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
Randall
hate to see ythe pause, you were making an excellent argument
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.
TESLA WAS ROBBED BY EDISON!!!!
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.
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.
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.
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?)
Thought so.
I wonder if gai will get through?
Yes
Tex- quit kissing ass and bring your comments and opinions to the table
this is josh by the way—i just registered with this name
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.
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!!!!
“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.
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 *****ysis 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.
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.
hey this is relly josh changing my name again
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!
“Psychology is widely recognised as a science”
WHEN PIGS ARE WIDLEY KNOWN TO FLY
WIDELY
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.
lo, (136),
Aptly and practically put, re-inforcing my useage. Atheist s.l.
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 *****.
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).
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?
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
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.
114. TEX: segue – coqtail – gotcha, thanks
****
My pleasure, but the real thanks go to Anon who figured out the coq challenge.
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.
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”.
I think Fleming would be a good candidate for number 1. He has possibly saved more lives than any person ever.
What about Gauss? He influenced everything form number theory to physics. I beleive he should be number one.
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 *****. 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.
Wow thats messed up, it probably dosen’t mean much but you got my support
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”
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.
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.
You know where I stand, now and always Anon. I am by your side.
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.
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 ***** 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.
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…
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.
Anon-
That’s kinda freaky…do you bear arms?
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.
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.
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
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
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!
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.
if they’re so smart, how come they’re dead?
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.
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
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.
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.
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…
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
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
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.
i think edison should have been way higher on the list!
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?