia story had also been cited in outline in a book that’s very readily available from any comprehensive public library.
Well, all the world may soon know my monica as well, but I recall you once asked to get in touch with me via e-mail over something. I know I got overwhelmed at the time and neglected to follow up. I con’t even remember what it was – over in the Bizarre Animals thread, I believe. So if you’d still like to please go ahead and fix up with Jfr or Cyn (they’ll know you’re coming from your bona fide source).
Might as well turn this situation to that old ill wind if it blows nobody some good!
February 27th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Actually Copernicus took his ideas from another man ,Aristarchus, he even mentioned him in the original version of his book. Still, Darwin wasn’t the first man to think up evolution he just supported it with other info, I guess the same is with Copernicus and heliocentrism.
February 27th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
if they’re so smart, how come they’re dead?
February 27th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
END OF GENERAL ALERT
Your kind support has been much appreciated, everyone. With a bit more time to reflect, and also to follow up a few lines of inquiry, the potential threat seems more a damp sqib than dynamite.
So I’m putting the episode on the back-boiler and getting on with LV life. Meanwhile, Cyn will be keeping an eagle eye open for ill-intentioned incomings.
Thanks again.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
anon
cyn is sending you my info. he reminds us all we can personal message over at the forums, if we need a private word -good to know
February 28th, 2009 at 12:47 am
Anon, et al…
Sheesh, I go out for an hour or two or four for a glass of wine or two (or four) and I come back to this?! You all are making it really hard for me to want to have a life outside of the internet…. especially since the wine wasn’t all that great.
Take care Anon! Doubt this ass actually has more than three neurons but better safe than sorry. Glad to know that the alert level has gone down to a code orange or yellow.
February 28th, 2009 at 12:54 am
I will labour the points I made in the last list, again THE most influential scientist has been left out. This is ARCHIMEDES and to top it off this list includes Liebnitz. Archimedes was the first to introduce infinitesimals which is the foundation of calculus. Leibniz, who laid the foundations of computer science and (with Newton) extended Archimedes’ and Madhava of Sangamagrama’s (14th century) work on infinitesimals and calculus.
Math is the “queen of sciences,” and Archimedes is widely regarded as one of the greatest mathematicians ever – perhaps the most influential of them all. As if that were not enough, he is also regarded as the father of mathematical physics and engineering, having created many widely used machines and construction principles. No other scientist or inventor has produced as many essential breakthroughs in both theory and practice. All subsequent geniuses have stood on his shoulders.
While the work of Archimedes was essential for all later mathematicians and physicists, it was less relevant to biologists such as Mendel (father of genetics), Darwin & Wallace, (evolution theory) and especially Pasteur. However, biology and other relatively young, “soft” scientific disciplines do not yet have the same general standing as the hard sciences, notably math and physics. History will show whether they will eventually receive the same respect. To this commentator they do not as yet.
Also GAUSS is missing the father of algebra. More research needed on these types of lists. Maybe this should be called the most popular scientists that I know list as by definition influential would mean that the progenitors of the scientific discipline would be the most influential.
As for psychology and its ilk, I refer you to this quote about Americans:
“You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you’re not adult enough to be independent.
Guns should only be handled by adults. If you’re not adult enough to sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist then you’re not grown up enough to handle a gun.
Therefore, you will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous than a vegetable peeler. A permit will be required if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.”
Psychology is not a science at all. Let me demonstrate:
Behaviorism: A psychological movement, now extinct, that is built on the premise that you are what you do, and you do because of what you have done. Replaced by humanistic psychology (you are what you feel), cognitive science (you are what you think), Dr. Atkins (you are what you eat) and modern advertising (you are what we say).
Hacks one and all, these courses at university are attended by fluffy bunnies and bohemians who would otherwise end up working in McDonalds. Pseudo-science at best and probably the cause of most relationship, interaction issues where the psychologist inverts their own neurosis onto the patients.
Anon: thoughts are with you, be careful with these nutjobs probably been to see a psychiatrist lately and is now focussing attention via habitual trolling.
February 28th, 2009 at 1:16 am
blue-
it’s nice to get back to the actual list and good of you to wish anon well.
-that said, i had no comment on your misogynist joke on the list part one, hell, you warned it would offend and said it was a joke, so i let t go.
but to now say that any and all past and current works in the field of psychology were created and implemented by “hacks one and all”?
it’s a field that’s made mistake like any other. it’s not hard science and probably never will be. but it is a logical body of theories based on observation that has helped far more people than it’s hurt.
the only way your total dismissal of all things psychological begins to make sense is if you are a scientologist!
if you are, xenu gives me personal permission to disregard your opinion of psychology. if you’re not, well, you own words just did your legnthy and largely well-thought out comments a giant disservice. but you sound more like a scientologist…
February 28th, 2009 at 1:28 am
Psychology as a seperate field of science ?? You gotta be kiddin me… But seriously, still no one comes to think of Micheal ‘the great’ Faraday
February 28th, 2009 at 1:35 am
176. 7raul7-
not a “separate field of science” a separate field of study.
yeah, a maths and physics based list skipping faraday is odd.
mongoose said anyone is welcome to write the next list in this “series” -you could write one
February 28th, 2009 at 1:36 am
174. Blue:”…However, biology and other relatively young, “soft” scientific disciplines do not yet have the same general standing as the hard sciences, notably math and physics.”
The term ‘hard sciences’ encompasses natural and physical sciences, physics yes but also BIOLOGY, chemistry, astronomy, etc… It’s not a subjective adjective but a standard category separating it from the social sciences.
Mathematics AND Sciences. They are considered separate fields because of the different approaches taken to each discipline. In terms of an LV list, combining the two would create an even broader field of hundreds of viable candidates for a list of generally 10 to 15. If you think the complaints on this list are bad, wait til you open a pandora’s box like ‘Only 10 people from Math And Science.’
I won’t argue with particulars about the status of psychology but stop being prejudiced about psychiatrists. I am not ashamed to admit to visiting one when dealing with an exceptionally traumatic time two and a half years ago at the suggestion of my boss and with the expressed concern of my coworkers and friends and most importantly, a realization that I was mentally and physically in a bad place. I’ll be honest and say it didn’t help me; that everyone was shoving “help” down my throat when what I needed was time to regain my balance, process and cope, and eventually find what was left of the old me…but I am not discounting the possibility that perhaps other people DO need an objective listener and perhaps for them, seeing a psychiatrist DOES help.
All that said…I agree Archimedes laid a strong foundation upon which hundreds of future scientists would stand upon.
February 28th, 2009 at 1:50 am
i think edison should have been way higher on the list!
February 28th, 2009 at 2:08 am
blue-
seconding gabi, BIOLOGY -especially in it’s molecular biology and genetics manifestations- is a “hard science,” period. you prove that you know nothing about it if you consider it as “soft” as some social sciences. not that i have a thing against the social sciences, they just are forced to follow slightly different methods of accumulating knowledge, due to their subjects.
why don’t you go up to #77. cpena82 and then read our discussion about maths and physics in tandem with biology and geology, all the way trough to #102?
February 28th, 2009 at 2:11 am
i would trade everything that i have to be as smart as these guys.
great list
February 28th, 2009 at 2:36 am
Let’s also not forget that psychology is not entirely “soft”. It isn’t just theories about behavior, etc. Psychology studies the physical activity of the brain, brain morphology/histopathology in mental illness, etc. Psychology incorporates quite a bit of biology – a DEFINITE hard science.
February 28th, 2009 at 2:44 am
Io
Scientology absolutely not and it is just that sort of remark I expected on that comment which is concerned with science, psychology is for the defeated, the weak and deals with psuedo-intellectualism – I am sure that some of you have been helped by a trick cyclist, but before you let someone else inside to delve into your most complex internal organ, dont you actually think you should try and resolve your problems for yourselves? These people help you help yourself – cut out the middle man fairly simple really.
I am a geophysicist and I also have a doctorate in acturial science. Why would you think what I wrote was a scientology clue, did you ever consider it may be from personal experience? I guess not. I lived with the repurcussions of this so-called science for 30 years when a close family member was only made worse by the psychology community dealing with them. He tried to commit suicide at least 20 times and finally succeeded 2 years ago. This after becoming hooked on uppers and downers, having courses of electro-shock therapy and finally mind numbing suppressants. If I had to endure that crap then I would probably end my existence also.
This is my personal viewpoint, however it is backed up by facts and also by experience. No-one has told me to think these things as that would be brain washing, which again is psychological conditioning used to pray on the weak and feeble minded. I make up my own mind based on facts as I am a scientist and that is why I can rationalise against psychology and its earliest form – RELIGION. They are pretty much the same things, reliance on books and not facts, un-quantifiable in the extreme and basically if I went to a psychiatrist am I not placing FAITH in his/her abilities (this is not the same as going to a medical doctor who has the experience, experimentation and facts on his side)
So please be cautious in your assumptions, psychology is the study of a persons view on their “patient”, it cannot be subjective for the whole or even a partial view on humanity and especially for a complex organ like the brain, which we are in no way close to understanding, yet the psueds in the psychology community tell us that they can help. If they really could then they would not charge for the service and all your issues would be sorted out in a few minutes. Psychology is quackery and nothing more.
gabi319
That really is a point of view from the web, most scientists treat data and controlled testing as the only “hard science”. This is how scientists define “hard science”
Definition:
natural or physical science: a science such as physics, chemistry, geology or astronomy in which data can be precisely quantified and theories tested
The physics used to build the Hoover Dam is hard science. Engineering uses hard science. Computer technology uses hard science. Anything that is used in a factory to produce chemicals; dergent, soap, floor wax. etc uses hard science. The formulas and theories they use have been proven and they work. That is why string theory is not part of physics hard science, it may become so with the advent of the LHC but as yet it is unquantifiable.
Biology is not yet considered a hard science by the majority of the scientific community (obviously less the biologists) because it is a fairly young study area and life is surprisingly versatile and is therefore re-writing the biology handbook all the time, this is the same with evolution, just this week a fossil has been announced putting back the date of male to female fertilisation by at least 50m years. Quantifiable science is hard science, I dont wish to start an argument here with you but this is not a personal viewpoint it is the scientific community viewpoint.
February 28th, 2009 at 3:39 am
blue-
i thought your response was typical of a scientologist because it is part of their doctrine to distrust and berate psychiatry/psychology in all of its forms, and yours sounded like an indoctrinated hatred, devoid of logic.
i’m deeply sorry you lost a family member, but the simple fact that he wasn’t “cured” and was -in your observation- made worse by the psychiatric profession of at least 30 years ago (when his treatment began) does not mean that every aspect of psychiatry/psychology is forever and inescapably flawed. as hideous as it is to think about, he might have died sooner with no treatment. it is impossible to know.
i was born in 1980, i’ll turn 29 in 2 weeks and one day, so the psychiatry and psychology of my personal experience is bound to be different from what your family member experienced, due to time and knowledge gained in the field. i have known people in many different stages and forms of treatment for depression, bipolar, and borderline-personality disorders -including two who had voluntary elected to try electroshock treatment as recently as 2005 in a very good facility in chicago. -both were at least 40, and both felt nothing else had helped and they’d tried it all, so they wanted to try this last extreme measure -which is now rarely used and totally voluntary. both are still alive, getting by day to day.
again, i’m sorry on every level i can be that your family member is no longer with us. i have struggled with depression myself and i’m not saying this with anything other than respect, but it seems you lost someone you loved and are blaming psychiatry/psychology for the loss, for your pain. it failed to “fix” your loved one, so it must be a “discipline” of hacks and charlatans.
it is not very scientific to form an opinion of a whole discipline based on one horrid experience. i think your anger is clouding your view here, but remember that is only an opinion based on your internet comments. still, it’s what i see in the explanation you’ve presented.
and molecular biology is absolutely quantifiable. it is as “hard” as anything else you named, as quantifiable as the water rushing through the hoover dam.
again, it seems your opinions and emotions may be clouding your science when you look at it.
respectfully, LO
February 28th, 2009 at 4:35 am
I typed in that plant name and “Chile” and the first match was a paper written by two botanists named Heidi and Beryl. Which one of them is you?
February 28th, 2009 at 5:37 am
Lo
Maybe I should explain further my reasoning for my dislike of psychology and psychiatry. I am firmly coming from a scientific background with this not from an angered position although I could see how that would look. My problem stems from it being quantifiable. As I stated to be considered a real science the tests must be independently evaluated and you cannot do this for the whole of human society or indeed for any part of psychology as no-one knows the human brain or psyche.
Let me try a few examples so you fully understand my mindset. The teachings within these disciplines is based on just a few peoples viewpoints which have been expanded over time by various other individuals. They do not and cannot represent the vast majority of the human races psyche. Anthropology (unfairly stuck in the same social science category as psychology), on the other hand, is based on interactions and the study of groups of humans whether in control groups or via social interactions. The one thing that has come from these anthropological studies is that we, as the human race, are still social and tribal primates. This leads to the conclusion that we are not nearly as evolved as the psychologists would have us think.
I have researched this subject as a bit of a cathartic excercise given my own personal experiences, however I do not form the opinions due to anger only to the facts as they are presented. Humans are 3 square meals away from the stone age, no matter how much technology we have or how much we would like to consider ourselves evolved we are a tribal species and some of us are destined to be workers and others to be masters. This is not a rant against ideology it is just the way things are in the natural order, psychology and psychiatry have skewed that natural order by promoting the “we all have the respect of our peers” which is really what going to a therapist is all about (increasing ones own self respect and asking what is my place in the world and why am I not getting the job I deserve, etc) when in fact the actual human condition is the complete opposite.
We are a fairly new species on planet earth, however we do have roots that take us back to being a pod animal and hence some part of the human psyche is very clearly aimed at having a tribal order and knowing your place within that order. Hence why we have authority issues now.
Now let us take it to the extreme and say that all of psychology is wrong and that actually the human condition should be that of a serial killer or a dictator. We are only going by a set of laws that tells us this is wrong created by religion firstly to keep us in line and then added to by subsequent governments and law makers over centuries. What if this came about because the weak took over the world as there were more of them 10,000 years ago, then the whole of our indoctrination is wrong. The dictator could actually be the correct human position not the meek “what am I” in the world notion. Maybe the dictator would be more beneficial, contoversial for sure but only because you have been conditioned that way by society and psychology aimed at keeping the status quo.
Following a natural progression from this all of human history would have been built on a false premise which is why some people’s brains are hard wired wrong, they could in effect just be reverting to the norm, although psychiatry is telling us this is how we should be and this is normal. I firmly believe we are all individuals and we all have a different set of wiring in our brains and no matter what doctor tells us something else, it is actually the individual in us all that makes our species capable of surviving any potential cataclysm.
You only have to look at sports teams and their fans to see how terribly tribal and territorial we all are, add in protecting that tribe and you have the true human condition. Therefore no-one can say what the real human condition is ergo psychology is a pseudo-science that could be based on many falsehoods. This would make democracy and socialism irrelevant, it would bring us back to our tribal roots and maybe (this will be controversial) it will actually cull off irrelevant people. I shall explain that, I think psychiatry and psychology has come about because there are so many of us and we are all wondering what our place in the world actually is, I really dont think the human race should be 6billion people strong as this is putting pressure on our land usage, our personal psyches and therefore our modern world and contributing to the “evils” you see in everyday society. (Not blaming psychology for this – I think humans are just to damn resourceful and we have had to invent something to make us comfortable with our existence – which would be psychiatry etc)
What psychology has done is justified all of the above and our history to this point which could be based on nothing but a falsehood, there is no quantifiable proof that where we are now in evolutionary terms is what has been meant for us, maybe the meek did inherit the earth and actually the serial killer is the real human, who knows, one thing I am fairly confident of is that psycholigists certainly dont.
Now to end this in a quote “I think therefore I am”, wonderfully perceptive and if that does not tell you that you are unique and no-one should try and change the way your head is wired I dont know what will. And now an even better quote that really explains what I am sating here “there is no I in team (little voice from the back) no but there is a bloody me”
February 28th, 2009 at 6:10 am
I understand peoples frustrations about psychiatry. In my personal experience they listen briefly to patients, then throw the in vogue drugs at it. It didn’t work at all for me. Maybe I just had lazy doctors, maybe the whole system needs an overhaul in this country.
However it does seem to work for some people. Even if the success rate was only 10%, that is a lot better than nothing. If you had cancer and were given treatment with a 10% success rate, or certain death because no other treatment existed, what would you choose? No medical treatment has a 100% success rate.
There is no other way that even comes close to being a scientifically studied treatment.
February 28th, 2009 at 6:14 am
Lo
Ok so on with the science stuff. Molecular biology is really a branch of chemistry, which obviously is a hard science. It is concentrated primarily on the gentics and biochemistry arenas, so technicaly you are correct but only because it is concerned with chemistry.
I went back over your comments as suggested and again I have to clarify something regarding your statement on whether quantum physics is more important that plate tectonics. (Forgive me this is a subject close to my heart)
Quantum physics is as yet unquantifiable so it cannot be held in the same estem as plate tectonics where we have vulcanism, moutain building, sedimentaion folding, subduction zones etc which can all be monitored and visibly seen to interact with each other. Quantum physics is still in its infancy and along with the whole string theory is, in my opinion, a dead end towards a unified theory. These are postulations and while they may come true as yet they are not testable and therefore quantifiable. That is not to say you should hold them in the same regard as psychology
February 28th, 2009 at 7:40 am
Just some physics jokes to lighten this up as I seem to have been writing for half the day:
A neutron walked into a bar and asked, “How much for a drink?” The bartender replied, “For you, no charge.”
The Heineken Uncertainty Principle says “You can never be sure how many beers you had last night.”
Anything that doesn’t matter has no mass.
Werner Heisenberg and Rene Descartes are sitting at the bar. The bartender asks if they want another round. Descartes says, “I think not” and POOF he vanishes. The bartender turns to Heisenberg and says, “Oh my God, did you see that!?” Heisenberg says, “I can’t be certain.”
Wanted
$10,000 reward.
Schroedinger’s Cat.
Dead or Alive
and finally just for Lo
Don’t LOOK at anything in a physics lab.
Don’t TASTE anything in a chemistry lab.
Don’t SMELL anything in a biology lab.
Don’t TOUCH anything in a medical lab.
and, most importantly:
Don’t LISTEN to anything in a philosophy department.
February 28th, 2009 at 8:10 am
Blue-
There is obviously a personal bias against psychology. Would you like to talk about it? I am familiar with Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (and we can escalate it to Rational Emotive Therapy if needed). I see several cognitive distortions in your thinking—let me know.
February 28th, 2009 at 8:36 am
Schizotypical:
Many thanks for the offer but as a rationalist all it would do talking to me is to screw you up
Oh and by the way I used to be Schizophrenic but we are all ok now thanks for asking
Seriously this is not a personal bias, there really is no merit in the subject at all and my cognitive powers are all in working order and are compeltely rational – it is this very essence I am talking about. There is no therapy from any and all discussions in this territory as that would mean it is therapuetic and as I stated previously, you would be helping me help myself so I will cut out the middle man and take care of my own nerosis.
But thanks for the concern
February 28th, 2009 at 10:33 am
Blue-
Even physicians have their own physicians; therapists have their own therapists; hair stylists even have their own hair stylist.
My point in saying this is that no matter how educated or knowledgeable or self-aware you may be, we all need help in some situations. Take depression for instance—success rates exceed 80%. That means, 4 out of 5 people who seek therapy for depression—from a psychologist or psychiatrist—successfully regain a balanced state of mind. The other 1 out of 5 that are unsuccessful may have bipolar disorder, cylcothymia, or major depressive disorder that is associated with a “cognitive triad” that keeps them in their negative paths.
You have claims that psychology and psychiatry are nothing but pseudoscientific bliss. I beg to differ. A pseudoscience would arrive at the above claims (i.e., the 80% success rate example) with methods that would fail to comprehensively analyze the data. In fact, if psychology/psychiatry was a pseudoscience then they would fail to uphold the scientific method in which to gather their data. As a pseudoscience, they may use the Freudian method that is confounded with confirmational biases and neglect unsupportive sets of data.
Instead, psychology/psychiatry upholds the scientific method within its realm of research. That is, researchers do appropriate background research on the topic (often called a lit. review—an exhaustive process), they formulate operational hypotheses based on the relevant question and lit. review, they test the hypotheses with experimental methods, they analyze the results and draw conclusions, and then their findings must be peer reviewed before they can be published in a peer reviewed journal.
So, taking again the success rate with depression, anecdotal evidence and testimonials weren’t used to collect data (such a practice that a many pseudosciences use). Instead, a control group of depressed individuals was in one condition (who received no therapy), while an experimental group with depressed individuals were given therapeutic interventions (e.g., shock therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, etc.). The success rate was then recorded for the experimental group and statistically compared to the control group. This is obviously a hypothetical example, not taken from a specific study but it emphasizes the scientific method that psychology/psychiatry upholds.
As a psychology major, I am astonished that someone could boldly say that psychology is a pseudoscience. Do a google search on FiLCHeRS and you will see the characteristics exhibited by pseudosciences. After that, read ANY research paper from a reputable peer reviewed journal (e.g., abnormal psychology, journal of psychiatry, etc.) and you will see that psychology does not fit.
A hard science? Hardly. A necessary and efficacious science? Definitely.
February 28th, 2009 at 10:36 am
Correction ***and you will see that psychology does not fit as a pseudoscience.
February 28th, 2009 at 10:39 am
astraya, (185)
“I typed in that plant name and “Chile” and the first match was a paper written by two botanists named Heidi and Beryl. Which one of them is you?”
Answer: Ourisia polyantha. Hahaha.
February 28th, 2009 at 11:41 am
i know everyone else has been saying this, but…
where in the world are watson, crick and franklin for DNA? I mentioned this last time. The entire field of biology hinges on their research. This is a HUGE omission. WTF?
February 28th, 2009 at 11:46 am
and as far as the other list of 10 coming soon… do you not this they deserve to at least be in the top 20? is the writer a physics worshiper?
February 28th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Blue,
Above all, thanks for your support concerning my ‘identity crisis’ vis-à-vis LV.
Next I would suggest that whether we are 6 people only, or 6 billion, our persisting primitive tribal and ‘animalistic’ instincts and our very recently developed cultural, specifically anthropic aspects will always be jostling uneasily with each other for reasons of evolution and survival. And to a degree that applies individually as well as collectively. The same constant, uneasy co-existence occurs in our attitude to individuality and group conformity, and for the same reasons. No other organism has the choice of living a survivable life which can be almost entirely individual and isolated (Daniel Defoe), or as near fully conformist as can be (say a Hitler Youth). You might say we can be the grasshopper OR the ant!
When we are in stable, peaceful circumstances, our sophisticated cultural abilities enable us to evolve rapidly
in a wide variety of spheres and directions, not least in science, technology, philosophy and the arts. Here we also display our maximum and truly remarkable diversity as a species, compared to any other on Earth, a diversity which at the extreme manifests itself as individuality. My wife and I are the only people of our 6 billion currently studying a quite large and important group of plants. I’m quite sure myself humanity shall never be in danger of becoming extinct through overspecialisation via evolution under normal conditions, as has been hinted at above. If anything our danger of extinction stems from the reverse. We are too successfully over-diversified for the good of our finite environment. It could absorb our technological and numerical impact better if we were the size of mice!
When faced by threat or disaster, whether by outside forces (‘nature’), or from other human groups, we need all those primitive tribal adhesive, leaderly and conformist instincts, to which must be added temporary willingness to self-sacrifice for the good of the species. Firstly, they are required to face and try to overcome the threat, and secondly for survivors to recover at a very basic, primitive level if the worst (local or general extinction) nearly comes to the worst. But once again we need our diversity and individual skills to get us out of trouble then as much as ever, even though the application tends to be more fundamental, urgent and desperate. Nothing illustrates all this better than warfare.
Despite everything, that great biological scientist (whether hard or soft, as the sexual saying goes!) and specialist in ant behaviour, Ed Wilson, has pointed out an important truth. It’s such a good parallel, I’ve probably cited it endlessly elsewhere in LV. Sorry! If we were our nearest biological cousin, chimpanzees, a vast, overall stable and co-operative metropolis such as New york would be utterly impossible. Ants, he pointed out, might construct its equivalent, but if humans in our present over-proximity were ants, we should all be at full-scale war between ourselves all the time, and constantly dying in great numbers as a result!
Of course the great expert on the popular publicising of all this sort of stuff was Desmond Morris, the twin brother of my daughter’s biology university tutor.
Like me, a great fan himself, I believe Desmond fairly recently published an analysis of soccer tribalism.
I have a few very subjective views on psychology, including from random, casual observations of comparrative human and animal behavious, which I wouldn’t dream of airing here. Suffice it to say that overall, judging from the bits that surface for popular consumption, it strikes me personally as being a singularly uneven discipline. Which is certainly not to dismiss the lot lock, stock and barrel out of hand. Then what do I know?
February 28th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Of course EdisonBasher is not my name, just wanted to get your attention. There are several so-called intellectuals posting negative comments here about Thomas Alva Edison. First, you have failed to do what Edison did perhaps more than anyone, research. You bash but provide no evidence.
Next, just because one conceptualizes an idea does not make an inventor. We are all born dreamers, few execute and follow through. Edison was an incredible inventor, he often further developed other’s ideas and completed the invention meaning sucessfully bringing the product to market and making money. Edison was a capitalist.
It is fun to see the many weak, unfulfilled engineers and scientists bash Edison for their own shortcomings. They always come out when you mention Edison, for he more than anyone forces one to say, “I could have done that”, but failed to do so for so many reasons. That is what makes Edison great. He did while others dreamed.
February 28th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
188. Blue (and whatever other posts)
I’m not trying to attack you – and with four or five people writing against you, it may feel like it is… This is just for clarification.
Your first post had lumped the entire field of biology altogether, so I approached it the same way. If we get technical, then I wholeheartedly agree that certain fields like evolutionary biology are soft sciences. Our viewpoints on fields like molecular biology (both agreeing it is a hard science) also differ. It is an interdisciplinary field that I believe has more leanings towards biology while biochemistry has more of an inclination to chemistry. Nit-picky, yes, but they focus on two different sides of the same problem.
And I wasn’t going to argue about psychology because my thought process runs not the same but along similar lines as yours (note my hesitation on recommending Kinsey on my earlier post). You expressed your scientific reasons quite eloquently and what actually I took offense to is declaring they are quacks which I am certain would never be considered anything more than a personal bias. Just as in any field, there are people who “work” in the field but actually put a bad name to it. However, by generalizing the entire field as a bunch of quacks, you are demeaning the efforts of the hundreds or however many who are actively striving to advance the field.
That was simply for clarification. I really haven’t stated anything new that would give grounds to continuing a debate or argument but perhaps in the future there’ll be something worth discussing because you really give good insight. I wish you well, sir/ma’am.
February 28th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
That’s silly. Life probably has no meaning, so everything Edison did is no better than what other people left at dreams, only that they didn’t waste their time and he did. Human actions only echo so far as human existence will stretch. After that, Edison is no different from a stillborn baby. =]
Lmao, to the rationalist, your principles of thought are respectable but how can you apply your notion to the real world? The world we live in is based on sensory perception, which is the fundamental aspect of experience. I’ve read Kant, so forgive me!! Our physical bodies must interact with the object in the real world before our minds can process the electric signals our brains received. I’m not going to attack empiricism because I want to upset you! But seriously, try to synthesize the principles a bit!! The human mind is no so basic as to reduce to one method of obtaining knowledge. Mind and body duality? If you are a Berkeley fan, ignore the whole post haha.
February 28th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Nietzsche,
Now get off the computer, take your medication and go back to your room. How many times do we have to tell you, you’re not Nietzsche?
February 28th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Blue, (183),
“Biology is not yet considered a hard science by the majority of the scientific community (obviously less the biologists) because it is a fairly young study area and life is surprisingly versatile and is therefore re-writing the biology handbook all the time, this is the same with evolution, just this week a fossil has been announced putting back the date of male to female fertilisation by at least 50m years. Quantifiable science is hard science, I dont wish to start an argument here with you but this is not a personal viewpoint it is the scientific community viewpoint.”
Note, I’m only essentially covering macrobiology here in any detail at all, which is hardly any. Someone with a knowledge of microbiology may wish to come and knock skittles of shit out of my assumptions. So:
Fair enough with the semantics. In which case to hell with psychology: biology, rather than being down-graded, then places the term “soft science” on a par with that of “hard science”. Unavoidably. How can you claim the study of all organic life, its development and origins, is a lesser discipline than that of inorganic phenomena? That would be patently absurd.
I haven’t considered the possibility seriously, but I suppose you might extract from biology and botany all the elements of chemistry and physics, place them in those disciplines, and say “what’s left is biology”. I imagine that would just about amount to the driving spark of life itself, plus behaviour and any other inconvenient variables, and little else. Well, the spark of life may be a very soft science indeed, but it’s perhaps the most important item of all! It certainly is for me, mateys.
Biology the youngest of the sciences? Surely that’s an unsupportable statement. It was studied by the Greeks along with the other sciences, and continued from there. It has carried on alongside the others up to the present. True it was handicapped by several major misunderstandings, such as the Doctrine of Signatures. But no more than flat earth and alchemy also needed to be swept away from the other sciences as our greater understanding grew. Nor does that deny early, isolated flashes of deep, predictive insight into biology, as with the other sciences.
As for importance as measured by application. Since when has pure science been rated by its applied contributions? These I have always understood to be a separate and side issue, however important to our civilisation. If not, let’s put the guy(s) who came up with the properties of plastics at number one, way above Einstein. Shall we begin to catalogue the applied contributions of biology to humanity? Or will these simply be challenged on the grounds that most of them could equally be attributed to chemistry, as per my previous para?
Biology REWRITTEN in modern times? I.e. major concepts found to be false and having to be re-examined, replaced or radically redefined? Can you supply a few examples? Your fossil is not one, unless you can tell us how it rocks a critical pre-existing concept. Piltdown Man was far more of a shake-up, but all sciences are vulnerable that kind of temporary buffoonery! The self-revealing of them by the discipline itself merely illuminates its strength and integrity. I can supply you with a genuine example outside of biology: plate tectonics. That was not accepted, let alone taught, when I was educated. Well, I shouldn’t have said outside biology either, since it has explained how closely similar, closely related organisms have come to exist in vastly discrete localities.
I would contend that the fundamental basics of biology have long been understood and accepted by its practitioners. It’s being added to and defined rather than being rewritten or re-defined. There is no disagreement on the principles of evolution, only on minor details. For example how to refer to or label the products of evolution, which is in essence a continuous, seamless process. That has whipped up bitter controversy between traditional taxonomists and modern sytematists, but not over the process and functioning of evolution itself.
My wife, who is a general scientist now specialising with me in taxonmic botany, agrees that there are fundamental differences in approaching, understanding and teaching a flexible, constantly mutating, interdependent and interacting system such as biology, compared with the inorganic sciences. Even so, physics is unable to predict the swirling movements of something as simple yet complex as a running stream. To that I would add that biology has always ‘suffered’, and still does, from being such a vast geographic patchwork of taxonomically teeming organisms, which we have only dented a bit by collection, description and cataloguing, let alone knowing well and studying. Despite that we do surely understand the basics of its ecosystems and systematic evolutionary relationships. We are not changing anything fundamental, merely adding more all the time and fine tuning. Wouldn’t the other two major sciences claim the same?
February 28th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
You know what I would love, to transport most of these men to present day, with all of our technology and knowledge, I’m sure that the majority of these men would have a hard time adjusting to current day society (as would most of those who lived over 100 years ago). I will go so far as to say that the afore mentioned men might not be so “unique” today.
February 28th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
203. EsBravo32
“You know what I would love, to transport most of these men to present day, with all of our technology and knowledge, I’m sure that the majority of these men would have a hard time adjusting to current day society (as would most of those who lived over 100 years ago). I will go so far as to say that the afore mentioned men might not be so “unique” today.”
I’ll challenge your assumption, given that we allow them to be transported here with reasonably young, flexible and open minds. Why? Because you can go into the few remaining wilds
on this Earth, find an uncontacted tribe and have it’s members driving cars and flying ‘planes in a short while. If they are intelligent, they will soon adapt to and pick up our modern ways as well. And they ain’t geniuses. I can give you an even more remarkable example. When one of Beethoven’s violin sonatas was due to be premiered, the soloist who had learned and practiced it fell ill at the last minute and was unable to appear. The only possible substitute to avoid cancelling was an African tribal nobleman who had come over to Europe and displayed a natural talent for the violin. He had never seen or heard the piece before. The score was placed before him and he sight-read it perfectly, giving its public premiere. So you still reckon humans aren’t adaptable across time, place and culture? Those scientists would have many advantages over those I’ve just cited.
I don’t have the slightest doubt though that we, from the present, would have much more of a job adjusting to living in the past.
February 28th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
200. Nietzsche: That’s silly. Life probably has no meaning…After that, Edison is no different from a stillborn baby. =]
****
I never thought I’d actually run into one, but I finally have; you, moron, are the perfect candidate for a post-term abortion.
February 28th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
edison stole other people’s work
February 28th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
203. EsBravo32
They would be unique in that they are adjusting to a completely unfamiliar culture. A fairer comparison would come about if you had them born roughly the same time as a modern scientist and provided them roughly the same opportunities for education, then saw which one would excel better at their field. Given their creative mindset in thinking ‘outside of the box’ and essentially creating something substantial in an unknown field, I think the scientists of the past would have no problem creating an impact in today’s world.
204. Anon – “…He had never seen or heard the piece before. The score was placed before him and he sight-read it perfectly, giving its public premiere.”
I’d never heard this story before!! I must find it! You see, I was humbly decent and egotistically one of the best flute players in the region in grade school (Flute players have notoriously huge egos). By 16, I was playing professionally. During our July 4th Independence Day concert, our solo oboist was nowhere to be found. Seconds before the concert started, the conductor decided to give me the oboe solo. I got about a third of the way through before the 16th and 32nd notes killed me. I wasn’t fired from my job but suffice to say I was not invited back for the upcoming season… We had one of two oboist there that day. I don’t see why they couldn’t give it to her…
February 28th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
gabi, (207),
You mean you played or had to try to play the oboe part on your flute? Or an oboe? That pathos-laden twin-reed beastie can be a brute to master, by all accounts. My Oz doctor flatmate in London had a yen to be an amateur oboist, which gives me a bit of ‘insider’ dope.
I must avoid careless use of the phrase ‘wind music’ here. Otherwise, as with the kitten on the boat, I may find myself as hapless straight feed rather than protagonist in the next Hilarious Comments list. So ‘those’ instruments are among my favourites (his, as well), not least when combined magically in harmoniemusik, or twining away together like clinging vines in some Bach cantata whose BVW number I despair of trying to remember.
Did that conductor have it in for you secretly, maybe?
February 28th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
C’mon Blue, I want to hear your rebuttles to our comments! Where’d you go?!
February 28th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
207. gabi319: My younger daughter is a flute player. She went to a Musical Performing Arts high school, was first chair in the city’s JR. Philharmonic, and majored in Music Performance in Uni. (well, she double majored, but flute was her “real” major. So I totally get what you mean about the *ego*. Drat, her entire high school and Uni dept. was one vast field of ego’s.
While in middle school she decided she wanted to take a 3rd instrument, (she was already a fantastic saxophonist…all sizes except soprano)and she chose oboe. I hired an Oboist (a player with the L.A. Phil) to give her lessons, and she tried, and tried, and tried. She did get better, she could have gotten good, but between the single reed sax and the double reed oboe and the hours of flute her lips would bleed.
I finally had to call a halt to the oboe, much to her relief.
February 28th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
208. Anon
It was oboe music played with my flute. They’re both treble C instruments so no mental transposing of music was required. I can’t even remember what the piece was but it was fairly new and pretty avant-garde so I’m hoping that the audience assumed the 4 bars of absolute silence and deer-in-the-headlights look in the middle of my all-too-long solo was a natural part of the progressive, new age style. I bet the conductor did have it out for me. Not only was there the other oboist but I was third of three flutes. Combined, the three of them had roughly 50 years of experience over me. I should have taken the immature route and screamed ‘AGEIST!’
210. segue
I was a committed flute and piccolo player with some smatterings of trumpet, bagpipes and a handful of piano pieces of strictly chopsticks level, the first two of which stopped when my flute instructor found out. She was adamant that I stop ruining my embouchure and attempt either oboe or bassoon if I really wanted to learn a new instrument as they wouldn’t interfere with flute technique. It was no hardship to give either up. By that point, years of catty flute players, flute player stage moms and elitist directors took their toll and I grew apathetic. When I pretty much phoned it in at an audition and got second chair, the first chair’s mom had the gall to brag about it to my face. At that point, I figured the reward was not worth the effort if I had to surround myself with these kinds of people.
It’s a good thing your daughter had a far more open-minded training! And despite what my flute instructor says, I still believe learning other instruments would enhance musical ability (and improve chances finding a music job!). Hopefully, I’ll get a chance listen to your daughter’s performance when she eventually has her solo concert at Carnegie or the Kennedy Center!
209. Schizotypical
Doubt he/she’ll come back. This hard/soft sciences bit I think was fairly new when I was in college. If it wasn’t then most people were pretty uncaring about unnecessary categorizing. The only places I’d ever heard about it was in the physics department (professors touted it so I suppose it made its rounds in the scientific community like he/she said) and from a small group of disgruntled geneticists-to-be (not the genetics profs; They didn’t give a flying fig) because the lack of quantifiable data in the fairly new branch of human genome mapping meant their ‘hard science’ status was changing to ’soft science.’ Regardless of the supposedly objective views backed by facts, it never sounded anything BUT subjective to me.
February 28th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
segue, (210),
Ah yes, your post takes me back to that London flat and my great Oz friend Rob, via tales of oboeists’ bleeding lips! (How can I avoid profane semantic ambiguity there? It would have been just as bad had I typed ‘bloody lips’!).
Totally irrelevant, but our landlord (Rob’s and mine) had a weasel-thin, useless handyman called Mister Adams. That worthy had a sort of reduced, breathy gasp of speech punctuated by racking coughs, due to his constant smoking. He would cut short words. Our joint sense of humour applied this to him, and we referred to him (privately) as Strad (or Stradivarius, for long) [from Mi(st'r ad)ams]. Eventually the impersonal cruelty of humour overcame our compassion and the poor guy became known as Strad The Inhaler! I believe I thought that one up, and shall doubrtless rot in hell as a consequence. Dr Rob smoked just as heavily, but was young …
February 28th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
gabi, (211),
I shall never be able to listen to (or look at images of) James Galway in the same light now!
March 1st, 2009 at 1:53 am
Ah right a thought contest, now that I am back from a heavy night of alcholic entertainment. As I live in Bangkok I am at least 12 hours ahead of America, forgive my tardiness.
193. Schizotypical
Within this post you have actually answered all of my points regarding the pseudo-scientific elements of your major. I like the way you have eloquently stated your arguments and it shows some real passion for your chosen subject.
Gabi I really dont understand your query, I am a he, I am an Oxford Blue hence the name and I put my opinion across and you all have still not answered any point at all to change my mind or my knowledge of this subject.
Anon, point taken, I am not belittling real science at all with my point on hard and soft science, all I am saying is that the newer areas of study are just that new (biology and evolutionary science are pretty much the same in my mind, I am sure you will disagree, hence why I use the word new), it will be some time before the theories are taken as fact, hence the reason they are not YET considered hard science. Again to Gabi, your point is showing your leaning towards your area of expertise and by saying a physics tutor has stated that is quite ignorant. I am a physicist but I also recognise that maths, astronomy and chemistry are hard sciences as while there is still huge amounts to learn in these areas, what we do know and can test is quantifiable and therefore not a theory anymore.
Right on to 193. Schizotypical
Firstly, your point on physicians needing physicians; what are you aiming at here? Thats like saying a monkey needs another monkey, is this just to put therapy into the same context as medicine? A beer deserves another beer – I shall go and get one.
Secondly your point on depression is built on statistics. Let me bring you in on a little understanding that all people including myself as an actuary have on statistics; 100% of them are wrong. Statistics is by its very nature a study of control groups and risk analysis. It cannot give you a view on the whole world, it can lead you to some conclusions but they are in no way fully supported. When I complete an insurance risk analysis I take a control group/system or culture and work out the LIKELIHOOD of it happening. You may say semantics but I can assure you this is not semantic it is how the control groups system works, by definition it is not fully quantifiable.
As for the depression itself; you state that the success rate is 80%, I beg to differ; firstly how do you know it has been a success? There could have been a change in personal circumstances that you are unaware of, they could just want to get away from the trick cyclist and tell you what you want to hear so they can get away, the subject could have another trick cyclist that they wish to meet because he/she has become fixated on therapy. Secondly, and most importantly, I believe the figure is 100% of depressives are given anti-depressants which set of drugs are only second to diabetes in terms of profit for the drug companies. Hold on a second does that mean that a chemical reaction is the reason for any success rate? And please do not say that groups have been given placebos, it is a well known medical fact that the brain compensates by producing chemical reactions to offset the placebo affect. You are doing yourself a disservice by stating “facts” that cant be.
It is unquantifiable what help you have given as you dont know what the root cause of the help or hinderance you have been and by definition you dont actually know if the problem actually exists. All you have is anecdotal evidence of the “normal” society – you cannot know if this is the norm, as I said we could all be killers instinctively and what you are doing is subverting our natural instincts.
I have stated this many times in previous posts, the whole of the psycho-analytical world could very well be based on falsehoods, it is very likely that certain traits appear, I am not arguing that. However the teachings in psychology are the reason we have the problems, before someone said you are depressed did they know? Ergo I have not got the job I want I must be depressed, I will go and see a psychiatrist, I am cured, still havent got the job I want or any further knowledge but someone listened. Go to a priest it will be cheaper and they will probably talk more sense as religion (I am an atheist) has good listeners so I have been told, apparently you can talk to Jesus and God at anytime as they are always there (always wandered about masturbation as a child, must be perverts
)- again you see what I am saying here, it really is a classic case of pseudo-science. You have to come up with better arguments than quoting statistics.
Thirdly and most importantly you have actually nailed on the head why this is a pseudo-science. You basically say that the whole psychology arm is an Hypothesis. Therefore your whole “science” is based on hypothetical research. Look up the word hypothetical. Regardless of the analysis that is taken and under what circumstances, what you are saying is; I dont really know what I am doing, I dont know if I will get any results, I may try this and that may work, I shall tell these people what I think they should think and then I will publish the results to the pseud community and if I use big enough words and phrases people will say, yes yes wish we had thought of that it must be true. Hypothetically speaking the speed of light is a spoon – get what I am saying here? I can measure the speed of light, I can measure chemical reactions, I can view these results and they are not via control groups they are fundemental results. Using a control group in psychology, the results could very well be skewed by locality and ethnicity. Again completely unquantifiable, it is the individual in us all that cannot be quantified.
As for your kind link on psuedo-science, I actually think that the term fits incredibly well for psychology in all its forms.
Now to alleviate the earnest approach, I do think psychology can help some people as I previously stated. These people are probably helped as they are ostracised one way or another from their tribe or from their societal position (lonely, sad, pathetic, different – whatever may be the root cause) so they need someone to listen to them and to take an interest in them. In the wild before the advent of civilisation and our current neurosis issues, brought about by having to live in much larger groups than our brains can cope with, they would have been eaten by a lion.
That is evolutionary psychology for you, natural selection working its magic on the weak, hence the reason the whole “science” of psychology is probably built on many falsehoods. Obviuosly I am being sarcastic but it gets my point across, successive civilisations have bred these genetic and cultural traits that you try and study, when really if we had remained in our natural state the vast majority of those traits would have been wiped out when you were booted out of the tribe. Completely unquantifiable by me as is the whole of the psychology arm of social science.
Gabi, of course this is subjective it is my point of view. But based on logical conclusions and experience.
Need another beer – reality is coming back
March 1st, 2009 at 4:48 am
Blue-
I am sorry that you do not place value on statistical analyses. I have taken several statistics classes and there are multiple regression analyses that are purely genius when wanting to implement a comparison between two or more sets of data.
Let’s forget the depression example—it’s too vague for you. Let’s introduce schizophrenia—the mental illness in which I have done the most research on (hence the name, Schizotypical). Also, I remember from your previous post that you said that you were once schizophrenic (did you mean DSM-IV-TR version of schizophrenia or the media-distorted “schizophrenia” that’s falsely considered “multiple personality disorder.”)
Schizophrenia is characterized by what are called “positive” and “negative” symptoms. The “positive” symptoms are associated with hallucinations (e.g., auditory, visual, olfactory), delusions, and/or racing thoughts. The “negative” symptoms are associated with social anhedonia or withdrawal, and lack of emotion). Additionally, a person suffering from schizophrenia is likely to have clouded cognitions—making thoughts difficult to organize (if you are interested in a personal account of what it’s like to live with schizophrenia, there’s an excellent book by Wendell Williamson called Nightmare: A Schizophrenia Narrative).
With this, we can place statistics on the back burner since you’re not a fan—after all, you may be a visual learner. If so, check THIS out. Let’s simply look at the prognosis of the typical schizophrenic patient. Schizophrenia is chronic mental illness. Such a mental illness is so severe and debilitating that it causes more than just a “reality that can be coped with by themselves and do not need help from a psychologist/psychiatrist or other mediator” as you say. It’s more than a collection of anecdotes that these people claim to have experienced hallucinations and other symptoms of schizophrenia. By the way, have you looked at that link yet? See the size different in the ventricular regions of each twin’s brain (i.e., the two black holes located in the fMRI scans)?
Such a mental illness is more severe than what you have (mis)categorized depression to be. It’s more than a person not meeting with societal standards and thus must have that dissonance resolved with a therapist. Its a terrible and unfortunate thought disorder that completely tears apart the lives in which it preys upon. Such a person with this disorder needs the assistance of a psychologist/psychiatrist to help them cope with their psychological problems. Yes, antipsychotic pharmacological methods are valuable in this treatment (e.g., risperdal, haldol), but as is needed the rehabilitation from a psychologist. Such rehabilitation may include reality orientation (i.e., how to decifer between hallucinations and reality), vocational rehabilitation (i.e., teaching them good work habits/skills), and independent life skills training.
So, for you, psychology is mere nothingness? Well if you develop schizophrenia (which is possible if you are between the ages of say 20 and 30), you will thank the psychologists for helping you orient yourself to reality rather than drown in the mass of auditory and visual hallucinations you would otherwise have. Oh, and here’s another video if you wonder what that’s like:
Schizophrenia sumulation video
In addition, you brought up the evolution of man’s civilization—
“In the wild before the advent of civilisation and our current neurosis issues, brought about by having to live in much larger groups than our brains can cope with, they would have been eaten by a lion.
That is evolutionary psychology for you, natural selection working its magic on the weak, hence the reason the whole “science” of psychology is probably built on many falsehoods.”
I get a sense that you are you a supporter of Galton’s theories of eugenics. If so, then that’s another philosophy that I would like to debate with you as well.
March 1st, 2009 at 9:43 am
Blue,
Frankly, I don’t give a flying how we label different branches of science. Whether or not they are tumescent is pretty immaterial, so far as I can see. UNLESS the terms are being used to create league tables: Premier League: Hard Science. Second Division: Soft Science. Amateur No-hopers: Psedo-science.
So long as any great scientist who is influential, from any discipline, is up for impartial consideration on these lists, without regards to some view of whether his science is of more or less ‘importance’, I have no problem. I hope you agreed to that as far as biology, my particular arm. I leave others to fight their corners. From my point of view, I have no problem either in accepting biology, incuding botany, and evolution as part of the overall study of life. To which I would add the vital study of ecology as natural inter-relationships and ecosystems.
As a thought, I’d add that it is far more difficult to find prospective ‘giants’ in biology that from your ‘hard’ sciences for a very good reason. As I said earlier, biology is perforce very much a patient patchwork study on account of its massively diverse geographical, systematic and morphological diversity. There are few ‘Eureka!’ moments open to it. Aggregation is the name of the game. Aggregation to provide and prove those demanded ‘missing links’. Or to fight out via a mass of incoming evidence the fascinating premise as to whether dinosaurs were merely vast cold-blooded lizards, with crocodiles taken as remnant living analogies. Or whether they also included many warm-blooded precusors of birds, which had already begun to develop remarkable brain-size at the point of extinction. Therefore such individulistic ‘eureka-ish’ moments tend to be few and far-between, as well as late on the scene: principally Linnaeus (for his seminal break-through in the field of the long-established human capacity to label and relate organisms), Darwin (also standing for others who contributed towards the growing force favouring evolution), Mendel and the DNA bunch.
March 1st, 2009 at 9:54 am
All this has just reminded me of an exceedingly popular regular British TV programme.
A charismatic lady pet psychologist (I don’t think she called herself that) was the star. She had a powerful, dominant personality not unlike Mrs Thatcher, the ‘Iron Lady’.
Members of the public would bring along pets of all kinds (not sure if they included goldfish and invertebrates!) with personality disorders, chronic obsessive behavior patterns, depression, agression – you name it. And by golly, that lady cured ‘em. As I remember, she’d give the animals a few simple tests, state what the problem was, tell the owners how to treat it, how long ttreatment would take, and invite them to return. They would, however many programmes later, with completely cured and normal animals. I wish I could remember her name, as it was virtually household at the time, and would get incorporated into jokes about bad human behaviour.
March 1st, 2009 at 10:21 am
Blue:
“In the wild before the advent of civilisation and our current neurosis issues, brought about by having to live in much larger groups than our brains can cope with”
There is no proof of an innate solitary behavior. Anti-social tendencies are probably more prevalent now than in the past. Psychology tests have proven that primates are innately social creatures through unethical tests like Harlow’s rhesus monkey experimentation and even analysis of prisoners in mental confinement.
“…a physics tutor has stated that is quite ignorant”
I said I only heard it within the physics department which is true and unless you were my classmate in every single class, you have no way to refute this. None of my other departments (by the way my field was supposed to be biochemistry and the curriculum required a lot of classes in all three departments) never brought it up. It never seemed to phase my other professors who were more concerned about fitting an entire year of information into a single term than they were with unnecessary categorizing (words actually used by one of my chemistry professors). That bit to Schizotypical was never published fact but a personal anecdote. The “doesn’t sound anything but biased to me” should have clued you in that it was not an objective statement.
“Gabi I really dont understand your query, I am a he… you all have still not answered any point…”
There were no queries in my last post. They were clarifications on my standpoint without furthering an argument because it seems like we have a similar thought process even though we still come to a different conclusion. We’d be running around in pointless, frustrating circles so I left it for the rest of the posters to capably hash it out.
And further clarification in the last post directed to you was to point out where your name-calling showed a strong bias that actually weakens your credibility regardless of all the facts. Was the quacks, trick cyclists, etc. really necessary? As for the ‘he/she’ I wrote when I talked about you, I had no idea what your gender was and wasn’t going to make assumptions. Would you have had an issue if I called you ‘she’? Choose your words carefully or wisely keep that unanswered as my superpower is the ability to find the insult in even the most innocuous of statements.
March 1st, 2009 at 11:42 am
gabi (et al.),
Careful, well-written books for popular reading on field studies of the great apes can be extremely insightful into their solitary, familial and grouply tendencies and interactions. I have in mind John MacKinnon’s ‘In Search of The Red Ape’ as a particular personal favourite. The solitaries most often tend to be powerful but subdominant marginalised males. They are often prone to violent action, such as rape, which is undoubtedly not normal sexual behavious among these remarkably intelligent and essentially peaceful primates.
March 1st, 2009 at 12:10 pm
gabi-
“my superpower is the ability to find the insult in even the most innocuous of statements.”
what a vexing superpower!
March 1st, 2009 at 1:32 pm
gabi, (218),
“Would you have had an issue …”
There won’t be an issue so long as you’re nothing to do with Cambridge. Up the Light Blues! Hahaha.
March 1st, 2009 at 1:56 pm
220. lo
It is a wonderful superpower that fascinates even the most lingually advanced of thinkers. Why do you have a problem with vexation? You have an issue with difficult situations?! even though they present us with the opportunity to grow and learn from our mistakes, thereby making us better individuals?!!
You are a vexist, lo, and that is insulting to my welcoming and open-minded nature.
221. Anon
I was completely clueless about the Blue and Cambridge correlation until today. That is now my new Learned Fact of the Day which excuses me from thinking or learning for the rest of the day. Hooray!
March 1st, 2009 at 2:52 pm
gabi: “my superpower is the ability to find the insult in even the most innocuous of statements.”
****
My superpower is the complete inability to be bored.
March 1st, 2009 at 3:53 pm
gabi, (222),
I’m not typing a word …. D’Oh!
March 1st, 2009 at 4:47 pm
224. Anon – “D’Oh!”
D’Oh? Like dough? like Pillsbury Doughboy? so you are insinuating that I am short and fat and enjoy giggling when…hahaha ‘poked in the tummy’?!! …darn you and your dirty mind enabling abilities…
March 1st, 2009 at 5:25 pm
gabi,
You bet, baby. *Got it in one. Full marks to your insult instinct antennae.
I would have said *”Hole in one”, but you’d not have attributed that to my love of golf and admiration for the great Golden Bare, but to my dirty mind facility …
Check, Bear.
March 1st, 2009 at 6:57 pm
for the first time, i’ve learned i’m “a vexist,” and for the first time, i’m strangely happy about it!
my superpower is remembering random and trivial facts and anecdotes, sometimes better than i remember my own life.
March 1st, 2009 at 9:25 pm
227. lo: my superpower is remembering random and trivial facts and anecdotes, sometimes better than i remember my own life.
****
Now that’s one dynamite superpower! Think about all of the wonderful things you could do with it…novels, scripts, an entire writing career! Heck, I’m jealous, lo!
March 1st, 2009 at 11:37 pm
segue, (228),
“227. lo: my superpower is remembering random and trivial facts and anecdotes, sometimes better than i remember my own life.
****
Now that’s one dynamite superpower! Think about all of the wonderful things you could do with it…”
Like cleaning up on “Who Wants To Be A Millionaire!
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:30 am
215. Schizotypical
Firstly I am an actuary by training, the whole of the industry is based on statistical analysis. I place a great deal of faith in the training but as an Actuary I also understand that I am not fully quantifying the results all I am doing is giving a best guess at what will be the general outcome of one thing or another. This is not the same as using a fundemental approach.
I was, of course, being sarcastic with an old joke about Schizophrenia, however there is some reality in that quote as the help that they receive is generally medicinal and not psychological.
My point on all of this and your notions on the mental illness is where I actually have the problem. This will sound extreme but it is just to prove my point and nothing more, what if Schizophrenia is the next step in human evolution and nothing more than that? You are therefore treating something that could very well benefit mankind but by someone saying that is not normal you may actually be doing a disservice to the whole human race due to the societal and civilised perspective on that illness. You cant quantify if it is a problem or not, therefore it may not actually be a mental illness, it may just be an intrinsic genetic deviation that could ultimately help mankind.
As for your link to the hallucinatory effects, how on earth can anyone know that is what is happening? You cannot check (you can take a best guess only) that this is what is happening to the optical nerves or the brainwaves inside a persons brain, again it is totally unquantifiable. As for the rehabilitaion, there are several well known cases of Schizophrenics reentering society and killing other human beings, then the question is do you actually know what you are doing and the answer is obviously that you dont therefore you are telling us one thing but your results are showing another. This is classic psuedo-science, what may work for the majority is not enough, you have to make it work for everyone and then it can be quantified and considered scientific, at this moment in time it really isnt.
Supposition is all that psychology, psychiatry and psycho-analytical research has, it is a best guess “science”. While all science has stemmed from philosophical musings, it is very hard to justify any research in psychology. The very reason this “science” was “invented” was because the real science areas had all but been explored according to the thinking at the time and we turned an inward looking nature at our place in society.
The problem is that we are still at heart a tribal primate species and the issues that are being looked at in the study areas stem, not from nature but from nurture and this is a real problem as our nature is so far removed from our societal underpinnings that we have had to “invent” a science to deal with our problems.
The fact is being so successful has led us to live in vastly larger groups with more individuals which is putting pressure on our natural instincts and creating these issues. As I stated, even 5,000 years ago anyone with symptoms of this nature would have been treated by either being kicked out of the village or sacrificed. This is not eugenics, this is natural order, I see why you would think that I have a eugenics slant but that could not be futher from the truth, this again would be to work on a premise that cannot be tested or quantified.
My issues stem from the fact that we have had to invent something like psychology to determine what place some people have in the world, I do not doubt for a second that this can help some people, but to my mind those people are in need or a natural readjustment and not psychology. I really think that through this and various other social philosophies we are giving people too much credence in their societal position, not everyone is intelligent, not everyone is liked and not everyone can be who they want to be or feel they should be. This is the root cause of most of the problems associated with psychology and again I refer you back to my previous comments, most if not all of the treatments for these disorders are chemically treated or enhanced and are therefore subverting the natural chemical areas of your brain, you have no idea if this is the correct thing to do as all you are doing is switching off certain areas which could be more detrimental in the longer term.
Measure this with other areas of medicine that have proven to be detrimental. I have personally contracted MRSA whilst in hospital 10 years ago, the cocktail of drugs they gave me they had no idea would work all because subsequent genetic deviations (evolution) in the bacteria due to increased use of anti-biotics made the strain almost untreatable. We are meddling with natural order again and it is not just in your area of expertise. I am not proposing we stop this meddling all I am saying is that you must quantify your research and as yet psychology really cannot.
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:52 am
*Looks up at the rest of the comments* I feel really outclassed as a high school student that’s failing physics right now. XD
I’m not gonna lie, I’ve been more entertained by the comments than by the actual list. I like the controversy and the fact that there are still some people left in the world that can argue without pointing and calling names. ^-^
March 2nd, 2009 at 1:33 am
Anon
Just to clarify, I played in the Varsity Matches of 1988, 1989 and 1990. I received my Full Blue in 1988
We won the 88 game, lost the 89 game and won the 90 game. In 88 we were captained by a great man Mr David Kirk who had given up his international rugby career as the All Blacks Captain to take up a Rhodes Scholarship. Fantastic human being.
There is quite a strong tradition in the Swansea and Neath Rugby Football Clubs (now combined as the Ospreys) in providing Oxford and Cambridge with rugby players. Neath RFC currently have David Evans, a young very talented football player, in the Oxford Varsity Team and I fully expect him to play for the full Wales side within the next 18 months.
Havent been to Vincents Club for a few years but will be going back in April so will have a sparkling wine or two.
March 2nd, 2009 at 1:38 am
230. Mortivore
no worries…I despised high school physics. Are you familiar with Ben Stine’s character in Ferris Beuller’s Day Off? That was what my physics teacher was like, except he preferred tan turtlenecks. Never saw him in anything else. The days when the classroom was chilly were the worst…
and we’re still immature enough to stoop to name calling! If you recall, I called lo a vexist. She was so shocked by the blatant attack on her character and had no way to deny those facts so she was left with no recourse but to accept it graciously with a smile.
And lo, if you dare attempt a rebuttal, I demand irrefutable evidence! I demand that you cite your sources!
…MLA format would be much appreciated…thanks!
March 2nd, 2009 at 1:49 am
btw, Blue 230’s by far your most eloquent post. Nicely put.
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:10 am
David Kirk recently became an Australian citizen, as all sensible New Zealanders do eventually.
March 2nd, 2009 at 3:26 am
Gabi; thank you, I really do have a bee in my bonnet I admit but sometimes I can be lucid.
Astraya: I really didnt know that, I thought that an Australian with a brain was a New Zealander
March 2nd, 2009 at 3:32 am
Blue: No, an Australian that has had sexual relations with a sheep is a New Zealender
March 2nd, 2009 at 3:35 am
Mark 237: Ha very funny, I refer you to a website we messed around with a few years ago http://www.adultsheepfinder.com
March 2nd, 2009 at 3:39 am
Blue: Aww, why do you give me these links while I’m at boarding school. It’s blocked on the school internet unfortunately
I’ll check it out when I get a chance though. Thanks anyway
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:59 am
Blue-
I see your philosophies, but I do think you are going to extremes to make your argument. In fact, I think you’ve used a notion that is so far fetched that you selfishly distorted reality to make your point. Specifically, schizophrenia is not potentially “the future path of the human race that is held back by treatments.” This is because a collective sense of reality cannot be achieved by such people. Thus, if it were to be the dominant product of our brains in the future, our existence would be chaotic and unorganized beyond what’s imaginable. Actually, the most common death for our race would then be death by another human due to paranoid attacks rather than cardiovascular problems. Disturbingly, this notion that you bring up is similar to us living as zombies in the future—not cool Blue.
Yes, you may argue that an individual with schizophrenia experiences a “reality” that is real to that person. But this is philosophical nonsense…some existentialist notion that gets us nowhere.
Anyways, here are some truths about the human race:
1) We are not going to digress into a primitive being that would allow the “weak” to be fed to the “strong.” So making arguments about “what would happen 5,000 years ago” is irrelevant. Advancements in medicinal sciences (i.e., cures for illnesses and other efficacious treatments) will be the only path in which we will defeat the genetic anomolies that plague the human race. As a whole, natural selection will not rid ourselves of, say, diabetes. Those with diabetes can live somewhat normal lives and have children who also may have diabetes.
2) We are going to empathize with those who are struggling with a major mental illness such as schizophrenia and try to alleviate their struggles that they experience.
Some fallacies with your argument (beyond what has already been stated):
1) Every one knows of “a person who…” This is called “a person who fallacy” because someone will negate all of the evidence (i.e., success with treating schizophrenia) with a single or a few instances that are not the norm. Specifically, your statement that you know of a person who or people who have been stabilized and went back out into society to kill others. Of course, but is you are wise as you say you are in statistics, then you know that this is called an outlier.
2) Your assumption that evolution mean progress is absurd. If you think that we are intervening in our evolution by offering interventions to our illnesses, then you most obviously think that we would evolve into a greater being if we would simply stop intervening in our own fate. This is a joke, right? Evolution is not progress. It’s simple: evolution is the changes that must take place in a species to ensure its survival.
Blue, I will tell you now—my interest in debating with you has been squashed by your “no holds bar” approach to argumentation—you take angles that are illogical and irrational. Your inaccuracies are a disgrace. I genuinely think that you need to educate yourself, THEN come back and we’ll debate.
March 2nd, 2009 at 8:30 am
gabi319- Never seen it, much to my girlfriend’s despair. She absolutely loves that movie, and keeps trying to get me to watch it, but we can never seem to find the time. ^.^”
March 2nd, 2009 at 9:07 am
Blue, (230),
“As I stated, even 5,000 years ago anyone with symptoms of this nature would have been treated by either being kicked out of the village or sacrificed.”
Are you an anthopologist? Are you able to support that statement with citations or a note of your relevant studies?
My knowledge of small animal groups, such as humans would have been in early days, tells me that numbers per se are terribly important to them. A first assessment by enemies of any kind is likely to be a visual ‘how many are we up against’. Hunting prey also becomes more efficient with a larger team. Female numbers would be critical for maintaining group reproduction. Wild dogs go to a lot of trouble caring for their sick and injured for these reasons. Logic therefore tells me that unless any individual represented an actual danger by his or her behaviour, he or she would be tolerated. Perhaps that’s how the ‘village idiot’ developed. I’ve noticed that a strong challenge for leadership seems to be one of the greatest threats to such groups, and the loser will usually be expelled from the group to be eliminated by nature, become an anti-social loner, or be incorporated in another group (increases genetic diversity).
March 2nd, 2009 at 9:17 am
Blue (232),
Thanks for the interesting info. I’m more of a soccer man myself (used to be considered very plebian beside ‘wuggah’ when I was a kid – no longer). But I did play the handling game, was actually better at it(!) and enjoy watching. There are several rugby afficionados in LV, including Welsh, and your pedestalling of a NZ player will gain you ‘bluey’ points in this NZ site frequented by several NZ fanatics. Have you visited the specific recent rugby topic?
March 2nd, 2009 at 9:34 am
BTW, Blue,
You’d want to keep all 15 players on the field, whatever their condition, provided no one was buggering up the play, yes? Even more critical for sevens. On the other hand, one more or less in the Eton Wall Game would scarcely matter.
I suspect our present extreme compassion, including maintaining people alive for years in coma, owes as much to this inbuilt numerical imperative of our ancestral way of life as it does to the teachings of communication gurus such as Jesus, or the Hippocratic oath.
March 2nd, 2009 at 9:45 am
Mark, (237),
“Blue: No, an Australian that has had sexual relations with a sheep is a New Zealender.”
In my naïve innoncence, I’ve been led to believe that people known as sheep-shaggers are all to be found on the Falklands. However, the locals claim otherwise. They say that only if their islands are taken over by those invaders who wish to rename them the Malvinas will this be true.
March 2nd, 2009 at 10:06 am
230. Blue-
i also take issue with your assessment:
“even 5,000 years ago anyone with symptoms of this nature would have been treated by either being kicked out of the village or sacrificed.”
this is not known to be true, can you name an anthropological/archeological (an anthropological sub-discipline) study that supports this?
it is suspected that in most cases, our ancestors of the last 10,000 years -(or much more, we know our fully modern species has been around at least 200,000 years, but our data for their lifestyle only goes back maybe 15,000)- cared for “abnormal” individuals in the group. one of the biological facts often given to support this is that nearsightedness has not been genetically eliminated -in a population surviving both by hunting and by avoiding animals/human enemies seeking to kill its members near-sighted individuals would starve/end up easy prey unless they were being fed and protected by the group as a whole. perhaps this was in exchange for their ability to do very fine work in food processing, sewing, arts, etc. close up (the malformation of the shape of the eye allows it to focus better at extreme close distances by the same measure that it lacks ability to focus at far distances). or maybe because they just cared about their family/group members and didn’t want them to die.
in the case of “madness” some of it may have led to behaviors that some groups might deem worthy of “banishing,” but many more may have seen it as a mark of prophesy or divine inspiration. unless you can support your banish/sacrifice idea how do you know it’s true?
and pulling this idea of yours into modern times as:
“those people are in need of a natural readjustment and not psychology”
-means what, exactly? that people like your family member should be put on the streets (if they can’t hold a job/pay their way) and let nature take its course?
are you aware that some homeless people in the states are actually in this exact situation? and most don’t quickly starve or freeze to death, but descend into deeper madness as they become more and more alienated from others and from normal socialized life, staying alive and living a more wretched life every day -how does this help anything or anyone? does it help the individual or help their society as a whole? even if psychology and psychiatric medicine is flawed and imperfect isn’t it better than this?
for people like your family member -or myself- what should be done? shall we assist them in suicide? shall we say just try to act normally -without any initial help or therapy -or end up on the streets? shall we try to help them as best we can with psychology/psychiatry? or do you know of a different option entirely? if you do, please share it.
March 2nd, 2009 at 10:28 am
Further to my 242.
I imagine that early Homo sapiens groups would view at least some of those conditions we now consider as needing psychological help quite differently from one of their own who had both legs hacked off, or the birth of Siamese twins. They might have every hope that the likes of depression would be temporary, and disperse of their own account, as indeed they often do. Attempting to augment that process in our modern civilisation does not seem unreasonable to me. Disfunctional members of society are costly, given that we no longer even have the option of ‘liquidating’ them. Besides, I’d far rather every effort was made to try to cure such as a fine scientist or artist with much to offer us all, than they were merely left to commit futile suicide.
March 2nd, 2009 at 10:37 am
I really cannot understand how Darwin is on this list when Mendel isnt. Mendelian genetics is what makes darwinism powerful…Mendel deserves a place alongside Darwin as the forefather of modern genetics.
March 2nd, 2009 at 10:45 am
lo, (246),
A friend of ours has a saying, “Too true, blue.” Hahaha.
“it is suspected that in most cases, our ancestors of the last 10,000 years -(or much more, we know our fully modern species has been around at least 200,000 years, but our data for their lifestyle only goes back maybe 15,000)- cared for “abnormal” individuals in the group. one of the biological facts often given to support this is that nearsightedness has not been genetically eliminated -in a population surviving both by hunting and by avoiding animals/human enemies seeking to kill its members near-sighted individuals would starve/end up easy prey unless they were being fed and protected by the group as a whole. perhaps this was in exchange for their ability to do very fine work in food processing, sewing, arts, etc. close up (the malformation of the shape of the eye allows it to focus better at extreme close distances by the same measure that it lacks ability to focus at far distances).”
And am I grateful to those ancestral groups to be given the chance to be here! I try to repay by being able to examine submicroscopic botanical minutiae in the field (or anywhere) without the aid of a glass, or by augmenting the existing magnification of any glass. That’s without specs, or later, contacts. For decades now I’ve managed with the left eye in its natural condition and the right with a contact which adjusts it to ‘normal’ vision. Distance judgement is no problem whatever given both eyes are open. Recently I had a cataract op. on that right eye, and the surgeon inserted a lens. Fantastic! He agrees with my philosophy, and will insert a lens to maintain my myopia as far as possible in the left eye when that is operated on, so I can retain my useful ‘ambidextrous’ vision!
March 2nd, 2009 at 10:50 am
248. cymraegbachgen87
“I really cannot understand how Darwin is on this list when Mendel isnt. Mendelian genetics is what makes darwinism powerful…Mendel deserves a place alongside Darwin as the forefather of modern genetics.”
Entirely and totally agree, but am pretty sure I do get the variety of complex reasons why. Not going to add to my reputation as a long-winded, boring old fart by reciting them here though!
March 2nd, 2009 at 10:56 am
Anon! You are not old!
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:06 am
250. Anon
Long winded and a fart? Or is the acts of long windedness and farting? Either way, you are an extremely talented man. haha…my penchant for immaturity is showing. You said fart and I couldn’t pass up the opportunity for a fart joke.
Funny how earlier I was debating the issues and now I’m resorting to mild comic relief…
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:45 am
Lo
I am not suggesting we do nothing, all I am saying is that the research is absolutely flawed, you actually state exactly this in your post back to me, you say suspected, this is another unquantifiable.
I do not have the answer, I think that is plain from my posts all I am saying is that most of the so-called problems are being generated by our current societal circumstances and a few peoples interpretations of those societal issues. There is some merit in a lot of the medical research that has gone on but this in no way reflects of the psycho-analytical aspect of that research. I have stated many times that some people are certainly helped by listening to their issues and helping them resolve them, surely you can see that as a species we have always had this in our psyche, hence this debate, which is ideological and philosophically diametrically opposed. This is why we can come to conclusive proof of things, my point is that psychology by its very nature is a flawed science as it is a best case fits scenario, in which we do not have a full understanding of what really are the problems or even if there are any problems. I took an extreme example and that has not been answered back by the posts, this is because I made a valid and crucial point, no-one knows or even has the right to tell us what is normal.
As for your post regarding homeless people, I think this is another societal issue that has not been addressed purely and simply because of various social policies. It is my understanding from certain control groups I have seen in this area, that quite a few homeless people are war veterans of one sort or another. That would lead me to believe that the main cause of their inability to interact is through the actual madness they have seen on behalf of our civilised society.
I do also think that social policy has alienated a lot of these homeless people it would be an idea to look at the societal issues that cause homelessness, and by societal I mean the root cause such as capitalism and socialism. As I stated not everyone is destined for greatness, some react with a combined shrug of the shoulders and let the status quo go on and others react by different means. I fully agree that humans need social contact, I have stated this all along, people alienated by society and their tribe will, of course, react differently.
So what would you do? Would you give up a further 25% of your net income to the taxman to house and create a benefical existence for these individuals? That would seem to be the fairest option dont you think? Then they would not be alientaed from social interaction and we can all live happily ever after.
I like your point about prophecy, that actually makes a lot of sense. I will take it to a logical conclusion, if you dont mind that is? Prophecy and religion, if you like, is another invention of the human psyche, however I firmly believe that if the chief/priest or a person in a position of power within the tribe has these prophecies then in all likelihood the person is not mad but anointed. Now if it was Billy-no-mates having the prophecy he is on the stake, Joan of Arc anyone.
Your point on caring for the abnormal individuals is noted, however I should point out that there are a lot more skulls with holes shaped like big cat teeth marks in them. You see before we grouped together we were prey, some people still are unfortunately which is why we have to have social care (well at least we have in most of Europe). Also I should point out that 75,000 years ago the Supervolcano under Lake Tambora in Indonesia erupted and killed nearly the whole of humankind as it existed, social care could have stemmed from this when there were few individuals and so protectionism of our species could have been a survival trait not a social trait.
240. Schizotypical
I really have little wonder that you would not like the debate, I did say it was an extreme view used to demonstrate my point of view, however you name calling of irrational and illogical only make you out to be at a loss to debate the fundamental issues within your “science”. You have not come back with anything other than mediocre responses that I would have thought better of if you had demonstrated your ability to expound on those repasts.
Cardio-vascular disease is indeed a large killer of humans, however it is a fairly common disease now within humans given our ease of cultivation of sugar, our rampant consumerism, our cultivation of the tobacco plant etc. I will pose this question for you: only in the last 8,000 years or so have we had the ability to produce dairy products, cultivate highly successfully and provide new and interesting tastes through our ever expanding pallette and cooking skills, our diet is the root cause here hence why some people are lactose intolerant and that the health industry is currently coping with huge increases in heart disease, do you think it is a conincidence that we have had a steadily rising death rate since this or do you think that this is because we have learnt to keep more people alive through medicinal research? I am not saying let these people die here at all I am making a point against your rant.
I never stated evolution makes progress, however I do think as a species we are probably close to being at a pinnacle point and technology and research are our only evolutionary tools to allow us to live on as a race. The great Carl Sagan wrote that any technological society will either be destroyed by their advances or will revert to a feudal system, this is why we have not had any contact from an alien species that is capable of reaching us. (Forgetting the whole energy equations etc, realistically we should of at least heard some radio chatter)
I made the point regarding Schizophrenia as it is a fairly well known statistic. You are actually being paranoid here in its defense, look at the relationships between your thought process and your name calling. I made an extreme point of which I am aware it was an extreme, you are being just as extreme in your defense, although I understand this as it is a subject close to your heart.
Also you are using psychological phraseology to defend your position, something I am completely aware of having debated this subject for years. Giving something a name makes it powerful eh?
Anon
Now you are seeing my point of view with your post on excising the village idiot/alpha male, etc. Diversity is what I am ranting about, I really feel that psychology and psychiatry are highly detrimental to this process by stating what the norm is. And I suppose that is my biggest issue, individuality is probably the greatest evolutionary tool at our disposal and (if I am brutally honest in my personal assessment of evolution as a whole) it is individuality that breeds new traits into species, whether by thought processes or genetic processes. This is really what I am getting at with my posts, it is this individuality that is being subverted by labelling. The power of names again.
As a rationalist and a realist, I must stress that I do not have the answers. What I do see is neither does psychology.
Right I am off to shout at some creationists and religious zealots
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:05 pm
251. cymraegbachgen87
“Anon! You are not old!”
My only true thing spoken in jest. Would it were not so, and the literal and figurative flatulence aspects were not the only jest things spoken in truth!
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:21 pm
161. cpena82
“there are ways to get around the laws of physics… like ripping the fabric of space-time.. worm holes.. warping space in various ways… sure we dont know how to do that now.. that doesnt mean that we wont know how to do that in the future…”
SEE MY POST 220 UNDER
Top 10 Most Famous UFO Hoaxes
lazy – not going to repeat it – it’s all there.
thanks
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:23 pm
blue-
it should be noted that i’ve not been one of the people trying to convince you that psychology was, strictly speaking, a science.
i have just been trying to convince you that it has merit, even if it isn’t a science and our understanding of the human mind remains far from perfect -our understanding of most things in our world, as i’m sure your actuary and geophysicist training reminds you, is far from perfect.
i guess it offended me to hear all your “trick-cyclists” and “hacks” sprinkling your views on psychology/psychiatry. for as many people in its history who made mistakes, or even who were motivated by something other than knowledge or helping their fellow human beings, many have sought and still seek to be as logical and scientific in their studies as the vagaries of the human mind allows.
just because something isn’t as exact as mathematics does not mean there are no generally true conclusions we can draw about it and must throw up our hands and cry.
and i agree with you that no one and no discipline should try to force all others to be “normal” i wouldn’t trade all the poets and artists and, yes, some scientists so afflicted in history for a bunch of “normal” people. but, from my own experience, if i could find a way to let them be themselves -manias and melancholies included- yet give them some tiny degree of control over it, enough to keep them from killing themselves or drinking themselves to death, i would.
you should read Kay Redfield Jamison’s Touched with Fire: Manic-Depressive Illness and the Artistic Temperament even though she’s a psychologist. perhaps also her memoir An Unquiet Mind. she is perhaps the foremost expert on bipolar disorder, she literally wrote the textbook on it Manic-Depressive Illness (w/Frederick K. Goodwin) -and she happens to have it, as well.
give the zealots hell from me
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Oh yeah, the “half-ass” comment was a complement to the people who post here, perhaps it’s used in a different sense locally.
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Blue,
If we cannot differentiate between our mentally disturbed and characteristics of individualism which will serve us to evolve, then I fear we have little or no hope of evolution.
An animal paces up and down endleesly in its cage, and gnaws the fur and skin off its own arse, and howls for hours on end. We don’t attribute this to some function that may be useful for the future evolution of its species. We recognise it as the stress of being caged and taunted.
“Now you are seeing my point of view with your post on excising the village idiot/alpha male”
I don’t think so. A village idiot may make apparently savant sayings or jokes, but these are, I suspect, more like faces in the fire. Things others see and appreciate, more than intentions. A beaten beta male is simply part of the scheme of many things. It may or may not lead to other positive developments, like any other natural phenomenon. There is nothing socially abnormal about it either.
I will concede that people of extreme genius, at the cutting edge of technology and art, are often confused with the genuinely mentally deranged: ( e.g. the ‘mad’ professor/scientist/inventor, viz. Eistein’s appearance: or Beethoven’s quartets called the ravings of a lunatic by inferior fellow musicians: or the same composer being mocked in the street by mobs of small boys for his unkempt appearance: or the bullying of so-called *nerds). However, the fault there, lies in ourselves, my dear Brutus, and our inability to differentiate the worthwhile new or different advance from incoherent raving or mental illness.
*Help!
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Lo
I shall attempt to find those books by Jamison, afterall you can never have enough knowledge – even if it is to dispute the findings. Thanks for the suggestions.
Was the last point a pun? If I could give them hell that would only reinforce their belief systems
Tell you what lets compromise, I will give them a heck of a hard time in an atheistic way that shows them the error of their ways.
I have a little story on this front for you. My university roommate, who was Welsh just like me, had less tolerance for religion than I have (I dont have any). It was the one thing we never debated as we quickly found out we saw eye-to-eye on the subject. Anyway, we used to get a lot of Jehovahs Witnesses coming around the halls and the local area when I was in college and for some unknown reason I always seemed to be the one to get them. Of course, as is my penchant, I would argue with them on the doorstep about the error of their ways, until one afternoon when my roommate showed up. They asked him would he be interested in the Watchtower or in any of their discussion groups. He turned around to them, pulled his t-shirt off to show a tribal tattoo he had on his shoulder and said
“not really, you see I am a druid, tomorrow night we are off to the Abingdon Road to sacrifice the first Jehovahs Witness we can find under the Chertsey Oak, then I am going to desecrate the corpse and after that I am going to find an animal to sacrifice in your honour. We hope this will bring us good luck from the tree spirits in the Quadrangle”. And he walked back inside leaving me to stifle my laughter.
Never heard from them again, however we did get a few visits from the police but it was totally worth it
March 2nd, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Anon
Ha, help indeed
Nerds need to be bullied how else will they know their place. We all know it isnt the meek that will take over, stop them now I say
I always thought of myself as a nerd and a geek, but then genetics kicked in and made me 6′4 and 16 stone. Meek really isnt in my genes.
March 2nd, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Anon
I have to point this out sorry:
“An animal paces up and down endleesly in its cage, and gnaws the fur and skin off its own arse, and howls for hours on end. We don’t attribute this to some function that may be useful for the future evolution of its species. We recognise it as the stress of being caged and taunted”.
Sort of like a mental institution then really?
March 2nd, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Blue, (260),
“I always thought of myself as a nerd and a geek, but then genetics kicked in and made me 6′4 and 16 stone. Meek really isnt in my genes.”
Nor Bill Gates’s either, it would seem. There’s more than one way to skin a cat.
In the group of chimps Jane Goodall was studying, there was one runtish invidiual (chimpnerd) that was bottom of the pack, always being bullied. As a lonely outcast, it got closer to the humans and played with what it could. One day it discovered an empty oil drum and began banging on it with a stick. Made a frightful racket. Scared shit out of the other chimps, even the big dominants. It became one of the most powerful members of the group.
Apropos, the two most nerdish guys in our school class were both the first to get married, to the most enviably gorgeous chicks you might imagine. Absolutely true. Sexual selection rules O.K.
March 2nd, 2009 at 1:30 pm
blue-
it was a pun. i love your roommate’s response! i have a few friends in the states (atheists as well) who’ve done very similar things, but more along the lines of “i’m really happy right now with having satan in my life, i’ll be sure to mention you in the ceremony tonight…..” as we lack a druidic history over here, but the legacy of the “satanic cult abuse panic” still hangs over our culture.
that is an example of psychology gone wrong! “regression therapy” was used to “reveal” the utterly horrific abuse, usually sexual, that scores of people had experienced and then “suppressed.” it was later found that these “repressed memories” were actually created by the leading questions of the therapist during the “hypnotic regressions” and were false memories, one and all.
i think the case that brought it all crumbling down was a young woman who told tales of years and years of incestuous rapes, followed by pregnancies were the infant would be sacrificed and cannibalized at birth -and she would be forced to participate. many lives were ruined, her family’s and her own -since she wasn’t even aware of this “history” until the regression “therapy.” what ended it was the young woman finally being medically examined and found to not only show zero physical signs of at least 10 pregnancies beginning in her early teens, but in fact to be a virgin!
so yes, mistakes have been made! but it’s worth noting that this “regression therapy” or “repressed memory recovery” was not ever free of controversy or widely endorsed. it’s also entirely possible that the people conducting such sessions had no real training at all.
read about the current official stance on it now here:
http://www.apa.org/topics/memories.html
did you know that in the states anyone can hang a shingle reading “therapist” or “counselor” or “life coach” and have no credentials whatsoever? is this true in the rest of the world?
the practices of these people shouldn’t be compared to psychologists with advanced degrees consisting of at least 4-6 years of post-graduate work, or to psychiatrists who have the same and are trained medical doctors as well.
March 2nd, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Blue, (261),
“Anon
I have to point this out sorry:
“An animal paces up and down endleesly in its cage, and gnaws the fur and skin off its own arse, and howls for hours on end. We don’t attribute this to some function that may be useful for the future evolution of its species. We recognise it as the stress of being caged and taunted”.
Sort of like a mental institution then really?”
Not unless you claim that perfectly normal (whatever that might be) people like ourselves are swept off the streets in democracies and confined willy nilly. Which you may well do. My understanding is that before being sectioned people have to show specific symptoms that they are a danger to themselves or their own society. It isn’t my understanding that zoologists go out into the wild looking for animals a bob or two short of a quid. Unless they’re supplying the water birds’ feature with loons, of course!
I’d say more like a prison, though hoping that would miss out on avoidable taunting. Except for solitary confinement, even a prison or a mental home allows contact with one’s own species too.
March 2nd, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Anon
Nothing like a big stick to say I am the boss
works on maybe both levels. Is that stick envy in my voice
Lo
I had actually forgotten about that with the satanists. We had a similar problem in the UK where a whole town had been accused of mass child abuse.
Point taken on the doctorates, however I still say that it is the medicinal qualities that are at the forefront. I really think that some traits are there for all to see, I just really dislike the therapy/psychology part of it all. I think psychologists and therapists are much like lawyers. They have become a necessary evil.
March 2nd, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Anon
Umm Guantanamo???
Prison’s I really have not researched but it seems to me that the vast majority of prisoners re-offend. Social conditioning maybe – dont know? The US has a very large gang culture in prison which includes its own tribal tattoo’s, thats kind of interesting, showing you belong to your tribe.
Free the trees that’s what I say! Lets all go out and liberate the plants from the facist orchard growers and botanists
March 2nd, 2009 at 1:51 pm
blue-
my story of the “cult abuse panic” reminds me that, at least in america, there are actual hacks and charlatans masquerading as real psychologists, but the actual trade shouldn’t be blamed for these people!
perhaps the most telling example is TV star “Dr.” Phil McGraw, made famous by Oprah. he used to be a licensed psychologist in texas, but was sanctioned in 1989 by the texas board for an inappropriate sexual relationship with a female patient he also gave a job in his office.
he never completed the actions required to have these sanctions overturned and is still not licensed to practice in texas or anywhere else in america a decade later. does this stop him from being the most well-known “psychologist” in my country? no! but this just means something is wrong with america and our willingness to let anyone “treat” our minds, not that anything is wrong with genuine, licensed psychologists and psychiatrists!
March 2nd, 2009 at 1:55 pm
266. Blue-
you know that anon’s a botanist and i’m a botanical (plant biology) student, right?
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Lo
Yep, I was being facaetious
Trash TV and Reality TV, put together as social entertainment. Its just not right is it? I think everyone should be forced to watch at least 3 hours of documentaries or learning a day. One thing is for certain it would sure get the kids off the couch and out to play. I think our sedentary lifestyle, coupled with bad education, our social systems and lack of physical movement is breeding the intelligence out of us. Thats too deep and is another discussion all together,
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Message to everyone in regards to psychology:
The psychology that I am refering to is not comprehensively psychoanalytical therapy (Freudian therapy). Psychology is composed of cognitive psychology, biological psychology, clinical psychology, industrial/organizational psychology, developmental psychology, and behavioral psychology (Skinner, after all, is the man).
Just FYI for you all to broaden the criticisms you may have about psychology beyond the current scope that you all seem to limit yourselves to—psychoanalysis.
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:14 pm
When good old Ronald Reagan was gov. of CA. he made all sorts of money saving plans, most of which had seriously bad results on the state later on.
One such plan, put into place too quickly for alternatives to be ready, was to open the doors of the mental hospitals and release the inmates. Anyone who didn’t want to be there, or who was court ordered, proved to be a danger to himself or others, was set free, no matter that they required medication to keep the hallucinations at bay.
We quite suddenly had streets full of mad men and women; people who, though they had access to their meds, didn’t have the presence of mind to take them.
Reagan, of course, had it in mind that the families of these patients would take them in, and so did a few of the families. But the families weren’t trained to care for these people, and they often just walked off, or the families admitted defeat, took them to a hospital and left them.
You’d walk down a city street and a man next to you, wearing four layers of clothes in July, pushing a supermarket cart filled to the brim with apparent junk, singing a silly tune at the top of his lungs, would suddenly turn to you and grab a feel, then go on as if nothing had happened.
It was obvious these people required care. Professional care. But it had been written out of the state budget and has never been reinstated. A man died in the alley behind the house I grew up in, trying to sleep in the ivy that spilled from the fence halfway across the alleyway, driven over by a car or a truck. We heard him scream, then moaning loudly, and called 911, but by the time they got there he was almost gone. He was delirious. He knew there was pain, but he couldn’t connect it with himself. It was “somewhere around here, nearby, maybe on the fence-top”. By the time he was loaded in the bus, he was dead. He couldn’t have been more than 25, but he had only 3 visible teeth.
He shouldn’t have been dead. He should have cared for. We, as a society, failed him, and all of those like him. Reagan the Great failed them all.
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Actually carrying on the formal discussion; this is one of my favourite songs
Finished with my woman ’cause she couldn’t help me with my mind
People think I’m insane because I am frowning all the time
All day long I think of things but nothing seems to satisfy
Think I’ll lose my mind if I don’t find something to pacify
Can you help me occupy my brain?
Oh yeah
I need someone to show me the things in life that I can’t find
I can’t see the things that make true happiness, I must be blind
Make a joke and I will sigh and you will laugh and I will cry
Happiness I cannot feel and love to me is so un-real
And so as you hear these words telling you now of my state
I tell you to enjoy life I wish I could but it’s too late
Ozzy, he is such a cad
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Segue
My father always pointed out that America was the biggest open air asylum in the wotld, perhaps unfairly, but I see there was some truth in his humour.
Truly remarkable for a civilised society.
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Blue, remarkable and sad.
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:00 pm
segue, (271) & Blue,
“Reagan the Great failed them all.”
And the trees, and the trees … They are still suffering the consequences of Reagan too.
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:28 pm
266. Blue – March 2nd, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Wow! I’m no fan of prisons. (The dilemma of our treatment of criminals was examined in Samuel Butler’s satire, ‘Erewhon’, as I remember.) They actually do turn them loose on the streets here in Chile, because offenders have begun to exceed prison space grossly. Result, people have been killed on the streets during violent personal crimes by the same ungodly, because they now consider themsekves virtually untouchable. One also notices a disheartened, reduced reaction from the police, seeing their hard work all in vain. On the other hand those ex-convicts who genuinely do try to readjust are simply often not trusted and not employed, so have no alternative but to resort to their old ways simply to survive.
I suppose the answer, if you are from New Zealand, is to continue to keep sending them all to Australia, and if you are from Oz, to see how the kiwis like it! *Now I’ve asked to get the entire antiopean jakes (sounds like their pronunciation of ‘jokes’, but isn’t) slung from the balcony onto my head. Hahaha.
*Plus astraya will definitely exclude me from the next Most Hilarious list. (As if I’d be in it anyway.)
“Free the trees that’s what I say! Lets all go out and liberate the plants from the facist orchard growers and botanists”
Despite what you may think, the botanist in me shouts “Haleluja” at that.
The gardener side, though, says, “Stuff that for a game of soldiers. We’re not letting our walnut grove loose, we need the dosh. Nor the cherries, nor the peaches, nor the plums, nor the almonds, nor the apricots, nor the figs, nor the pears, nor the oranges, nor the lemons. We need those for jams, marmalade, fresh juice, table fruit, constipation and squeezing on fish.”
The gardener wins, hands down.
March 2nd, 2009 at 6:15 pm
“Free the trees that’s what I say! Lets all go out and liberate the plants from the fascist orchard growers and botanists”
except we wouldn’t want to liberate all those plants which can be useful for the gardener but are invasive, ecosystem destroying exotics once they’re out of the yard! oh wait, they liberated themselves long ago, sigh.
i can’t even tell you how much time i’ve spent hand pulling and digging garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), buchthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), the list goes on……but garlic mustard is the WORST! it can actually be used as an herb or potherb, but this tenacious, free-seeding, evergreen biennial forms a solid carpet that literally crowds out and kills ALL the native herbaceous plants where i’m from. it’s practically a northern kudzu in the states!
okay, done ranting.
March 2nd, 2009 at 6:18 pm
p.s.
it’s Dr. Seuss’s birthday! let’s all read The Lorax (who my parents used to pretend was my namesake when i was little) in his honor
March 2nd, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Anon, 275: I actually quoted Reagan on the tree issue on the Reagan Quotes list.
The boob.
March 2nd, 2009 at 9:31 pm
segue, (279),
Yes, I know. You beat me to it! I heard once that it all started when, as governor of Calif., he wanted to find an excuse to eliminate some majestic Monterrey pines (did I spell that correctly?) so his cronies could build on the liberated real estate and make a handsome profit.
I also intended to profile him from a personal perspective over at his own RR topic, but ended up thinking, “What the hell, why bother?”. I was thinking of including the following, which considering the month and proximity of the day, might be appropriate now:
“… on March 1, 1872, President Ulysses S. Grant signed The Act of Dedication into law that created Yellowstone National Park, (wiki)” This was the first National Park ever, so Grant could be said the politician who ushered in the public face of environmentalism.
Around a century later Reagan distinguished himself by becoming the politician who made it publicly fashionable not only to denigrate trees, but as a consequence, to despise environmentalism. I believe that legacy has reached its apogee in the political anti-liberal hatred expressed in the current climate and biodiversity extinction debates.
March 2nd, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Anon, it was Redwoods National Park.
Now there are Redwoods, which are giants, thousands of years old; Sequoia’s, more gigantic trees, living thousands of years, and Monterey Pines, not large, but beautiful and naturally scultpted by wind into lovely, graceful shapes. These trees have been found to be a million years old.
California has an almost miraculous ecosystem, and I’m so pleased to be from here.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:10 am
People who doubt psychology! *gasp* I’d like to cram you into a “Skinner Box”! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:10 am
I am sorry to say I have very little knowledge on plants and botany in general. I have nothing against them (well apart from Japanese Knotweed, insidious little so and so)
However, I do have a huge stake in humanitaranism and environmentalism. Wont explain as the trolls will find me. I personally own a lot of biofuel patents along with my business partners. This started out as a route to giving something back from our very environmentally unfriendly day jobs as owners of mines. One thing I have learned throughout the last 10 years is that most cultivation, horticulture, etc really kills biodiversity.
We first started out with ethanol production using sugar cane as the feedstock, we get around 200,000 MT’s of ethanol from 30,000 hectares of sugar cane. Obviously this is not great for the land usage or indeed to cure the worlds reliance on fossil fuels (just to take over the oil would take around 700 million hectares of sugar cane in my example) so we invested in Algae fuel (closed loop system so we do not hurt the environment) about 8 years ago, we are 10 years ahead of anyone else we believe and the one thing this has done is shown us what our land usage really was. To make 300,000 MT’s of Algae biofuel (which can actually be used neat as a biodiesel – algae is, afterall, where 99.7% of all hydrocarbon oil in the ground comes from) we need 200 acres, and the wonderfull thing is I dont need to go outwards I can go upwards as we dont need direct sunlight only a certain wavelength.
I currently have a resort we are building with an algae fueled cogeneration powerplant attached, this produces 50 megawatts of electricity and is a 4/1 carbon sink. Its footprint is just 10acres and it looks like a hotel.
I dont want to start another philosophical argument here, all I want to do is point out the pressure being put on the environment and its unique biodiversity by our increasing need for food and energy production. That is my only real view on botany really, I am glad you guys study our unique biodiversity, I really have seen some bad examples of uncontrolled land usage in Brazil.
Huge change needed in society to take up this mantle on green technologies. Slowly getting there but very slowly when governments can be influenced by industry. Here is the worst example I know, if everyone on the planet used the same amount of fuel, commodities and food as the Americans, we would need 5 planets. That makes you think, well it certainly made me think 10 years ago.
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:47 am
Blue I am disappointed. Everyone in science knows:
Biology is actually Chemistry
Chemistry is actually Physics
Physics is actually Maths
Maths is actually stupid…
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:48 am
Therefore there can be no hard or soft sciences. I also agree with the above in that biology is probably the oldest science.
March 3rd, 2009 at 7:27 am
Cymraeg;
ac yna fi dacw meddwl, chithau geni Cymriegydd. Breuddwyd gwrach
Not sure I can still spell in Welsh, should be close enough.
Anyway; I will not be drawn into this futile argument about biology as a science, hard or soft (oh err). Its a science pure and simple like all the others. My point is against the psychiatric and psychological “sciences”
I agree though maths is stupid and I did go off at a tangent in my last post (see what I did there)
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Blue,
Good to know biology is up there in your eyes, and perhaps it always rather looked that way, although it was those terms themselves that lifted the eyebrows!
Thanks for the fascinating insight into your work. Now you know why the botanist in me shouted in favour! Mind you, as others have pointed out, the worst thing in the world is to let loose the products of man’s meddling with nature back into the wild, or somewhere they did not originally evolve. And again, as has been pointed out, it’s the unintended hangers-on (weeds, pests) that are the real terrible PITA (pains in the arse/ass).
Unfortunately the world that grants big bucks for scientific studies doesn’t share your enthusiasm for biodiversity, at least its practical field aspects. (How can you know what you’ve got and need to conserve until you’ve found and catalogued it?) What a wonderful dream if your technology took off like a rocket and was able to spare a tiny percentage to assist biodiversity in any way! You’d be surprised how much can be achieved with relatively little. This work is SO gratifying, it isn’t work, as Confucius say in other honorable thread. The main thing on a personal level is to have enough to get by and something in reserve for emergencies. Perhaps one day we shall!!!
BTW, our local neighbour is a top Chilean plant geneticist, trained in the U.S. His speciality is maize/corn and soya. We sometimes meet and talk with global fellow-geneticist when invited round for a birthday, Independance, Thanksgiving or whatever thrash.
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Blue, mae’n ddrwg ‘da fi! Dwi ddim yn siarad Cymraeg, er dysgwr ydw i.
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:57 pm
Anon: we also both make jokes about Poms, so you might get ganged up on. As I am Korea (for 9 days more), you are the closest to being antipodeal to me. (Or vice versa). So get off my ass (or arse).
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:43 pm
Cymraeg:
How long and where? Is this a new thing for you? Glad to see people still are learning, I grew up speaking at home so never really learnt to write it as I went to an English school. Good for you.
Anon:
Corn and other cereal crops are about 150/1 in land usage area to algae (this does not include taking it upwards as I said). Brazil is one of the worst areas I have seen for this. There are huge swarthes of land outside Sao Paulo that are just barren wasteland now instead of the wonderful rain forest that was there only 10 years ago.
Mans clamour for food and minerals unfortunately. There are a few areas to work on with the algae as with everything, I should point out that our algae are not genetically advanced in any way and are spirulina in origin. The water usage is quite high, its not the cheapest to construct, etc. But I like to think that we can get this up and running very quickly.
Ask Jamie for my email and I will send you some details.
March 4th, 2009 at 5:12 am
astraya, (289),
Everybody gangs up on the Poms! Britain can take it. We’re used to losing – everything except wars, that is. Hahaha. (Oh, sorry, sport is war, Forgot.)
Actually, having the ’site’ nation against us would be a novelty for me. The kiwis I’ve known have never said boo to a goose. So here come the ANZACs then?
Only 9 days more? Will you returning to Oz then?
March 4th, 2009 at 5:37 am
Anon: Only 9 days more? Will you returning to Oz then?
Your second sentence no verb. Despite that, yes, we will returning to Oz then. Booked for Friday the 13th, no less.
Check out Henry V on buc’s latest movie list. You won that, but it was 500 years ago (beating France 50,000-2,500). Since then, thanks for Gallipoli, Singapore and Maralinga.
March 4th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
astraya,
What’s a verb between friends? Although I’m more proverb than antiverb, I admit.
I mentioned the war once and thought I’d got away with it. We didn’t start it/them.
Gallipoli: blame Kaiser Bill and Kemal At-a-boy.
Singapore: Japs cheated.
Maralinga: Russkies’ fault.
Hey, that’s neat. They all have the same number of letters. Nice if we could shrink them back to zero letters historically though: i.e. non-existent.
Nor did I say we’d won wars single-handed. Just that we hadn’t lost one. I didn’t say we hadn’t lost battles either!
Since then, most recent … The Falklands?
Flight back you two? Stuff by sea? Container? Whatever and however, hope all goes smoothly and with no breakages of glass and china, etc. (We were fantastically lucky for our move out here.) I presume you wife knows Godzown, even if she hasn’t lived there before?
March 4th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Well, they were all the same length in the Submit box. (Would add miserable face if knew how)
March 4th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
blue-
a bit late, but i also want to say your work with algae sounds wonderful- for all of us. i wish you much success with continuing its development.
i’m very interested in nontraditional and urban agriculture, like this project:
http://www.growingpower.org/
which can also go vertical. sort of a compliment to your work, perhaps?
March 4th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Anon- The American Revolutionary War was a civil action and don`t count right. HA
March 4th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
bigski, (296),
“Anon- The American Revolutionary War was a civil action and don`t count right. HA”
I’d have to admit I think you found the Achilles heel in my comment there! Independence movements as such are difficult to categorise, but that one is called a war and recognised as a proper one all round. Although in some respects it was almost a civil war, those of you guys on our side were fighting for US not U.S. (Hahaha), So Fair do-s, I’m coming out with my hands up. (Sits down resignedly, waiting for news of distant, obscure wars in the back of beyond lost by Britain at one time or other.)
March 5th, 2009 at 6:58 am
Civil wars must count as a draw, I suppose, since half the country wins and the other half loses. So at least neither of us lost our civil wars.
March 5th, 2009 at 7:35 am
In war can there really be a winner? lol
March 5th, 2009 at 8:55 am
Yep, its the monkey with the biggest stick again
Unfortunately know one told the apes a bigger stick is the way to show force and they started a Gorilla war, this led to a group of rednecks with a bigger stick getting involved. Once they had secured the honey, knocked down and rebuilt the forest (with the rednecks peoples money and the monkeys honey), the rednecks gave the monkeys the big stick to play with
The apes seeing this decided Gorilla warfare was not enough and started a chimpanzee suicide tarzanagram and an orangutan death squad catching the monkeys and the rednecks by surprise. To this day the apes are winning and driving the redneck monkey infidels back.
Now the rednecks are clapping each other on the back saying “we had the bigger stick, we must have won the war and brought redneck civilisation to the 60 tribes of monkeys” who had no idea they needed it after 5,000 years of civilisation in the forest.
The rednecks economy nosedived due to their borrowing nuts and berries to barter for honey and to rebuild the decimated forest infrastructure. Their plan to parachute in more nuts has been scuppered by the Wall Street squirrels who didnt hoard the nuts for a rainy day but spent it on borrowing the same nuts again from their own rednecks and then selling it back to the rednecks and saying sorry wasnt us, it was those bigger squirrels over there.
Meanwhile back in the forest the chimpanzee suicide tarzanagrams are getting stronger and the apes are forming their own big stick and persecuting the monkeys. Now the monkeys are left with a forest system they dont understand and is culturally not monkey but redneck, pity the poor boss monkey with his fancy new title and destroyed forest.
I guess it goes to show all primates are bananas for war
March 5th, 2009 at 9:03 am
300. Blue – “Yep, its the monkey with the biggest stick”
You know, with a dirty mind, most of your post sounds so so wrong
…and so so funny…
March 5th, 2009 at 9:29 am
Anon:
I’m surprised you forgot this—the American Revolution was part of a larger, essentially “world war” that Britain was fighting against France, Spain, and correct me if I’m wrong but I believe other European powers as well. Now, in point of fact, it can’t REALLY be said that Britain “won” that war, as A) we certainly beat you in the Americas, and B) it ended as more or less (sort of) a draw between Britain and the other aforementioned states–HOWEVER, if you recall your history, Britain actually ended up coming out of it in better shape than France or Spain—France, in fact, was bankrupted and the massive expenditures it made in that war ultimately led to the French Revolution. Did Britain really “lose” technically? I’d say not. It came out of it as strong as it ever was—except for the sore loss of its American colonies—but that all turned out right in the end, as we ended up, less than two hundred years later, part of the same alliance that for all intents and purposes makes us practically the same nation. (Or as Joseph Campbell put it, “we” –meaning the U.S.—”have rejoined the British in their conquest of the planet.”)
On the other hand, Britain DID lose it’s possessions in France during the Hundred Years War—technically a defeat.
But something we should all learn here, folks. Something many history professors taught me over the years, in my long, meandering educational career: Namely, that history teaches us that you do not f**k with the English. They’ve never REALLY lost a war, and whereas we think of the Germans as being oh-so-ruthless, it’s in fact the English (interestingly enough, another essentially germanic people) who have proven themselves utterly ruthless in war—not the often insanely cruel, downright demonic kind of ruthlessness displayed by certain peoples at certain times (the Germans in WWII, for instance) but rather, the kind of ruthlessness which makes it clear that the English Play To Win.
The Germans had, for a time, the greatest military machine on the planet, at the start of WWII. But it was the English that perfected and ultimately practiced, along with the Americans, the systematic and wholesale destruction of German cities. It’s not that the Germans wouldn’t have been capable of doing the same to English cities—certainly they made an effort at it—but in the end they failed. They didn’t plan for it. Instead they made grandiose gestures of destruction–buzz bombs and V2s and ineffectual blitzs. But like an uncommitted, amateurish second-rater coming up against a true professional, the German military machine was all for naught when the Anglo-American alliance started to erase German industry and cities from the map, one by one.
The English are a nice people, but cross them and their partially-Viking heritage comes out, and you find yourself wishing you were never born. And let’s not kid ourselves that they are “nice” as a rule, when the chips are down and they want something. The Scots and the Irish learned this lesson, as would we in America if we had lost that Revolution of ours.
And let’s not forget that in the area of intelligence operations the British are equally ruthless and tough-minded. They’ve had their bad moments–Kim Philby, et al—but for the most part they take no chances when it comes to spy work and have usually been one step ahead of their opponents.
Britain today is, yes, a small island and a lesser power. But even with our superpower status, I’m forever grateful those mean bastards are on our side.
March 5th, 2009 at 10:41 am
Randall
English???? Please it is the bodies of my countrymen, the Scots, the Irish and then perhaps a few good Englishmen. Putting Britain at the bottom doesn’t count
The Vikings gave them blond hair only its us Celts you should be worried about
March 5th, 2009 at 11:05 am
Blue:
No offense Blue, but facts are facts. The Celts were defeated by the Angles and Saxons et al 1500 years ago, and you’ve struggled a few times to free yourselves, but the Irish only just gained their freedom in this century, and the Scots are still part of the crown. Great fighters, all, especially the Scots… but the English have repeatedly handed you your balls time and time again.
March 5th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Anon- Just joking around.I find English history interesting and colorful,the people seem nice also. My maternal side are English,paternal Polish.So if I jab at either it`s all in fun.
March 5th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
And welsh bowmen were the reason for most of the ‘english’ victories during the hundred years war…do not f*k with the welsh
CYMRU AM BYTH
March 5th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
306. cymraegbachgen87:…do not f*k with the welsh
****
No wonder there are so few of you left!
March 5th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
307. segue – “No wonder there are so few of you left!”
HAHAHAHA!! That was simply wonderful, segue.
March 5th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
I like to bring laughter when I can, gabi!
March 5th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
Oh, I had so much work to do and have come so late to the fun. Too late to poke about much now as its halfway into the night.
Thanks for your exposition and ‘appreciation’, Randall. Yes we’ll let any other buggers die for us in our wars. A tiny sample of non-surviving top air aces: WW1 – Mick Mannock (Irish). WW2 – Pat Pattle (South African), ‘Screwball’ Buerling (Canadian. Well true, he did get killed just afterwards).
In a sense wars are indeed only ever ‘not lost’, and I suppose the scale of the so-called victory might be measured by estimating what loss would have entailed. Loss to Hitler, for example. In that sense I was going for ‘not lost’ rather than won. As this was intended as pretty lightweight, I considered it was fair do-s to treat the War of Independence as discrete, since it’s labeled as such, and we took it as such.
A final thought. As P.M. Maggie Thatcher began to rave against soccer hooligans and associated violence and tried to implement all sorts of daft ideas for crowd control that might have wrecked the sport. Fortunately wiser and more knoweldgeable counsels prevailed. My sadly recently deceased botanical partner turned to me as this was being discussed as a news iten and growled, “Bloody stupid cow. What does she think the guys that went and won the Falklands War and thrashed the argies to save her arse are made of? Something different?
But we can be nice. Even I like A FEW fellow English people.
Finally, Randall. Don’t underestimate how largely the fact that we are an island nation has contributed to our not being conquered. That good fortune has led to a deal of stability and self-confidence. It has also enabled us to springboard a mainly seaborne foreign policy throughout a good part of our history.
March 5th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
segue,
I trust astraya isn’t too preoccupied to miss that latest little pearl!
March 5th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
In fact, I’ve just posted it on the “What is the all-time funniest comment on the List Universe” forum.
The English have a reputation for not taking baths. Now the Welsh seem not to be able to spell it. BYTH????
Disclaimer: Like most Australians, I have a mixture of British Isles ancestry. We have traced English, Scottish, Irish and Cornish. (Plus one who was born in one of the Canadian colonies.) My surname is typically Welsh but is found in other places too. My great-grandfather was born in a city near the border, which is currently in England but has been in Wales for part of history, so there may be Welsh ancestry there. When I went to that city I looked up my surname in the telephone book and there were 10 columns of them.
March 6th, 2009 at 1:33 am
Randall:
I dont mean to be too observant or pendantic here but in actual fact it was the Normans that initially conquered Wales in the 12th-14th centuries. The Vikings came and eventually gave up on us when we built Offa’s Dyke in the mid 8th century to keep them out. Offa was of course, the leader of a United Wales, however he was also the King of Mercia (what is now the Midlands of the UK).
The English at the time had already been subdued and in actual fact Wales owned vast swathes of England up to the 11th century and the time of Gruffydd ap Llywelyn where the Welsh lands stretched far into Mercia (previously most of the land all the way up to the borders of Scotland had been Welsh in earlier centuries). The only reason that we were subdued at all is there had been a civil war after the death of Bleddyn ap Cynfyn in 1075, which allowed the Normans to take the land in the North Wales area and break the defences of the Welsh where our seat of power at that time was in Gwynedd, North Wales. This allowed the Normans little resistance in Dyfed, St Davids and Cardiff and we basically had to copitulate to Norman rule.
The following 3 centuries saw lots of sporadic fighting until Owain Glyndwr and the Sons of Wales launched a rebellion and took back most of Wales in the 15th century before we finally had English rule imposed upon us. Since this time Wales has been a staunch Royalist nation fighting for Great Britain. Then of course, we powered the industrial revolution and allowed most of the scientific progress to be made in that period of time when people could concentrate on the humanities rather than toiling in the land. Except us Welsh who had to work under the ground digging the coal to power the revolution
Now on to Segue and Gabi who are criticising my countryman for his rather fetching description of the Welsh and to try and answer that with a story from my youth to explain:
My grandfather used to relate to me this story about his time in the Second World War, where he was decorated for bravery. During a campaign in Normandy his troop were ambushed by a German Panzer division and were outnumbered 10-1 by the Jerry’s.
A fierce battle erupted with each side taking huge losses, however the Germans called up reinforcements and surrounded my grandfather’s position. Being the only Welshman in the platoon, of course he used to take some stick and get called Taff and other terms of endearment, however his overriding duty was to the King and Country and he was nothing if not resilient to the German bullets flying around.
By the middle of the second day, running low on ammo and soldiers, the sergeant of the platoon, who had been shot in the stomach, shouted “Taff come over here, its only you that is left, I am dying”. My grandfather went over to him and the sergeant leaned in to him and said “son, you are going to be all alone, Simpkins has been shot, Roddy is dead, it is only you and me left, make me proud and give Jerry hell”. The sergeant then produced a bottle of whisky from his jacket and 3 cigarettes and passed them on to my grandfather saying “little bit of dutch courage my son and have a last smoke before you go over the wall”.
My grandfather had taken the pledge in 1929 as a young Methodist altar boy and had never touched a drop of drink in his life but, seeing his sergeant in such great pain, he decided that to honour all of his dead comrades and the sergeant who had brought him this far, he decided to drink the whisky, smoke the cigarrettes and get up the courage to go out and face the enemy.
He sat down sporadically firing to keep the Germans at bay until he had finished the whisky and smoked the last cigarrette. The sergeant died in his arms and he started to cry and became angrier and angrier. Then with a final shout of “Cyrmu Am Byth” he jumped over the wall he was behind and ran headlong into the German ranks, thinking about my grandmother and the kid he had never seen.
He got shot in the arm, the shoulder and in the leg but still continued his advance, he killed 30 German soldiers that day, blew up 3 tanks with grenades and made 50 other German soldiers throw down their weapons to be taken prisoner by this berserker Welshman.
Do you know what the moral of this story is? ………..
Dont F**K with a Welshman when he is drunk
This is obviously not a sexual reference Segue
CYMRU AM BYTH, have a great weekend all.
March 6th, 2009 at 2:16 am
I will, of course, get a chip inserted in my other shoulder to even things out
March 6th, 2009 at 8:45 am
My first wife had Welsh ancestry (mine is [Norman] Scots and [southern Catholic] Irish). One was among those awarded the Victoria Cross at the astonishing Battle of Rorke’s Drift, where more VCs were won than at any other time in its history. If you don’t know the story, the film ‘Zulu’ is a fair representation. It also shows just how ‘proper’ Michael Caine is able to speak!
Curiously, The Boers still tend to hate us, but the Zulu War originated from the British supporting Boer land rights against the Zulus, despite previous and subsequent friendship and respect between the two nations. Ironic. We didn’t lose the Zulu War either, despite the catastrophic massacre at Isandhlwana. Never was that respect more manifest than at Rorke’s Drift.
Randall. Thinking about that, perhaps the administrative and diplomatic abilities of the British have helped us to achieve what we did, and kept us out of (more) trouble. It reminds me of the arms of my present country, Chile. ‘By Reason or by Force’, with force always taking the very rear back-up position. Most of our disasters can be attributed to a failure of that policy, either diplomatic or overtly moral, or both. I’m not ‘judging’ British history as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, just commenting on it. Nor am I saying our (English) ’successes’, if you want to call them that, can be attributed to our keeping an acceptable moral standard. Ireland and Scotland can testify to that, for starters.
However, I would remind others that minorities are often victims simply because they are minorities, and would almost certainly in many cases be the bullies if the boot were on the other foot!
March 6th, 2009 at 8:48 am
Blue,
Sure you didn’t get your grandfather story from Abe Simpson? Monty Burns had run away, hadn’t he? Hahaha!
March 6th, 2009 at 9:06 am
Blue:
That was a beautiful and touching story. Thank you for sharing.
….but it still doesn’t discount the fact that I found what segue said to be very funny. Cleverly done and I’ve a great appreciation for wit. Bravissima, dear segue!

…please don’t beat me up. I’m far too adorable…
You have yourself a pleasant weekend as well!
March 6th, 2009 at 9:14 am
Segue I have to thank you for 307 – laughed for a good five minutes with that!
March 6th, 2009 at 9:22 am
Blue – what an amazing story! I wish I had some of that in my own heritage. Unfortunately for me, I have a family of nurses and pit miners! Noble in their own way I suppose but nothing like that!
(actually that is a bit of a phallacy as my father works in IT and my mother is a lab technician at a school)
March 6th, 2009 at 10:00 am
cymraegbachgen87 (319),
“… that is a bit of a phallacy …”
Your Freudian slip is showing again. Stop trying to compensate for your previous celibacy remark.
March 6th, 2009 at 10:07 am
Hey you splendid Welsh fellows,
A bit of black gold also came from north of the English midlands, you know: even a weeny contribution from my home county, Kent. Just cautionary advice. You are spirited scrappers, but so are Yorkies!
March 6th, 2009 at 10:39 am
Anon 320, that one was deliberate
March 6th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Blue:
There there, Blue. I know. The Welsh are tough as hell. So are the Scots. So are the Irish. I’d sooner have one of you goddamn crazy Celts on my side in a trench or on a battlefield than any loudmouthed cowboy who thinks he’s hot shit, or some phony tough guy from the City.
I merely point out that the English themselves are (when pushed, or when they want what you got) mean sons of bitches who—yes, with the help of their Celtic brothers—built the biggest-ass Empire the world has ever seen.
Let us just say that the BRITISH are tough, mean bastards all around, and be done with it. That takes in all of you.
And cool story. Sounds like the Welsh Audie Murphy.
March 6th, 2009 at 11:02 am
Anon:
I would still submit that the English, and the combined peoples of the British isles to follow, have historically shown a unique talent for playing to win. This does NOT mean they’ve always done the smart thing and CERTAINLY does not mean they’ve always done the right thing. Let us also say that they have occasionally made the mistake of underestimating an opponent, but when they make such mistakes, they generally learned from them. The Germans and most others did not. In fact the Germans have historically been downright delusional about what they were capable of and incapable of.
March 6th, 2009 at 11:05 am
cymraegbachgen87, (322),
Indeed. It did seem to good to be true, knowing you as an echt citizen of a grammatically impregnable nation.
March 6th, 2009 at 11:29 am
323. Randall – “…loudmouthed cowboy who thinks he’s hot shit…”
Any cowboy you met like that is NOT a real cowboy. The fakes really bug me. A real cowboy uses words like they cost money – money that he’d rather spend on beer at the end of the day. I dated one. It was a good relationship seeing as I (on RARE occasion) talk way too much and he listened…or didn’t listen but looked like he did…who knows…
Carry on with the European History. Don’t mind me….
March 6th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
324. Randall
“Anon:
I would still submit that the English, and the combined peoples of the British isles to follow, have historically shown a unique talent for playing to win.”
Thoroughly agreed, since ‘win’ is in any case so often synonymous with, or impossible to separate from ’survive’. You can, of course, play the neutral card, as Switzerland has for as long as has been allowed. Or else play the satellite card to big tough gang boss to protect you from other big, tough gang bosses, take Finland as an example. But that’s never been England’s or Britain’s style.
Playing to win has always struck me as so difficult to define. I.e., where the line between a reasonable self-survival/defensive posture and and an aggressive one might be drawn. So often the definition of the same situation varies according to the perspective. Israel: aggressive as per Arabs, defensive as per anyone who fairly studies her geographical and strategic placement and considers the consequence of one single total lost conflict.
Hitler, of course, claimed that all his invasions and his military machine were defensive moves to confront the aggression of the rest of us, not least vicious little Belgium.
Randall, you might add the Turks to your trench companions. I remember part of a division or similar of their UN contribution had been marooned behind the lines by the rapid advance of the Chinese in Korea, and were being ever more hopelessly isolated and outnumbered. They were written off UN combined staff strength. About a fortnight later they marched in almost to a man. God knows what havoc they’d wreaked on Mao’s guys.
And in recent times also the ANZACS, Gurkhas (even the Japs shit fuku when they were around), Springboks and others from the Commonwealth. I’d add the Finns after the Winter War! Tangle with them and make sure you pick the venue: tropical rainforestm not snowbound steppe and taiga!
March 6th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Randall,
“… loudmouthed cowboy” … or ponsey half-pint film actor like Audie Murphy …
Hahaha.
March 6th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Anon, Gabi, et al:
Ummmm, my story was a joke, the punchline was at the bottom of the story, twas a bit of Welsh humour. Unfortunately even my Welsh brethren didnt pick up on it. You know dont mess with us when we aere drunk……….oh forget I am here, move along nothing to see………..
The joke was maybe too subtle, next time I shall endeavour to make a joke more accessible. Maybe I should take up writing
Anon:
Just to add something to the winning debate, “if taking part is so important and only doing your best is gallant, why keep bloody score”
March 6th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Blue, (329),
“Anon, Gabi, et al:
Ummmm, my story was a joke”
Read my comment about Abe Simpson and Monty Burns and you can cross me off and leave it as “Gabi, et al.”!
Of course you’d have to be a Simpsons watcher, and perhaps you ain’t.
March 6th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Blue, (329),
“… why keep bloody score”
In case someone comes in halfway through and asks.
March 6th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Blue:
I knew it was a joke! Or I wouldn’t have even thought about writing a comment that could’ve been viewed as callously dismissing a story about your grandfather and turning my attention to segue. I’m too adorable to be that mean.
So now you’re left with ‘et al’
March 6th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
O come on blue you have just ruined my day.
March 7th, 2009 at 8:28 am
313. Blue: This is obviously not a sexual reference Segue
****
If it were, my comment wouldn’t be funny, now would it?
March 7th, 2009 at 9:16 am
gabi319, (332),
“So now you’re left with ‘et al’”
Or technically, just Al.
“Say, don’t you remember they called me Al, It was Al all the time. Why don’t you remember, I’m your pal — Buddy, can you spare a dime?”
March 7th, 2009 at 9:31 am
335. Anon – “Or technically, just Al.”
Poor et…always thrown by the wayside…he never gets any recognition…
Once in khaki suits, gee we looked swell,
Full of that Yankee Doodly Dum,
Half a million boots went slogging through Hell,
And I was the kid with the drum!
March 7th, 2009 at 10:43 am
gabi, (336),
At least Al wasn’t the kid with the drum at the Isandhlwana massacre (my 315). Those 14 and 15 year old band boys were zapped by the zulus along with rest. But at least there wasn’t mustard gas in the Zulu War, as in Al’s Hell. As above, war is a no-win situation.
June 22nd, 2009 at 11:47 pm
@Robert waldow
(1): @Galford (1):
June 24th, 2009 at 2:39 am
nice and good peice of information.
July 17th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
@Arnaud (9):
I agree. But Aristotle is more of a philosopher than a scientist, so…
July 18th, 2009 at 4:15 am
I’m kind of surprised that John von Neumann did not make it to the top 20.
Brief bio:
John von Neumann (December 28, 1903 – February 8, 1957) was a Hungarian American mathematician who made major contributions to a vast range of fields, including set theory, functional analysis, quantum mechanics, ergodic theory, continuous geometry, economics and game theory, computer science, numerical analysis, hydrodynamics (of explosions), and statistics, as well as many other mathematical fields. He is generally regarded as one of the foremost mathematicians of the 20th century. The mathematician Jean Dieudonné called von Neumann “the last of the great mathematicians.”
Most notably, von Neumann was a pioneer of the application of operator theory to quantum mechanics, a principal member of the Manhattan Project and the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton (as one of the few originally appointed), and a key figure in the development of game theory and the concepts of cellular automata and the universal constructor. Along with Edward Teller and Stanislaw Ulam, von Neumann worked out key steps in the nuclear physics involved in thermonuclear reactions and the hydrogen bomb.
Surely less known that Edison, but with no doubt a far better scientist.
July 18th, 2009 at 4:19 am
@Daryl (#24)
No blacks on either list, why is that?
Science has no colour, racist ignorant.
September 15th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
I truly enjoyed both halves of the list, especially since many of them were familiar to me from completing pre-med science classes!
November 13th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Oppenheimer?