Most influential person in World History

[Plotinus]

Furthermore, in his diaologues Galileo explicity states that his intention is to bring down Aristotelianism. "Salviati: 'Is it possible for you to doubt that if Aristotle should see the new discoveries in the sky he would change his opinions and correct his books and embrace the most sensible doctrines, casting away from himself those people so weak-minded as to be induced to to go on abjectly maintaining everything he had ever said?'" To cast aside a doctrine which had held so much sway for over 1500 years is no small intellectual feat. (Note I speak only of Aristotelian physics and astronomy).

But Aristotelian physics had not held sway for over 1500 years. On the contrary, it had held sway for only about 300 years when Galileo was around. Aristotelian logic had been extremely important for the whole of the Middle Ages, but Aristotle's physics, ethics and metaphysics had only been rediscovered in the West in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and it was not until after the work of Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas that he was generally accepted as an authority. Before that time, most churchmen had despised him (Tertullian had looked forward to watching Aristotle burn in hell, whilst even Gregory of Nyssa called him an evil genius!).

Besides which, Galileo was hardly the first to want to overturn Aristotle. Paracelsus was quite clear that his intention was to overturn not just Aristotle but every other medieval authority, especially Galen. There's nothing remarkable about rejecting the views of an established authority - students do it in every generation - what is remarkable is successfully showing them to be wrong. Galileo did do that to a considerable extent, overturning Aristotle's physics with his famous experiments, but he didn't succeed in wrecking Aristotelianism to the degree that he hoped to. That really would be left to Newton (Descartes didn't manage it either).

 

[CartesianFart]

Saying that Aristotle is more influential than Jesus because, for a period, the Catholic Church used Aristotle's terminology to explain its doctrines is ridiculous. It's like saying Richard Dawkins is more influential than Darwin because more people today read Dawkins' books explaining Darwinism than they read Darwin himself. Besides, Aristotle was influential on Christianity only at a relatively late stage (the Church Fathers universally hated him), and then only in the west; and even then, Protestantism shook off most of his influence by the seventeenth century. Aristotle's influence on Orthodoxy was brief, primarily in the sixth and seventh centuries.

I agree that Aristotle is extremely influential - arguably the most influential scientist and philosopher of all time. But there are better justifications for that claim than medieval Islam or late medieval Catholicism.

Isnt it true that Islam kept Aristotle works and somehow gave it back to christianity during the dark ages?Isnt Thomas Aquinas the one who was influenced by many muslim from Cordova,which was the New York of that time.

 

[CartesianFart]

But Aristotelian physics had not held sway for over 1500 years. On the contrary, it had held sway for only about 300 years when Galileo was around. Aristotelian logic had been extremely important for the whole of the Middle Ages, but Aristotle's physics, ethics and metaphysics had only been rediscovered in the West in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and it was not until after the work of Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas that he was generally accepted as an authority. Before that time, most churchmen had despised him (Tertullian had looked forward to watching Aristotle burn in hell, whilst even Gregory of Nyssa called him an evil genius!).

Besides which, Galileo was hardly the first to want to overturn Aristotle. Paracelsus was quite clear that his intention was to overturn not just Aristotle but every other medieval authority, especially Galen. There's nothing remarkable about rejecting the views of an established authority - students do it in every generation - what is remarkable is successfully showing them to be wrong. Galileo did do that to a considerable extent, overturning Aristotle's physics with his famous experiments, but he didn't succeed in wrecking Aristotelianism to the degree that he hoped to. That really would be left to Newton (Descartes didn't manage it either).

Arent u really only quoting Thomas Khun,especially the book "the Structure of the Scientific Revolutions?

 

[Plotinus]

Isnt it true that Islam kept Aristotle works and somehow gave it back to christianity during the dark ages?

Kind of, but the Muslims only had Aristotle's works because Christians in the Middle East had preserved and translated them. Western Europe (not Christianity in general) regained Aristotle's works in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, not the Dark Ages.

Isnt Thomas Aquinas the one who was influenced by many muslim from Cordova,which was the New York of that time.

Aquinas was influenced by figures such as Averroes, but he did not go nearly so far as Averroes in his enthusiasm for Aristotle. Aquinas was happy to rely on Aristotle where he didn't conflict with Augustine and other church authorities, but his first loyalty was always to the latter.

But why do you call Cordova the New York of the thirteenth century?

Arent u really only quoting Thomas Khun,especially the book "the Structure of the Scientific Revolutions?

I've never read it. All of what I said is from my own reading of the figures mentioned. But if Khun says the same thing independently of me then it must be true!

 

[Perfection]

top 5 'most influential scientists'
1- Einstein
2- Galileo
3- Newton
4- Neils Bohr
5 -Planck

You do know that there are sciences that aren't physics (cram the Rutherford quote), don't you?

 

[sydhe]

Most influential scientists:
(1) Newton: At or near the top in physics, astronomy, optics and mathematics
(2) Darwin
(3) Galileo
(4) Pasteur
(5) Einstein
(6) Faraday
(7) Descartes
(8) Maxwell
(9) Euclid
(10) Euler
(11) Lavoisier
(12) Planck
(13) Ernest Rutherford
(14) Leeuwenhook
(15) Gauss
I'm not counting Aristotle here. If I did, he'd be #6

 

[Plotinus]

I'm not sure I'd count mathematicians as "scientists".

 

[craig9897]

Sydhe
Any top 15 scientists need to have Linus Pauling in it

 

[mjb141]

As for influential scientists, I think Sigmund Freud should probably be somewhere on that list.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

Freund was a scientist? In any case, physichiatry has been pretty uninfluential. The likes of Galen would be far more important to western health.

 

[jonatas]

As for influential scientists, I think Sigmund Freud should probably be somewhere on that list.

Actually a huge criticism of Freud is that his ideas weren't scientific.

 

[craig9897]

Freud was not influential or a scientist. But he would make my list of top 5 Nutballs!

 

[Hornblower]

Haven't Freud's theories recently been discredited or at least there is a new wave of "revisionist" psych's who are rejecting his ideas?

 

[mjb141]

Freud was not influential or a scientist. But he would make my list of top 5 Nutballs!

Doesn't the fact that we're debating (well, perhaps I'm the only one debating it...) whether or not Freud was influential prove that he was, in some way, influential? I agree that one can make a persuasive argument that Freud was more philosopher than scientist, but that doesn't diminish his looming presence o'er the young field of psychology. His ideas of id, ego, and and the power of the subconscious (sp?) are ones which (many) people think about on a daily basis. His controversial methods push the boundaries of what we consider proper science... But that doesn't mean he was wrong! And as I mentioned before, being right or wrong has little to do with influence. Ask most people on the street whom they picture when they think of psychology, and I guarantee more people will say Freud than William James. I think one could make a favorable comparison between Freud and Darwin in their attempts to make a comprehensive yet ultimately flawed theory encompassing their respective fields.

PS - Someone in this thread mentioned Galen, and I agree that he should most definitely be on a list of the most influential scientists. I would also add that Da Vinci, the father of anatomy and a brilliant engineer, should be considered for this list.

 

[craig9897]

Galen, DaVinci, Gengis kahn, Galileo, all good picks!

 

[seraphism]

Maybe i'm missing something here but i gots to vote for alexander. Helenization(sp) of the known world.... he predated all the religious figures and you could argue their existance would not have been possible without him. Of course you could argue their existance wouldn't have been possible without a rat called "bob" which ran accross a room at a particularly important time in history causing a woman to jump into the arms of a man, whom she promptly fell in love with and whose descendents were instrumental in the founding of every important event known to man. But i digress, no alex, no helenization(sp), no rome, no world as we know it.

 

[BCLG100]

The fella that came up with the numbers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 he was fairly important, as well as the person that came up with the 26 letters.

 

[useless]

hitler nothing was the same after hitler arrived and caused the second world war

 

[Zoso318]

European wise I would say either Martin Luther or Gutenberg because The Protestant Reformation brought about literature to the masses. Information, Information, Information. Gotta love it.

Also the Roman who decided to conquer the european tribes and build european society was pretty important. I dont wanna say Julius Caesar but a succession of roman generals.

 

[shahreevar]

Guttenberg (well, out of this provided list)
why? as Zoso said, Inoformation. the quick spreading of ideas.
not on the list:
Zarathustra
Jesus
Mohammad
Budha
Cyrus
Constantine
George W. Bush (loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool)