Who Is Your Favorite Scientist?

cbish said:
How? Explain.
Click to expand...

Newtons methods often leaned more to wards alchemy than what we would consider modern science (he was a member of a society which believed that they could turn themselves invisible for one thing, and that wasn't the strangest of his beliefs).

I have no doubt that Newton was a genius, and he helped lay many of the foundations of modern science, but his routes where in alchemy and magic.

The biography of newton by John Maynard Keynes is a good place to start to see this side of Newton.
 
I knew this about Newton. Considering it was the 1600's, though, Newton was about as 'scientific' as it gets.

He may have also been the precursor to the Rock Star in terms of his popularity.
 
cbish said:
I knew this about Newton. Considering it was the 1600's, though, Newton was about as 'scientific' as it gets.
Click to expand...

he may have been as scientific as it got, but that does not make him a scientist.

Behe and Dembski are about as scientific as creationism gets, that doesn't make them scientists either. ;)

on the other hand, newton was a genius who added vastly to the human understanding of the world...
 
brodski said:
he may have been as scientific as it got, but that does not make him a scientist.

Behe and Dembski are about as scientific as creationism gets, that doesn't make them scientists either. ;)

on the other hand, newton was a genius who added vastly to the human understanding of the world...
Click to expand...
What are your thoughts on Copernicus or Galileo? Descarte?
 
cbish said:
What are your thoughts on Copernicus or Galileo? Descarte?
Click to expand...
similar to my views on Newton, the helped greatly in understanding the world, and their work was valid, but not necessarily scientific. I think Newton is about the boundary of what is and is not scientific.
This is not meant as an attack on newton, or the others, we can't blame people for not working within a framework for inquiry which had not yet been thought up!
 
My favorite scientists?

Of those I know anything about, I would go with Carolyn Bertozzi from Berkeley and John Stanton, Texas.

Both absolutely brilliant, and, more importantly, just delightful people.

Bertozzi, especially, is really cool. And when you talk to her, you know you are in the presence of someone special.

Stanton is just a great guy all around.
 
ZirconBlue thanks for saying Tesla, he's probably the most underrated scientist. I dream for the day that Tesla is as well known as Edison. I know it's a dream.
 
brodski said:
Newtons methods often leaned more to wards alchemy than what we would consider modern science (he was a member of a society which believed that they could turn themselves invisible for one thing, and that wasn't the strangest of his beliefs).

I have no doubt that Newton was a genius, and he helped lay many of the foundations of modern science, but his routes where in alchemy and magic.

The biography of newton by John Maynard Keynes is a good place to start to see this side of Newton.
Click to expand...

I think The Principia could outweigh a lifetime of "gris gris".

LLH
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom