Who is the Most influential Scientist in history?

[warpus]

I vote Newton.

 

[Kal'thzar]

I've admired maxwell, but that might be because i'm scottish :/

Mainly for his work on Electromagnatism. (rather than the other stuff he did, cause frankly light is more intresting )

Then Again theirs Newton......

Einstein, I've gotten tired of merely for being cliche, I think hes overrated.

 

[classical_hero]

There is just so much more to Newton than what you just described.

 

[sanabas]

Schrodinger, Turing, Nobel & Marie Curie are some fairly influential scientists yet to be mentioned in this thread.

Anyone with an SI unit named after them has had a bit of an influence on things too. Becquerel, Tesla, Faraday, Kelvin, Hertz, Pascal, etc.

 

[Sidhe]

Mich Kaiko the progenator of string theory has been influential if for nothing else making a hypothesis more mainstream, one of the first scientists to do so. His "theory" is elegant if a little too imaginative.

Newton and Einstein, Plank and Bohr. But I'm biased towards physisists, oh big Schrodinnger/ Dirac fan too.

Oh and Bohm. A particle explanation that is as accepted as the wave model.

Most influential though probably Darwin.

 

[Verbose]

Most influential though probably Darwin.

Nah, that would depend on whether you mean what Darwin actually did or what's being conveniently pegged on his name.

Evolution always was very much a group effort, beginning well before Darwin and only starting to look the way it currently does in the 1930's or so. One could perhaps say Darwin was extaordinarily influential because there was so much unfinished business surrounding his theory it allowed all kinds of people to make contributions.

Seems to be the case very often. But since science is a group effort, if you're lucky, it's no wonder either.

 

[Plotinus]

But no-one ever said that Darwin came up with the theory of evolution (except ignorant people). Darwin came up with the mechanism that drives evolution, and that in itself was the major leap forward, because (a) it showed how evolution is possible without the need to invoke any supernatural influences, and (b) the principle of natural selection can be applied to other areas as well. I'd agree that Darwin is easily up there.

 

[7ronin]

Their influence is just beginning to be felt and understood. How about James Watson and Frances Crick who discovered DNA?

 

[YNCS]

Watson and Crick didn't discover DNA. It was first described in the 1880s. Watson and Crick determined its structure.

 

[kryszcztov]

Having read a bit about him recently, and to follow a few guys in this thread, I'll vote for that dude who is known as Aristote in French. Not only is he considered as the father of Science as we understand it today (observe Nature, create theories to fit the observations, split the knowledge into different fields...), he also influenced scientists up to the Modern Times (Renaissance), where he started to get countered. Much of his work is still valid today (whether it is knowledge or methods), how can you beat that ? Certainly not by creating the Theory of Gravity or the Theory of Relativity. Newton and Einstein may be genious, I think they don't match Aristotle in terms of influence, all the more as Aristotle covered as many scientific fields as he could (in fact, he created them ). And Aristotle wasn't just a scientist... I'll stop the worshipping here ; I have a lot to read about him and others, and I don't think he is my God, especially if we move onto the philosophical stage.

 

[pboily]

I'm reading a book (The Equation That Couldn't Be Solved, by M.Livio) that makes a strong case for Evariste Galois, the founder of Group Theory.

The argument is that Galois was the first to see "symmetry" as a fundamental tool to solve problems even when symmetry was not apparently part of the problems.

It turned out that created a revolution in physics, such that physicists now consider the symmetries that must inherently be present in the system under study before coming up with a model for the system. That viewpoint is directly responsible for Einstein's general relativity (the symmetry shows up in the equivalence principle: acceleration = gravity, although he didn't use this approach for special relativity), in the electro-weak force, the Yang-Mills theory and super-string theory (gauge super-symmetry). [Again, according to Livio]

As far as being influential, this ranks right up there with Newton and Leibniz and their Calculii.

Of course, I would suggest a mathematician...

But truly, this primarly revolutionized physics, whereas the rest of the sciences were not so much affected by the thought. And besides, we still don't understand why the Universe should have such an affinity for symmetry and symmetry-breaking.

Anyway, just throwing out a name that usually gets left out, but who has been as influential as Newton (if not as nearly popular) in my opinion.

 

[pboily]

Having read a bit about him recently, and to follow a few guys in this thread, I'll vote for that dude who is known as Aristote in French. Not only is he considered as the father of Science as we understand it today (observe Nature, create theories to fit the observations, split the knowledge into different fields...), he also influenced scientists up to the Modern Times (Renaissance), where he started to get countered. Much of his work is still valid today (whether it is knowledge or methods), how can you beat that ? Certainly not by creating the Theory of Gravity or the Theory of Relativity. Newton and Einstein may be genious, I think they don't match Aristotle in terms of influence, all the more as Aristotle covered as many scientific fields as he could (in fact, he created them ). And Aristotle wasn't just a scientist... I'll stop the worshipping here ; I have a lot to read about him and others, and I don't think he is my God, especially if we move onto the philosophical stage.

On the other hand, one could say he was so influential that he stiffled scientific discovery until the Renaissance. Had he been a little influential, we may have shaved 200-300 years off the the Dark Ages... who knows, really.

 

[Plotinus]

If the Dark Ages were dark, it was because of political events, not the influence of Aristotle or any other philosopher. In fact, Aristotle's scientific works were largely unknown in western Europe during the Dark Ages. They were rediscovered in the twelfth century. So if Aristotle did stifle scientific inquiry, it was only for about two or three centuries - and you can hardly blame him for that. The question is who was the most influential, not whose influence was the most beneficial. And in fact, I'd say that the rediscovery of Aristotle in the Middle Ages was one of the factors behind the rise of empiricism during that time, with Roger Bacon and his ilk. They were the precursors of the first true modern scientists. If Aristotle had never been rediscovered, perhaps everyone would still be appealing to Augustine as the final authority on everything...

 

[kryszcztov]

On the other hand, one could say he was so influential that he stiffled scientific discovery until the Renaissance. Had he been a little influential, we may have shaved 200-300 years off the the Dark Ages... who knows, really.

The point isn't about good or bad influence, just influence. Your post is feeding my vote even more. Now, to put all the blame of the "Dark Middle Ages" on one man is a bit extreme, in my opinion ; we'd better blame the generations of scientists which didn't try to prove Aristotle wrong. But no worries, I see you didn't want to counter my point anyway.

EDIT : X-post with Plotinus, who goes along my point while adding more info. Thanks.

 

[pboily]

Just goes to show how much I know outside of my field. I meant the Dark Age for Science, such as it is. And if I'm honest, when I say Science, I really mean mathematical discovery...

As you mentioned, I wasn't actually countering your point. Being wrong is instrumental in science, so thank god for old Aristotle.

But I can't shake the feeling that most "scientists" were very happy with quoting Aristotle as truth and leaving it at that. As a last effort to discredit his influence, I will claim that his appeal was so strong pre-Galilean, pre-Copernican "scientists" were merely Aristotlean priests.

Any takers?

 

[pboily]

If Aristotle had never been rediscovered, perhaps everyone would still be appealing to Augustine as the final authority on everything...

I know that this is not what is being implied here, but I find it difficult to believe that the kind of inquisitive pursuit of Galilean types needed for the scientific method to take flight can occur only with Aristotle (or the re-discovery of his works).

I always assumed that it was an idea whose time had come (belatedly, as per my previous posts), and that it was going to occur at any rate.

Is there a name for the idea that if the parents are too fantastic, they will hamper the development of the kid simply by not leaving room for the kid to improve upon his parents?

Maybe the point is that a slightly less influential Aristotle (or Ptolemy, or any of the Ancients) allows a quicker route out of scientific rut. Or maybe the culprits are just Ancestor Worship and/or The Past as Golden Age notions.

 

[TheBoatman]

With so much Aristotle in this thread, I would oppose with William of Occam. Like Aristotle, he was not a scientist, but he was first in the western world to think about how to recognize a right hypothesis if there are more of them. William of Occam also contributed to "liberation from Aristotle", which was essential because almost everything Aristotle wrote on science contained mistakes. His works continue to be influential in philosophy, not in science.

From true scientists I agree with Newton, because his work allowed the industrial revolution to start.

 

[Plotinus]

Well, I was over-egging the pudding a little, perhaps. Of course Aristotle wasn't *necessary* for the emergence of the scientific method. However, I do think he was a big influence upon it. I certainly don't believe in "ideas whose time have come". There's no fate or necessity in history, only cause and effect. But I think you're right to blame idolisation of the past as a culprit in holding back the development of science. From that point of view, the Renaissance was a bigger block to science than the Middle Ages were.

As a last effort to discredit his influence, I will claim that his appeal was so strong pre-Galilean, pre-Copernican "scientists" were merely Aristotlean priests.

Aha, well, who precisely are you thinking of there?

almost everything Aristotle wrote on science contained mistakes

Again, true but a bit harsh. You could say the same thing of Galileo, Newton, and the rest of them. It's terribly fashionable to pick up on all of Aristotle's notorious mistakes (spontaneous generation, oxen that could blast fire out of their rear ends, etc) and ignore all the stuff he got right (that business with octopuses mating, for example). Being a good scientist isn't about being right or wrong, it's about putting forward hypotheses that explain the evidence well, and then testing them. Most of Aristotle's hypotheses *do* explain the evidence well, or at least the evidence that he had.

Remember that science doesn't give definitive accounts of reality, only models to explain and predict phenomena. It was his failure to appreciate this that got Galileo into trouble.

 

[pboily]

Aha, well, who precisely are you thinking of there?

Folks like Albert Magnus, Cesare Cremonini and Thomas D'Aquin could be considered representative of that era's top European scientists/philosophers, I think.

The authority of ARISTOTLE was so strong that all ideas on the causes and mechanisms of earthquakes had been just comments on the opinions of ARISTOTLE, which were repeated almost literally. The only difference to ARISTOTLE was that all Christian authors of the Middle Ages wrote that God is the first supernatural cause of earthquakes, while the natural causes presented by ARISTOTLE were considered secondary. While ARISTOTLE based his theoretical position on empirical facts, Aristotelians in the Middle Ages did not carry out empirical research, but confined themselves to commenting the works of ARISTOTLE. As is well known, this way of doing natural research from the books of ARISTOTLE only led to extremes, such as the Aristotelian Cesare CREMONINI from Padua (16th century) who refused to look trough the telescope.

http://www.univie.ac.at/Wissenschaftstheorie/heat/heat-1/heat102f.htm (this is a site about earthquakes and their theories, but it's the best I could come up with over the Internet... I left most of my books in my office while on vacation, so it will have to wait until then.)

 

[Plotinus]

But no-one would say that Aquinas and the others were scientists. They were philosophers and theologians. What did Aquinas ever do that counted as science, good or bad? Indeed, Aquinas' understanding of what science is was completely different from our own (and Aristotle's!) - he thought that science was a deductive discipline, proceeding from axiomatic first principles, like maths.

I'd say that, rather than accusing medieval scientists of being too much in the thrall of Aristotle, there just weren't many medieval scientists to speak of in the first place. Of course we can argue about why that was, and no doubt there were many reasons for it. But I wouldn't blame Aristotle for it. There weren't any scientists to speak of in the tenth and eleventh centuries, before Aristotle's non-logical works were known; the continuing absence of scientists in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries is therefore surely not down to the rediscovery of Aristotle. On the contrary, the period of Aristotelian influence is precisely the period when we see Bacon, Ockham, and other philosophers starting to break with the past and point the way, however dimly, towards what we would call science.

Similarly, that website (which is pretty interesting) is bemoaning the fact that late medieval (not just "medieval", of course, as that author writes) and early modern authors repeated the views of Aristotle on earthquakes without doing any research of their own. That may be true, but then again, these people weren't scientists. If I were writing about earthquakes now, I would also just repeat whatever the top authority on earthquakes says about them, rather than go and do research of my own.