Greatest scientist in history

[col]

Well luck undoubtedly played a part in many discoveries - Becquerel, Flemiing, and many others, but their genius was in recognising the significance of what they had seen and following it up

My vote went to Newton who constructed the edifice that we call mechanics and gravitaion. In a real sense this was the first great piece of universal science - a set of laws and equations that can be applied to anything anywhere. From that time forward, the universe was seen as something comprehensible and capable of being tamed. He changed the way we understand the and see the world. Brilliant mathematician who an also lay claim to the development of calculus.

I'm always somewhat surprised by the popularity of Einstein - someone who spent most of his life being wrong and who held back quatum mechanics through much of the twentieth century. Of course, General Realtivity was a towering achievement and required another paradigm shift. Speical Relativity was but a small step beyind the work of Minkowski and others.

My second place goes to Richard Feynman whose face you see the left. Another who changed the way we view the universe. His QED and way of viewing QM revolutionised quatum mechanics and paved the way forward for new generations of Physicists. Unlike Newton he was generous with his ideas and it has been said that he was responsible for at least 5 other nobel prizes.

I accept my Physics bias but science for me means discovering how the universe works.

 

[YNCS]

My vote would go to all of the above, which would include other. Asking "who is the greatest scientist" is like asking "which is the prettiest color" or "what is the best ocean." The answer is so arbitrary as to be meaningless.

 

[luiz]

Newton certainly.
IMO, no other comes close.

Modern Physics and Mathematics were basically created by him. A truly brilliant mind.

 

[Garry Denke]

My vote was for "Other", namely Jesus Christ, for his theory of the light (candelas) decreasing, the light reversing (-/+), and the light increasing, over a three (3) day period, during universal magnetic reversals (polar-flips), marking the end of each geomagnetic/paleomagnetic age, like the next one which will begin (end) shortly...



Garry Denke

 

[Mrogreturns]

Well, even though he [Freud]was wrong in just about everything he said (if I'm not mistaken), he did pretty much launch a new scientific field.
Party pooper.

Being wrong is fine; the reason I question Freud being on the list is that he did not, even by very loose criteria, make use of scientific methodology. The movement of psyochoanalysis was responsible for a lengthy disruption to the scientific investigation of psychology.

 

[WillJ]

Being wrong is fine; the reason I question Freud being on the list is that he did not, even by very loose criteria, make use of scientific methodology. The movement of psyochoanalysis was responsible for a lengthy disruption to the scientific investigation of psychology.

Now that I think about it, yes, you're right.

Just be glad no one's voted for him.

 

[Steph]

As I-don't-remember-who-said-it said "You had to be called Newton to see the Moon is falling when everybody see it doesn't fall"

 

[Cashie]

I always dig the ancients, seeings that there were fewer [scientisfic] giants' shoulders to stand on. Heron of Alexandria, 1st Century CE (invented many clever devices, mostly rather 'novel' ideas: automatic doors for temples; an automated puppet using spools and thread; and a forerunner to the steam engine (unfortunate that he didn't take it a step forward and begin an industrial revolution).

I will add that Aristotle will NOT be included among these ideas as he quite often ignored the established facts of the day. His ideas were accepted as gosepel, since he happpened to be the tutor of a rather influential young man by the name of Alexander III of Macedon... I simply love the quote "Calling Aristotle a scientist is like calling Godzilla an urban planner"

Also Galen, Hippocrates, Achimedes (one clever man). The rennaisance men were unique fellows, but it must be stated that the Rennaisance was begun in Baghdad NOT in Florence/Italy. Unfortunately the specific work of Arab scholars' eludes me although they were mathematicly proficient; resurrected Greek philosophy, and the notion of Zero.

Also I am unable to name any Eastern scientists who were by far superior throughout history to Europeans, inventions such as paper, compound bows [at least bows more advanced than European bows], gunpowder and giant robots that kill everything (ok maybe not the last one). Had been all over Eastern Asia well before trickling their way into Europe during the middle ages

 

[Plotinus]

I will add that Aristotle will NOT be included among these ideas as he quite often ignored the established facts of the day. His ideas were accepted as gosepel, since he happpened to be the tutor of a rather influential young man by the name of Alexander III of Macedon... I simply love the quote "Calling Aristotle a scientist is like calling Godzilla an urban planner"

Now that is just plain ridiculous!

(1) Which established facts did Aristotle ignore?

(2) Why shouldn't scientists ignore established facts anyway? One of the greatest objections to Newton's theory of gravity - eloquently put by Leibniz - was that it ignored the universally accepted belief that causation cannot happen over a distance with no intervening medium.

(3) You can hardly blame Aristotle if later generations took his ideas as gospel. That makes them less good as scientists - not him.

(4) In any case, Aristotle's later status had nothing to do with his role as tutor to Alexander the Great. In late antiquity Aristotle was not regarded very highly by most philosophers. It was only in the Middle Ages that his ideas were rediscovered (from the Muslims, who had themselves learned them from Persian Christians) and he became a great authority.

By the way, Garry Denke, you appear to have access to some strange extra-canonical Gospel unknown to other scholars. Can you give a few references, please?

 

[Cashie]

I am a little hazy on the specifics, but his work was treated (naturally, not his fault) as the Only Way To Go. This did create a lot of obscuration in the development of Western and Arabian science; which to some degree is only now being ironed out. And of course, he did do some great work.

As for the link Alexander link, My thought that he would have been admired, by later scholars with extra emphasis in Europe purely because he was tutor to [one of] Europe's greatest conqueror.

(4) In any case, Aristotle's later status had nothing to do with his role as tutor to Alexander the Great. In late antiquity Aristotle was not regarded very highly by most philosophers. It was only in the Middle Ages that his ideas were rediscovered (from the Muslims, who had themselves learned them from Persian Christians) and he became a great authority.

I'm sure I agreed with something in there, ah you're probably right

This, was also the case with Galen of Pergamum [whom I had mentioned earlier - am expecting someone to bring that one up on me], because his work in medicine was so far ahead of its time, his work was canonised, rather than built upon; and subsequently completely discarded (around the 18th Century).

 

[Vasileius]

All the scientists , from Democritus ( atomic theory ) to Einstein ( theory of relativity ), offered a lot to the evolution of the Human Race ...

 

[Dr Jimbo]

Newton - don't forget calculus
I'd have voted for Darwin except that if he hadn't explained evolution that other poor bugger who's name I've forgotten (Wallace) would have done.
But the theory of evolution is the single most powerful idea in science - it basically explains all biology, which takes some beating. If someone had come up with evolution 1-200 years earlier, they'd have my vote.
Mendel was also an amazing guy, but he never really put out a framework that explained his observations. And he cooked his results bad scientist.

 

[thestonesfan]

Newton. Come on people.

 

[zjl56]

I have to go for Newton followed by Archimedes.

 

[Adler17]

Is here really no one who opts for Copernicus and his revolutionary ideas?

Adler

 

[thestonesfan]

Is here really no one who opts for Copernicus and his revolutionary ideas?

Adler

"You King Gelon are aware the 'universe' is the name given by most astronomers to the sphere the centre of which is the center of the Earth, while its radius is equal to the straight line between the center of the Sun and the center of the Earth. This is the common account as you have heard from astronomers. But Aristarchus has brought out a book consisting of certain hypotheses, wherein it appears, as a consequence of the assumptions made, that the universe is many times greater than the 'universe' just mentioned. His hypotheses are that the fixed stars and the Sun remain unmoved, that the Earth revolves about the Sun on the circumference of a circle, the Sun lying in the middle of the orbit, and that the sphere of fixed stars, situated about the same center as the Sun, is so great that the circle in which he supposes the Earth to revolve bears such a proportion to the distance of the fixed stars as the center of the sphere bears to its surface."

Archimedes wrote that around 270 BC, I believe. Copernicus was brilliant, but he just revived the old theory of heliocentricity apparently started by Aristarchus.

 

[thestonesfan]

Aristotle really wasn't much of a scientist. He stated that women had less teeth than men, with is of course wrong. He would have realized this had he checked.

He made much greater contributions to philosophy.

 

[Lord_all_Mighty]

I'm always somewhat surprised by the popularity of Einstein - someone who spent most of his life being wrong and who held back quatum mechanics through much of the twentieth century. Of course, General Realtivity was a towering achievement and required another paradigm shift. Speical Relativity was but a small step beyind the work of Minkowski and others.

How was he wrong and how did he hold back quantum mechanics? I'm not challenging you, but could you please inform me why you made such statements?

Anyway, that is who I voted for. While Newton's theories on gravity laid the laws for the Earth, Einstein practically completed them by expanding the laws to the entire universe. Because of it, we are no longer in such a dark position when it comes to areas beyond our galaxy.

Also, who is Minkowski?

 

[Xen]

A)one can go ahead and discount ever single scintist from the the late middel ages upward- for as with all things, the ealry in history events happen, the more significant they were- eg; the invention fo writing and rudimentary mathmaticvs outweighs the most significant gains in quantum physics

I wont wageron who was the best, only that in all honest, with onyl 20 options, no one has a chance in hell to make a proper lis tof the greates tminds in history, even discounting all scientists form the latte rmiddle ages upwards

 

[Birdjaguar]

Archimedes wrote that around 270 BC, I believe. Copernicus was brilliant, but he just revived the old theory of heliocentricity apparently started by Aristarchus.

I'm not sure if there is a direct link fro Copernicus to the Greeks, but I did read not long ago that he drew most of his work from arabic scholars.