NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm just curious (like everyone that starts one of these kinda polls). Personally I'm going with Newton or Euler, it's kinda close between those two in my opinion. I'd have to say that Newton was the greatest scientist and Euler the greatest mathematician, but they were both geniuses in both areas.

I'm going with Newton... you realise he invented calculus when he was 18?

I'd have to say none of those.

Then who would you say?

umm... einstein? hawkings?

and if newton is going to be up there for "inventing" calculus, then so should leibniz. they rediscovered it at the same time.

I'm disappointed that Planck isn't on there. Or Thorne, Hawking, Einstein, and the rest of the modern generation of great scientists. Good range of choices though.

Umm... no rediscovering happened. Newton did it single-handedly when he was 18. Leibniz was smart, but he couldn't have invented calculus himself without some hints from Newton.

I'm going with Newton... you realise he invented calculus when he was 18?

Er, not sure about that. For one thing, calculus was more or less his life's accomplishment. For another, there is some dispute about whether he or Liebniz invented it (the notation used nowadays is Liebniz').

As for who was the greatest mathematician of all time, I'm going with Euclid.

Then who would you say?

Probably the greatest mathemtatical genius is someone none of us have ever heard of because he or she didn't do anything that got noticed. Newton was no slouch but his insights were severly limited by his cosmology. I believe his potential was far greater than we ever saw. The same basic problem limited Einstein (who should be on the list). The volume of material that died with Einstein is almost certainly colossal because he refused to even talk about what he was doing until he was sure he was correct. With that said he did manage to revolutionize the very basics of physics disproving Newton in the process. It's important to note that his equations have required some tinkering since then by more recent thinkers, but the leaps he made are unparalleled.

I would say of the well known candidates Newton could win without too much trouble, but he wasn't really a pure mathematician (though that's not a limiting factor in this question).

Well, that was the maximum that it would allow. I was thinking about put up Planck or Hawkings in favor of Maxwell, but Maxwell's equations are just awesome. Kiy is right, though, Archimedes came close to discovering the calculus but without algebra (or zero for that matter) he didn't get it done.

Stephen Hawking.

I'll vote for that first person in a cave somewhere who learned how to control fire. After all, all of the classical sciences basically boil down to the control/manipulation of energy. (EDIT: all the modern scientists everyone is talking about have only expanded on this cavepersons original work of genius. :wink: )

I'd have to say Edison, because I really do enjoy electricity, and thanks to his efforts, everyone here has it available to them. His work has probably proved to be the most useful for everyone. I know I would chose Electricity over the theory of relativity anyway.

I'll vote for that first person in a cave somewhere who learned how to control fire. After all, all of the classical sciences basically boil down to the control/manipulation of energy.

Fire isn't the only energy. I'd say if that's your plan then let's look at the first person who found that the sun was hot and they could regulate their body temperature by standing in direct sunlight or in shade. Of course there were animals doing that before humans were around, but nowhere does it say candidates have to be human.

I meant Archimedes, but I accidentally voted for Newton. SORRY!

Umm... no rediscovering happened. Newton did it single-handedly when he was 18. Leibniz was smart, but he couldn't have invented calculus himself without some hints from Newton.

the ancient greeks discovered calculus. they recently found parchments that had been written over and reused by monks for which the original ink showed mathematics that appeared to be calculus.
what hints from newton were there? leibniz developped his calculus separate from newton. if anything, there was suspcion that newton may have gotten some ideas from leibniz.

also, no one has mentioned why einstien wasn't on there. sure newton may have noticed that things fall with a certain acceleration due to gravity, but einstein explained why.

Then who would you say?

Probably the greatest mathemtatical genius is someone none of us have ever heard of because he or she didn't do anything that got noticed. Newton was no slouch but his insights were severly limited by his cosmology. I believe his potential was far greater than we ever saw. The same basic problem limited Einstein (who should be on the list). The volume of material that died with Einstein is almost certainly colossal because he refused to even talk about what he was doing until he was sure he was correct. With that said he did manage to revolutionize the very basics of physics disproving Newton in the process. It's important to note that his equations have required some tinkering since then by more recent thinkers, but the leaps he made are unparalleled.

I would say of the well known candidates Newton could win without too much trouble, but he wasn't really a pure mathematician (though that's not a limiting factor in this question).

I can see what you're saying, but you don't understand the magnitude of Euer's coolness. He wrote so much mathematical stuff that the Swiss government has not been able to compile his complete works, and they've compiled over 70 volumes since the 1920's or so. And a mathematician can't not get noticed because once they publish a proof to something noone else understands they are noticed, and in fact that's what happened with Euler. At 24 he solved the Basil problem, and I've seen the proof and how the heck he did it I don't understand. He worked the last fifteen or so years of his life blind and could still produce at a phenomenal rate.

As for Newton, the Principia alone puts him up there no matter what you have to say about his cosmology. In fact, arguably his comology was just another example of this greatness because, while the basis is not based on science, he took those and "proved" things with what he was given here.

Fire isn't the only energy. I'd say if that's your plan then let's look at the first person who found that the sun was hot and they could regulate their body temperature by standing in direct sunlight or in shade.

This is true. I suppose my point was that the control of fire represented the first instance of mankind learning to use energy to do somekind of useful work (EDIT: outside of one's own person). Although I suppose we can say that the first human being to discover how to control body temperature by standing in sun or shade created the field of medical science.

Umm... no rediscovering happened. Newton did it single-handedly when he was 18. Leibniz was smart, but he couldn't have invented calculus himself without some hints from Newton.

the ancient greeks discovered calculus. they recently found parchments that had been written over and reused by monks for which the original ink showed mathematics that appeared to be calculus.
what hints from newton were there? leibniz developped his calculus separate from newton. if anything, there was suspcion that newton may have gotten some ideas from leibniz.

also, no one has mentioned why einstien wasn't on there. sure newton may have noticed that things fall with a certain acceleration due to gravity, but einstein explained why.

I mentioned Einstein, and let's not forget that many of his theories are having trouble matching up with experiments on non-locality. His theory of gravitation explains why objects behave the way they do, but is not easily acceptable as fact because of certain disagreements it has with other equations. I can't explain it very well because it's unbelievably complicated, but suffice it to say that while Einstein's equations were remarkable they cannot be taken at face value.

Umm... no rediscovering happened. Newton did it single-handedly when he was 18. Leibniz was smart, but he couldn't have invented calculus himself without some hints from Newton.

the ancient greeks discovered calculus. they recently found parchments that had been written over and reused by monks for which the original ink showed mathematics that appeared to be calculus.
what hints from newton were there? leibniz developped his calculus separate from newton. if anything, there was suspcion that newton may have gotten some ideas from leibniz.

also, no one has mentioned why einstien wasn't on there. sure newton may have noticed that things fall with a certain acceleration due to gravity, but einstein explained why.

The Greeks (specifically Archimides) were headed towards calculus concepts, but they didn't have the calculus. I've taken calculus and you can't do it without analytic geometry, which the Greeks certainly didn't have. And I know that Archimedes had some calculus ideas, which is why he's so awesome.

As for Einstein, what he did didn't require nearly the genius in the guys that I have up there. All of the theory of relativity comes from Maxwell's equations and conclusions based on those, and the mathematical effort there was insufficient to have stumped Newton or Euler if they had been around after Maxwell's equations. It's just plain simpler. Beside that this is Einstein's only real contribution to science, he just leaves the picture afterward.

Fire isn't the only energy. I'd say if that's your plan then let's look at the first person who found that the sun was hot and they could regulate their body temperature by standing in direct sunlight or in shade.

This is true. I suppose my point was that the control of fire represented the first instance of mankind learning to use energy to do somekind of useful work (EDIT: outside of one's own person). Although I suppose we can say that the first human being to discover how to control body temperature by standing in sun or shade created the field of medical science.

This seems more of a random happening than a calculated effort. It wasn't a genius that did it, it just happened.

Who's heard of Euler?

Fire isn't the only energy. I'd say if that's your plan then let's look at the first person who found that the sun was hot and they could regulate their body temperature by standing in direct sunlight or in shade.

This is true. I suppose my point was that the control of fire represented the first instance of mankind learning to use energy to do somekind of useful work (EDIT: outside of one's own person). Although I suppose we can say that the first human being to discover how to control body temperature by standing in sun or shade created the field of medical science.

This seems more of a random happening than a calculated effort. It wasn't a genius that did it, it just happened.

What is a "genius" anyway? It is someone with a super-developed brain who has memorized every bit of scientific fact in 15 different languages, etc, etc, or is a "genius" simply someone who asked a question and ended up stumbling upon a new discovery?

If "genius" requires super-human intelligence, then I wonder how humanity got to where it is today, considering we started with people who lived in caves and grunted.

Either way, the fact still stands that all of the activities and discoveries of all the "geniuses" humanity has ever seen all go back to that one person standing in a cave with a burning stick. :wink:

The Greeks (specifically Archimides) were headed towards calculus concepts, but they didn't have the calculus. I've taken calculus and you can't do it without analytic geometry, which the Greeks certainly didn't have. And I know that Archimedes had some calculus ideas, which is why he's so awesome.

hey, i'm not the one who found the parchments and discovered what was orignally written on them. i'm just reporting what i heard, that the greeks did have calculus, it was just lost during the middle ages.

As for Einstein, what he did didn't require nearly the genius in the guys that I have up there. All of the theory of relativity comes from Maxwell's equations and conclusions based on those, and the mathematical effort there was insufficient to have stumped Newton or Euler if they had been around after Maxwell's equations. It's just plain simpler. Beside that this is Einstein's only real contribution to science, he just leaves the picture afterward.

?!?
einstein didn't only contribute relativity to science... what are you talking about?

did u know that Euler got blind when he was ~30, his son wrote all his books, the blind Euler would sit next to him and solve cofunsing mathematical equations in his mind alone asking the son to write down what ever he tells him!! 8)

Well, in the case of electrical science and such, Edison wasn't really that important. Nikola Tesla had FAR better ideas, and more of an impact, really, though his name is not well known. He made huge advances in the development and improvement of the Alternating Current, which is what almost all modern infrastructure runs on today.

I would say....well, not Newton as the BEST scientist....he said it best himself, he was standing "on the shoulders of giants." Euclid was definitely cool, for a mathematician...Planck, though great, did most of his stuff on quantuum mechanics, and ...yeah.

So, let's go to the very beginning, I agree, to the man/woman/child that "invented" fire...or written language. Either way, we'll deem this person Prometheus.

Fire isn't the only energy. I'd say if that's your plan then let's look at the first person who found that the sun was hot and they could regulate their body temperature by standing in direct sunlight or in shade.

This is true. I suppose my point was that the control of fire represented the first instance of mankind learning to use energy to do somekind of useful work (EDIT: outside of one's own person). Although I suppose we can say that the first human being to discover how to control body temperature by standing in sun or shade created the field of medical science.

This seems more of a random happening than a calculated effort. It wasn't a genius that did it, it just happened.

What is a "genius" anyway? It is someone with a super-developed brain who has memorized every bit of scientific fact in 15 different languages, etc, etc, or is a "genius" simply someone who asked a question and ended up stumbling upon a new discovery?

If "genius" requires super-human intelligence, then I wonder how humanity got to where it is today, considering we started with people who lived in caves and grunted.

Either way, the fact still stands that all of the activities and discoveries of all the "geniuses" humanity has ever seen all go back to that one person standing in a cave with a burning stick. :wink:

I'm not saying that something wasn't accomplished by an accidental discovery of fire, what I am saying is that the guy who did it wasn't smart, but Newton was, as anoyne who's read the Principia could probably tell you (or tried to read it for that matter), and Euler was, as anyone who's seen some of his proofs could tell you. And it's not memorization, it's logic. You'd have to see Newton's proof of his law of Universal Gravitation to really understand what I mean.

did u know that Euler got blind when he was ~30, his son wrote all his books, the blind Euler would sit next to him and solve cofunsing mathematical equations in his mind alone asking the son to write down what ever he tells him!! 8)

That's exactly what I mean, he was the definition of awesome because of this alone (well, from a mathematicians point of view). He made the most awesome mathematical statment of all time, e to the i pi plus one equals zero, tying the five most important mathematical symbols with a bow, an equals sign.

hey, i'm not the one who found the parchments and discovered what was orignally written on them. i'm just reporting what i heard, that the greeks did have calculus, it was just lost during the middle ages.

Well, that may have been a misperception because Archimedes had calculus concepts and that fact worded badly that could be perceived similarly badly by you. From experience I'm telling you it can't be.


?!?
einstein didn't only contribute relativity to science... what are you talking about?

I'm sure he had something minor, but after relativity he became obsessed with unification of the forces, something he never succeeded in and thus he left the picture.

Another great thing about Euler, he was fairly balanced in his life. He had a happy marriage, kids, grandkids, and said that some of his greatest discoveries happened when he was surrounded by these children. Of course that's not pertinent, but what is is the number of important Euler (pronounced oiler) theorems that there are, with several in every branch of mathematics (geometry, algebra, calculus, analysis, number theory, etc.). And he was the first guy to use pi for pi, e for e, i for the square root of negative one, or to formally define e.

If you can't tell I think Euler's underappreciated, noone learns about him until they're in really high math and it's a shame that so few people know about such an awesome guy.

Fire isn't the only energy. I'd say if that's your plan then let's look at the first person who found that the sun was hot and they could regulate their body temperature by standing in direct sunlight or in shade.

This is true. I suppose my point was that the control of fire represented the first instance of mankind learning to use energy to do somekind of useful work (EDIT: outside of one's own person). Although I suppose we can say that the first human being to discover how to control body temperature by standing in sun or shade created the field of medical science.

This seems more of a random happening than a calculated effort. It wasn't a genius that did it, it just happened.

What is a "genius" anyway? It is someone with a super-developed brain who has memorized every bit of scientific fact in 15 different languages, etc, etc, or is a "genius" simply someone who asked a question and ended up stumbling upon a new discovery?

If "genius" requires super-human intelligence, then I wonder how humanity got to where it is today, considering we started with people who lived in caves and grunted.

Either way, the fact still stands that all of the activities and discoveries of all the "geniuses" humanity has ever seen all go back to that one person standing in a cave with a burning stick. :wink:

I'm not saying that something wasn't accomplished by an accidental discovery of fire, what I am saying is that the guy who did it wasn't smart, but Newton was, as anoyne who's read the Principia could probably tell you (or tried to read it for that matter), and Euler was, as anyone who's seen some of his proofs could tell you. And it's not memorization, it's logic. You'd have to see Newton's proof of his law of Universal Gravitation to really understand what I mean.

Why is he/she not "smart?" Sure, the discovery of fire itself may have been accidental (many discoveries in modern science can be just as accidental, as a matter of fact), but I'm talking about learning how to utilize fire.

Learning such utilization would involve the same scientific processes that modern scientists use today. Even discovering the fact that fire can be utilized at all would require scientific processes of observation, experementation, data gathering (more observation) and drawing conclusions. Sure, jumping up and down on ones knuckles and making grunting noises when one discovers that fire can be used to, say, cook meat may look rather stupid, but the fact that such a reaction is had at all is evidence that all of the scientific processes above took place and knowledge was gained.

I simply assert that there is little difference between the "genius" of the Newtons and Einsteins and these first cavepeople. The Newtons and Einsteins only seem more intelligent because they already have eons of scientific vocabulary and fact to fall back on. However, when it really comes down to the ultimate essense of what science is, the Newtons and Einsteins are really only engaged in the exact same curious observation that marked the rise of humankind above all other animals so very long ago.

(EDIT: in fact, I think the only purpose the idea of "genius" serves is to create personality cults...human beings seem to have a need to worship other human beings, for some reason. Thats why we have hollywood after all. Sure, scientists contribute much more to humanity than the average pop celebrity, however, elevating them to super-human status of whatever kind is probably a litte....crazy...)

Well, that may have been a misperception because Archimedes had calculus concepts and worded badly that could be perceived similarly badly. From experience I'm telling you it can't be.

and i'm telling you what people found it isn't speculation, it's hard facts. if you knew where the thing was, you could go and see it for yourself. well, i suppose being able to read ancient greek would be good too...

I'm sure he had something minor, but after relativity he became obsessed with unification of the forces, something he never succeeded in and thus he left the picture.

for one thing, relativity and quantum mechanics are the two big things in physics nowadays, hence the efforts to find a theory that unites the two. so relativity is quite important. general relativity explains what newton could not. i'm not sure that newton could really have figured it out if given maxwell's equations... while he was a smart guy, i don't give him that much credit.
he also did work with the photoelectric effect, conversion of mass to energy (a rather important concept, really) i'm sure some things that i'm missing too...
and why he stopped being as innovative is more due to age, i believe. when one gets older, one is more set in their ways unfortunately, so creativity and willingness to accept new ideas declines. he never accepted quantum mechanics, if i recall...

aside from all that, the question was who was the smartest, not who was the most influential.

in which case, i think einstein may have competition from hawkings.

Well, in the case of electrical science and such, Edison wasn't really that important. Nikola Tesla had FAR better ideas, and more of an impact, really, though his name is not well known. He made huge advances in the development and improvement of the Alternating Current, which is what almost all modern infrastructure runs on today.

I would say....well, not Newton as the BEST scientist....he said it best himself, he was standing "on the shoulders of giants." Euclid was definitely cool, for a mathematician...Planck, though great, did most of his stuff on quantuum mechanics, and ...yeah.

So, let's go to the very beginning, I agree, to the man/woman/child that "invented" fire...or written language. Either way, we'll deem this person Prometheus.

I thought about putting Tesla on but I didn't, mostly because he became so obsessed with things that couldn't be done (like his death ray) and faded like Einstein from the center stage. And he was weird, but that doesn't have much to do with anything (I mean really wierd).

And he was weird, but that doesn't have much to do with anything (I mean really wierd).

since when are geniuses normal?

Fire isn't the only energy. I'd say if that's your plan then let's look at the first person who found that the sun was hot and they could regulate their body temperature by standing in direct sunlight or in shade.

This is true. I suppose my point was that the control of fire represented the first instance of mankind learning to use energy to do somekind of useful work (EDIT: outside of one's own person). Although I suppose we can say that the first human being to discover how to control body temperature by standing in sun or shade created the field of medical science.

This seems more of a random happening than a calculated effort. It wasn't a genius that did it, it just happened.

What is a "genius" anyway? It is someone with a super-developed brain who has memorized every bit of scientific fact in 15 different languages, etc, etc, or is a "genius" simply someone who asked a question and ended up stumbling upon a new discovery?

If "genius" requires super-human intelligence, then I wonder how humanity got to where it is today, considering we started with people who lived in caves and grunted.

Either way, the fact still stands that all of the activities and discoveries of all the "geniuses" humanity has ever seen all go back to that one person standing in a cave with a burning stick. :wink:

I'm not saying that something wasn't accomplished by an accidental discovery of fire, what I am saying is that the guy who did it wasn't smart, but Newton was, as anoyne who's read the Principia could probably tell you (or tried to read it for that matter), and Euler was, as anyone who's seen some of his proofs could tell you. And it's not memorization, it's logic. You'd have to see Newton's proof of his law of Universal Gravitation to really understand what I mean.

Why is he/she not "smart?" Sure, the discovery of fire itself may have been accidental (many discoveries in modern science can be just as accidental, as a matter of fact), but I'm talking about learning how to utilize fire.

Learning such utilization would involve the same scientific processes that modern scientists use today. Even discovering the fact that fire can be utilized at all would require scientific processes of observation, experementation, data gathering (more observation) and drawing conclusions. Sure, jumping up and down on ones knuckles and making grunting noises when one discovers that fire can be used to, say, cook meat may look rather stupid, but the fact that such a reaction is had at all is evidence that all of the scientific processes above took place and knowledge was gained.

I simply assert that there is little difference between the "genius" of the Newtons and Einsteins and these first cavepeople. The Newtons and Einsteins only seem more intelligent because they already have eons of scientific vocabulary and fact to fall back on. However, when it really comes down to the ultimate essense of what science is, the Newtons and Einsteins are really only engaged in the exact same curious observation that marked the rise of humankind above all other animals so very long ago.

(EDIT: in fact, I think the only purpose the idea of "genius" serves is to create personality cults...human beings seem to have a need to worship other human beings, for some reason. Thats why we have hollywood after all. Sure, scientists contribute much more to humanity than the average pop celebrity, however, elevating them to super-human status of whatever kind is probably a litte....crazy...)

I always would have agreed with the statement that having more background doesn't make you smarter, in fact that's one of the reasons why Einstein wasn't on there, because I think other guys could've done it and he did because the resources happened to be around for a guy who was smart enough to figure it out even if he wasn't an Euler. And you make an interesting point by noting how the notice of the ability to use fire is significant. All right, I'll by it. Prometheus (as someone put it) might have been as smart as Newton and Euler. I don't know for sure, though, under the same circumstances I think they could've figured it out, but then again for all I know Prometheus could have done everything they did if he'd been around with their knowledge. We don't have clue 1 about this, not having seen what the guy was like or having any records, so it's a maybe maybe-not thing. In other words I'm going to say maybe but we can't be sure.

As for your celebrity idea, that's true at times. Einstein was a celebrity and made to look smarter than he was by it, that's one thing I'm saying here. However, you couldn't do what Newton, Euler, Maxwell, Gauss, Archimedes, or Einstein did in all likelihood even with their training, so they were smarter than you, and this is the meaning of genius. There are geniuses and it would be egotistical of me to say that guys aren't smarter than me.

And he was weird, but that doesn't have much to do with anything (I mean really wierd).

since when are geniuses normal?

Euler was normal except for the genius aspect, but Tesla claimed to have destroyed his sexuality at forty.

And he was weird, but that doesn't have much to do with anything (I mean really wierd).

since when are geniuses normal?

Euler was normal except for the genius aspect, but Tesla claimed to have destroyed his sexuality at forty.

there is a fine line between genius and insanity.

perhaps he crossed the line a little early... although didn't telsa die at like 50 of cancer?

ah, so many great ones left off the list. Einstein, Pythagoras, Edison, Bell, Morse, Hawking, Thorne, Rudolf Diesel, Gottlieb Daimler, Fermi, the list could never end...

Well, that may have been a misperception because Archimedes had calculus concepts and worded badly that could be perceived similarly badly. From experience I'm telling you it can't be.

and i'm telling you what people found it isn't speculation, it's hard facts. if you knew where the thing was, you could go and see it for yourself. well, i suppose being able to read ancient greek would be good too...

I'm sure he had something minor, but after relativity he became obsessed with unification of the forces, something he never succeeded in and thus he left the picture.

for one thing, relativity and quantum mechanics are the two big things in physics nowadays, hence the efforts to find a theory that unites the two. so relativity is quite important. general relativity explains what newton could not. i'm not sure that newton could really have figured it out if given maxwell's equations... while he was a smart guy, i don't give him that much credit.
he also did work with the photoelectric effect, conversion of mass to energy (a rather important concept, really) i'm sure some things that i'm missing too...
and why he stopped being as innovative is more due to age, i believe. when one gets older, one is more set in their ways unfortunately, so creativity and willingness to accept new ideas declines. he never accepted quantum mechanics, if i recall...

aside from all that, the question was who was the smartest, not who was the most influential.

in which case, i think einstein may have competition from hawkings.

No, it's not speculation, it's what you heard, and it is very easy to hear something and translate it as something else. And what I mean by that is you see a thing on PBS or read it in an article and then you remember it but you don't have a perfect memory so your perception of what was said changes, usually becoming grander than the truth. It happens to everyone. I've heard these things too, and I know what you're talking about, what's been found, and the Greeks did not know that differentiation and integration are inverse processes, the most important statement to calculus. I've heard these things that you're talking about and they had calculus concepts, not all of calculus.

As for Einstein, you're right. He did more than what I was thinking of, especially the photoelectric effect. As for the conversion of mass to energy there were guys talking about it before him (I just did quite a bit of research into nuclear history) and Enrico Fermi was the guy who did the biggest things with it. Einstein gets the credit because he basically wrote down the final conclusion, E=mc squared, and while he did do quite a bit with it Fermi was the one who put the most into it.

As for your statement about Newton, I doubt you've done the Kepler problem or read the Principia, so you don't know wherewith you speak. Plus you should know the story of the invention of the calculus of variations, one of the hardest branches there is. In fact he did it because all of Europe was challenged to solve three problems during the Newton-Leibniz controversy and everyone had two months to do it. Newton found out the day before the proofs were supposed to be postmarked and while noone else in Europe but the guy who had originally proposed them (a Bernoulli) solved all three, Newton did so and in doing so invented the Calculus of Variations. He was smarter than you.

ah, so many great ones left off the list. Einstein, Pythagoras, Edison, Bell, Morse, Hawking, Thorne, Rudolf Diesel, Gottlieb Daimler, Fermi, the list could never end...

Yeah, I mentioned that, it only allows so many. I'd like to know what the significance of Thorne, Diesel, and Daimler is, I don't know those particular geniuses (though I anticipate that Diesel was a chemist and that I'll kick myself for not knowing them when I hear about them).

However, you couldn't do what Newton, Euler, Maxwell, Gauss, Archimedes, or Einstein did in all likelihood even with their training, so they were smarter than you...


I don't ever recall meeting you in person, so I don't see how one can make such a statement about me.

Reguardless, the simple fact of the matter is that all kinds of people are doing what Newton, Euler, Maxwell, Guass, Archimedes and Einstein did...just walk around the local university. There one will find people being trained in the knowledge that those scientists had and who are advancing that knowledge as we speak.

This process is called education and science, both of which mass produce "geniuses." All the "geniuses" listed above were produced in the same way, their discoveries resting on the work of all those who came before them. The only difference between those scientists and the average person on the street, in reality, is that those scientists took enough time to ask and try to answer a question. Thats it. The only difference between "genius" and "not genius" is one of motovation. "Genius" is 99% perspiration after all.

Which really means that the scientific "genius" is really no different than the average schmuck laborer in a ditch somewhere. Sure, laboring in a ditch might not carry the same "prestige" (EDIT: remember the personality cult) as a scientist, but the dedication to solving some problem or creating something is there, otherwise the person would not be laboring in said ditch to begin with.

There is nothing more to "genius" than the motovation to do something creatively, which is something all human beings are capable of if given the chance. These scientists, while their contributions are certainly important, are hardly anything special.

That is the meaning of genius.

Its really hard to say who the absolute best scientist is because everyone who has ever been in the field of science has only taken what others have done and improved upon it. It is true that there have been a few that have stood apart from the rest because of their unique contributions to their individual fields but you have to recognize the fact that there are many more scientists that deserve credit for their work. Madame Currie, George Washington Carver, Fermat, and so on and so on.

ah, so many great ones left off the list. Einstein, Pythagoras, Edison, Bell, Morse, Hawking, Thorne, Rudolf Diesel, Gottlieb Daimler, Fermi, the list could never end...

Yeah, I mentioned that, it only allows so many. I'd like to know what the significance of Thorne, Diesel, and Daimler is, I don't know those particular geniuses (though I anticipate that Diesel was a chemist and that I'll kick myself for not knowing them when I hear about them).Deisel invented the pressure-ignited heat (deisel) engine, I said Daimler, but I meant to say Otto, the inventor of the Internal Combustion engine. I also forgot the Wright Brothers.

However, you couldn't do what Newton, Euler, Maxwell, Gauss, Archimedes, or Einstein did in all likelihood even with their training, so they were smarter than you...


I don't ever recall meeting you in person, so I don't see how one can make such a statement about me.

Reguardless, the simple fact of the matter is that all kinds of people are doing what Newton, Euler, Maxwell, Guass, Archimedes and Einstein did...just walk around the local university. There one will find people being trained in the knowledge that those scientists had and who are advancing that knowledge as we speak.

This process is called education and science, both of which mass produce "geniuses." All the "geniuses" listed above were produced in the same way, their discoveries resting on the work of all those who came before them. The only difference between those scientists and the average person on the street, in reality, is that those scientists took enough time to ask and try to answer a question. Thats it. The only difference between "genius" and "not genius" is one of motovation. "Genius" is 99% perspiration after all.

Which really means that the scientific "genius" is really no different than the average schmuck laborer in a ditch somewhere. Sure, laboring in a ditch might not carry the same "prestige" (EDIT: remember the personality cult) as a scientist, but the dedication to solving some problem or creating something is there, otherwise the person would not be laboring in said ditch to begin with.

There is nothing more to "genius" than the motovation to do something creatively, which is something all human beings are capable of if given the chance. These scientists, while their contributions are certainly important, are hardly anything special.

That is the meaning of genius.

I disagree, and I said "in all likelihood" because I haven't met you in person, it may be that I'm wrong and you are a genius, but then you wouldn't be so quick to downplay the word.

That is, I get almost straight A's with almost no effort whatsoever. What you are saying is that that is impossible, that someone can only be "smart" through hard work. Genius is not knowledge but potential, intelligence is defined as the ability to learn. Some people have an easier time learning than others, and no matter what you say I know this from experience, although it probably conflicts with what you want to believe. These scientists are definitely special because they have a higher ability to learn, they can percieve things quicker than others. Only people like Newton could have looked at what Kepler said about orbits and built a mathematical model from it because others just don't perceive those things. Those who are not like Newton can only learn calculus with great effort after they are told many times how it works, they can't do it on their own.

Its really hard to say who the absolute best scientist is because everyone who has ever been in the field of science has only taken what others have done and improved upon it. It is true that there have been a few that have stood apart from the rest because of their unique contributions to their individual fields but you have to recognize the fact that there are many more scientists that deserve credit for their work. Madame Currie, George Washington Carver, Fermat, and so on and so on.

You're right, but there are those who are exceptional, and I really think that you can narrow it down to Newton and Euler and there's just nobody else that stands beside them in the sheer speed that they learned and understood.

ah, so many great ones left off the list. Einstein, Pythagoras, Edison, Bell, Morse, Hawking, Thorne, Rudolf Diesel, Gottlieb Daimler, Fermi, the list could never end...

Yeah, I mentioned that, it only allows so many. I'd like to know what the significance of Thorne, Diesel, and Daimler is, I don't know those particular geniuses (though I anticipate that Diesel was a chemist and that I'll kick myself for not knowing them when I hear about them).Deisel invented the pressure-ignited heat (deisel) engine, I said Daimler, but I meant to say Otto, the inventor of the Internal Combustion engine. I also forgot the Wright Brothers.

Thank you.

:shock: What happened to Dirac

If Justin Trousersnake names Archimedes in a song, he must be the greatest. :roll:

If Justin Trousersnake names Archimedes in a song, he must be the greatest. :roll:

He just didn't know about Euler. (plus a Greek name sounds so much cooler than something that sounds like... oiler).

...it may be that I'm wrong and you are a genius, but then you wouldn't be so quick to downplay the word


Since I don't believe in worshiping other human beings, I like to think that I would be very quick to downplay the word, reguardless of the way people choose to evaluate my intelect. If that means I can't be a "genius," then perhaps thats for the best. :wink:


That is, I get almost straight A's with almost no effort whatsoever. What you are saying is that that is impossible, that someone can only be "smart" through hard work.


This is only the case if one measues intelligence based on the ability to do busy work.

I think the way that modern educational institutions, ESPECIALLY the "lower" elementary and high school institutions, measure achievement with the current grading system is fantastically flawed. More often than not, grades are calculated on the ability of the student to complete a homework assignment on time, instead of on their grasp of the material.

No doubt, studying the material for the class in question is extremely important, however, the focus is not so much on the studying as it is on mindless and endless repetitive chores that actually discourage students from studying in the first place. Then, they become even more discouraged when their intelligence is questioned because they recieve poor grades.

I have experienced this directly myself. I recieved very poor grades during middle school and nearly didn't make it to high school. Once in high school, I continued to recieve very poor grade and very nearly did not graduate. I honestly saw no reason to study when most of my "teachers" were more concerned with me lining up my equals signs and perfectly centering the title of the assignment, than they were with whether or not I was learning the material.

Of course, now that I am in college and attending institution which do not employ professional babysitters, and which measure my understanding of the material with proper examinations and not by how fancy a font I use, I have recieved only A's and B's and have recieved special recognition for academic achievement several times.

It's amazing what is possible when the academic instituitions insist on showing us what we are truely capable of, when this myth of "genius" is destroyed by those more concerned with imparting wisdom than with being objects of idolatry.

(EDIT: that is to say, it is amazing what is possible when we focus on creating the motovation that I spoke of earlier, instead of destroying it by pointing to flawed measures of intelligence and creating flawed social-academic caste systems. )


...intelligence is defined as the ability to learn. Some people have an easier time learning than others, and no matter what you say I know this from experience, although it probably conflicts with what you want to believe.


I would bet all the tea in China, based on my own experiece, that this difficulty stems more in incompetent educational institutions and social pressure and stress created by the idolatry of "geniuses" than it does with true biological/physiological differences found in average healthy people.

A nomination for greatest mathemetician: Brahmagupta. His book, The Brahmasphutasiddhanta, is supposed to be the earliest known text other than the Mayan number system to treat zero as a number in its own right.

...it may be that I'm wrong and you are a genius, but then you wouldn't be so quick to downplay the word


Since I don't believe in worshiping other human beings, I like to think that I would be very quick to downplay the word, reguardless of the way people choose to evaluate my intelect. If that means I can't be a "genius," then perhaps thats for the best. :wink:


That is, I get almost straight A's with almost no effort whatsoever. What you are saying is that that is impossible, that someone can only be "smart" through hard work.


This is only the case if one measues intelligence based on the ability to do busy work.

I think the way that modern educational institutions, ESPECIALLY the "lower" elementary and high school institutions, measure achievement with the current grading system is fantastically flawed. More often than not, grades are calculated on the ability of the student to complete a homework assignment on time, instead of on their grasp of the material.

No doubt, studying the material for the class in question is extremely important, however, the focus is not so much on the studying as it is on mindless and endless repetitive chores that actually discourage students from studying in the first place. Then, they become even more discouraged when their intelligence is questioned because they recieve poor grades.

I have experienced this directly myself. I recieved very poor grades during middle school and nearly didn't make it to high school. Once in high school, I continued to recieve very poor grade and very nearly did not graduate. I honestly saw no reason to study when most of my "teachers" were more concerned with me lining up my equals signs and perfectly centering the title of the assignment, than they were with whether or not I was learning the material.

Of course, now that I am in college and attending institution which do not employ professional babysitters, and which measure my understanding of the material with proper examinations and not by how fancy a font I use, I have recieved only A's and B's and have recieved special recognition for academic achievement several times.

It's amazing what is possible when the academic instituitions insist on showing us what we are truely capable of, when this myth of "genius" is destroyed by those more concerned with imparting wisdom than with being objects of idolatry.


...intelligence is defined as the ability to learn. Some people have an easier time learning than others, and no matter what you say I know this from experience, although it probably conflicts with what you want to believe.


I would bet all the tea in China, based on my own experiece, that this difficulty stems more in incompetent educational institutions and social pressure and stress created by the idolatry of "geniuses" than it does with true biological/physiological differences found in average healthy people.

So you're saying that everyone is exactly the same? That everyone has the same potential to learn? For two people to learn just as quickly as one another with the same work they would have to learn exactly the same way, and for two people to learn the same way they have to think the same way. Clearly we couldn't disagree if everyone thought the same way. The alternative is that everyone is wired differently and thinks differently but somehow has the same aptitudes, despite the differences in how they learn. Gauss and Pascal would complain about this as the number of attributes that affect aptitude is extremely high, thus the laws of probability indicate that these identical aptitudes with different factors are almost impossible. It's akin to saying that although a person is 4 feet tall they can dunk the basketball with the same amount of effort as Michael Jordan, it's just not true. People are different.

In your dismissal of me you do not know that I am understanding concepts that others aren't with less effort, the grades are just a way of showing this (although in many places the state of education is poor enough that I should have used better evidence). What you don't realize is that with this lack of effort carried throughout my education I am understanding calculus and physics. I think that the real reason for dismissing what I am saying is that you don't want to beleive that you're wrong, and subconsciously you make efforts to prove yourself, just as Tesla would not mathematically analyze his thoughts on transferring energy through air because he suspected he was wrong and didn't want it proven. It's something everyone does because we just don't want to be wrong. I'm not talking about worshipping other human beings, I'm talking about admitting that there's always a bigger fish, and when I mentioned your downplay of genius I meant exactly the subconscious denial that I'm talking about.

EDIT: I don't know whether subconscious is the proper way of saying what I mean, but I don't know enough psychology to know the right word. I'm just using experience wherein myself and others found dumb reasons to 'support' our arguments as a means of not admitting to ourselves that we're wrong.

Recognizing 0 was certainly cool... although I think you're making up the names because there aren't a whole lot of cultures with names like that. Still, someone did it.

Recognizing 0 was certainly cool... although I think you're making up the names because there aren't a whole lot of cultures with names like that. Still, someone did it.

??? Nope. His real name. He was Indian. The Brahmasphutasiddhanta, or The Opening of the Universe, was written in 628. He was also the astronomical observatory at Ujjain, a major mathematical centre of ancient India.

For more information:
http://www.math.sfu.ca/histmath/India/7thCenturyAD/brahmagupta.html
http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Brahmagupta.html

So you're saying that everyone is exactly the same?


Nope.


That everyone has the same potential to learn?


Yep.


For two people to learn just as quickly as one another with the same work they would have to learn exactly the same way, and for two people to learn the same way they have to think the same way. Clearly we couldn't disagree if everyone thought the same way.


I don't recall ever making a statement that ability to learn is based on how a person does or doesn't think. All I remember saying is that people are capable of achieving great things academically, like the "geniuses" everyone likes to worship, if they are motovated to do so. People think and learn at different rates, but these rates really don't mean anything. Who cares who is faster and who slower? If ultimately both are capable of achieving knowledge, then who cares? Focusing on the inconcequential only creates the false religion of "genius" which in turn creates discouragement and apathy, which in turn creates failures, which in turn reenforces the false religion spoken of.


It's akin to saying that although a person is 4 feet tall they can dunk the basketball with the same amount of effort as Michael Jordan, it's just not true. People are different.


Then again, a 4-foot tall person who was motovated to find a way to put the ball thorugh the hoop would realize that using a ladder to get closer to the hoop would be a lot easier than the method chosen by the Michael Jordan "genius." :wink:


In your dismissal of me you do not know that I am understanding concepts that others aren't with less effort, the grades are just a way of showing this (although in many places the state of education is poor enough that I should have used better evidence).


I don't recall ever dismissing you; I only recall dismissing the cult of "genius." If you take such dismissal personally, then perhaps the real issue here is being revealed subconciously. I would perhaps suggest that the issue here is not how different people learn and think, but that people should learn to recognize and appreciate how you learn and think. Perhaps this helps show how the cult of "genius" is ultimately based on selfishness and the desire to be important instead of on any real academic achievement.


I think that the real reason for dismissing what I am saying is that you don't want to beleive that you're wrong, and subconsciously you make efforts to prove yourself...It's something everyone does because we just don't want to be wrong.


And since we all do it, the same can be said about you, so the point is moot.

Okay, one more and I go to bed.

Well, in that case we basically agree, although what I perceived that you were saying is different from what you meant, and the same is true the other way, what I mean by ability to learn is the speed at which you learn, which you must have misunderstood or you're contradicting yourself. I know that anyone who put forth an effort could eventually reach the same level that a genius reaches with less effort. I persist in using the word because I define it differently, as you have probably perceived, I mean by genius someone who has an especially high intelligence, defined as the ability to learn.

However, and here we will probably disagree, it takes a genius to do the things Newton and Euler did because a person who learns slower will not attain the understanding necessary to accomplish the things they did in a mere lifetime. What's more there's a huge leap of intellect in proving something for the first time, and unless you have the ability to learn everything in that leap at once, to comprehend a huge change of ideas very quickly, you won't be able to prove it yourself, but rather you'll have to take your time and learn it slowly, one step at a time, and many of their proofs could only be done this way if taught by another.

You dismissed that my ability with low work meant anything citing the inferitority of education and saying that it must merely be busywork. And while you have a valid concern in saying that I may be just trying to build my ego by using myself as an example (and you'd be right very often in the past), I am merely using myself to make a point. In fact there's nothing to be proud about in having intelligence because it's just the way that you are, the way you were born, and you didn't earn it.

I'm not advocating the worship of genius by any means, and perhaps more importantly the geniuses themselves did not advocate this worship. I say it is important because you seem to expose the "cult of 'genius'" as a service to the ego of someone smart, yet egotism does not come with denying greatness. Socrates, Newton, and Euler all denied their own greatness, saying that they knew very little. They were geniuses because they had a superior ability to learn, yet they said that they knew nothing, so clearly their egoes are not the cause of their "worship".

As for my statement about dismissal... you certainly haven't denied it. It doesn't cancel itself out because to do so it would have to apply to itself, and for this you have to assume that it's true.

Not the greatest but certainly worth mentioning: Fermat.

Besides being a hell of a number theorist he also had a great sense of humour: "I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain." :lol:

BTW The greatest mathematician? Good Will Hunting of course ;)

I don't agree with any of the names in the poll, for me it might be Hawking or Archimedes, or...

Why has no one mentioned Da Vinci? He was a genius in a lot of fields and way before his time.

I persist in using the word because I define it differently, as you have probably perceived, I mean by genius someone who has an especially high intelligence, defined as the ability to learn.


The speed or ease at which someone learns something is irrevelant, because speed and ease do not cause someone to have a better insight or make better the achievment. In otherwords, a person who takes 15 seconds to learn "2+2 = 4" is no better than a person who takes 30 minutes to learn "2+2 = 4" because at the end of the day they have both achieved the understanding that "2+2 = 4." Their speed may be different, but their achievement is the same. The person who is faster may learn more facts at the end of the day....


However, and here we will probably disagree, it takes a genius to do the things Newton and Euler did because a person who learns slower will not attain the understanding necessary to accomplish the things they did in a mere lifetime.


...but even this is irrevelant. Newton and Euler's achievements are based on the work and achievements of all those who came before them. Without this previous work, Newton and Euler would not have achieved anything in any amount of time. So what if a person doesn't solve the problem in their lifetime? The work that they do complete can be used by others to finally solve the problem.

The person may not be around any longer to absorb the praise that solving the problem would have brought, but science is interested in solving problems, not in creating celebrities.

Again, the cult of "genius" is only interested in recieving praise and worship, thus the focus on speed, so one doesn't die without recieving the praise they think they deserve.


Socrates, Newton, and Euler all denied their own greatness, saying that they knew very little. They were geniuses because they had a superior ability to learn, yet they said that they knew nothing, so clearly their egoes are not the cause of their "worship".


Socrates, Newton and Euler, if your are correct, must have said what they did because they recognized the danger of the idea of "genius." If fact, if they truely did deny their own greatness, then they might have considered the title of "genius" an insult. No, their egos are not the cause of their worship. People worship them because they need precident to justify worship of themselves. Defending the idea of "genius," which you claim the "geniuses" themselves did not support, will only lend legitimacy to this kind of behavior, even if those who so defend do not engage in it themselves.

Sorry, the server messed up my post, but the extent of what I was going to say was that I wasn't going to argue about it because there weren't a lot of knew things being said in that last post, just reiterations and new examples for old things, and I'm sure that no matter what I say it won't change anyone's mind, so continuing would be pointless.

Hey a**holes Einstein did more for the field of Physics then any other Physicists. Without him, the concept of figuring time into complex equatuions for speed and distance would not even be around and we would still be cluesless about the power of splitting and fusing atoms

Hey a**holes Einstein did more for the field of Physics then any other Physicists. Without him, the concept of figuring time into complex equatuions for speed and distance would not even be around and we would still be cluesless about the power of splitting and fusing atoms

Well i think someone else would have figured it out by now but Einstein was way ahead of his time. And not only did he practically discover 2 fields of knowledge (quantum mechanics and relativity) he also made large contributions to atomic physics and others. So in terms of accomplishments, i'd say Einstein.

Stephen Hawking.
Hahahahahaha!

Oh, you were serious, let me laugh even harder

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :lol: :lol: :lol:

Nobody seems to even have mentioned Aristotle yet, so I will do so:

Aristotle.

Socrates, Newton, and Euler all denied their own greatness, saying that they knew very little. They were geniuses because they had a superior ability to learn, yet they said that they knew nothing, so clearly their egoes are not the cause of their "worship".


so did einstein. he said that it was simply his curiosity that lead him to be considered a genius. yet somehow he wasn't good enough for this list...

also, earlier, i never said that i was smarter than newton, just that i think einstein was smarter than he. try reading what i say...

Socrates, Newton, and Euler all denied their own greatness, saying that they knew very little. They were geniuses because they had a superior ability to learn, yet they said that they knew nothing, so clearly their egoes are not the cause of their "worship".


so did einstein. he said that it was simply his curiosity that lead him to be considered a genius. yet somehow he wasn't good enough for this list...

also, earlier, i never said that i was smarter than newton, just that i think einstein was smarter than he. try reading what i say...

I did, and I wasn't talking to you when I said that the guy I was talking to wasn't as smart as Newton. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I disagree though, I still think that Newton was the biggest guy in physics ever and that even if this weren't true calculus would've put him over Einstein in math and science. I'm also of the opinion that Einstein's essentially got a huge publicity machine and that while he was a genius of the first magnitude he just doesn't quite live up to Newton and Euler. I'm not saying Einstein wasn't smart though. And yes, Einstein did say things about not being great himself, I just chose those three because Socrates was the most noted for it (I know only that I know nothing) and Newton and Euler are those who I figure are at the very top.

I disagree though, I still think that Newton was the biggest guy in physics ever and that even if this weren't true calculus would've put him over Einstein in math and science.

Pah!

Aristotle pretty much invented physics and dominated the field for about 1800 years, which kind of outclasses Newton somewhat, no?

Nobody seems to even have mentioned Aristotle yet, so I will do so:

Aristotle.

Aristotle wasn't nearly as smart as everybody thought during the dark ages. Some of his ideas were geocentric thoery (Democritus proposed heliocentric thoeries but it was Aristotle who disagreed) and a belief that objects on earth "want" to come to rest, something that Newton was very quick to prove wrong even though he had to overcome preconcieved notions. Aristotle can't have had anything in math and science over Kepler, Galileo, or Newton who proved him wrong. Nor did he come close to inventing calculus, whereas Archimedes was approaching this, and Newton and Leibniz did.

I disagree though, I still think that Newton was the biggest guy in physics ever and that even if this weren't true calculus would've put him over Einstein in math and science.

Pah!

Aristotle pretty much invented physics and dominated the field for about 1800 years, which kind of outclasses Newton somewhat, no?

Aristotle didn't use the scientific process to come to most of his conclusions. He didn't invent physics, he was wrong almost every time, and Newton proved him wrong. He was a joke for math and science. If anyone invented physics it was Newton, since before Newton science wasn't accepted, only a few exceptional people like Galileo and Kepler were scientists, but I say that Newton essentially re-introduced science to the general populace even though Aristotle's lack of scientific method had helped keep scientific progress from happening (the church relied on the writings of Aristotle for many of its scientific opinions, though not all) because after Newton science became accepted, and Newton was the first person to describe natural phenomena in terms of a mathematical equation.

Aristotle pretty much invented physics and dominated the field for about 1800 years, which kind of outclasses Newton somewhat, no?

Aristotle didn't use the scientific process to come to most of his conclusions.
Agreed.

He didn't invent physics, he was wrong almost every time, and Newton proved him wrong.

Agreed on all but the first count: certainly his works seem to be the first recorded examples of natural science which includes physics as a sub-field.

He was a joke for math and science.
I half-agree with you, but I think the problem was more that he became the authority who could not be challenged, and thus his method of actually looking at the world was disregarded in favour of poring over his texts.

I'll admit, it was something of a good-natured troll...

Aristotle pretty much invented physics and dominated the field for about 1800 years, which kind of outclasses Newton somewhat, no?

Aristotle didn't use the scientific process to come to most of his conclusions.
Agreed.

He didn't invent physics, he was wrong almost every time, and Newton proved him wrong.

Agreed on all but the first count: certainly his works seem to be the first recorded examples of natural science which includes physics as a sub-field.

He was a joke for math and science.
I half-agree with you, but I think the problem was more that he became the authority who could not be challenged, and thus his method of actually looking at the world was disregarded in favour of poring over his texts.

I'll admit, it was something of a good-natured troll...

Wow, I applaud you as someone who's willing to admit to being wrong. I respect your awesomeness in being humble. You are one of the greatest things ever to happen to this forum.

I'm saying, though, that being the one unquestioned authority on something but being completely wrong doesn't make you great at it.

Where is Ben Graham on this list?

Eulerians has said several times that that was the maximum that could fit on the list.

I'll admit, it was something of a good-natured troll...

Wow, I applaud you as someone who's willing to admit to being wrong. I respect your awesomeness in being humble. You are one of the greatest things ever to happen to this forum.

Well, as I say, I was doing a bit of light trolling: the fact that Aristotle is one of the biggest names in science does not mean he was the "Smartest Scientist. Ever." I was, however, hoping not to get such a comprehensive rebuttal so quickly.

I'm saying, though, that being the one unquestioned authority on something but being completely wrong doesn't make you great at it.

Definitely: but the fact that he was left unquestioned is not a fault with Aristotle himself, but rather the scholars that followed him.

Mind you, did Aristotle declare that if his maths was wrong it didn't matter because God would still keep the stars in their courses? Did Aristotle go on to poison himself to death while carrying out bizarre alchemical experiments? Nah, that was Sir Isaac... Aristotle just went on to teach a young chap called Alexander who then used that knowledge to conquer almost all the known world... :wink:

Aristotle

I'm going to agree that Newton was a superior scientist to Aristotle, basically because he was right. Certainly he dabbled in alchemy, but most of his alchemical pursuits were scientific in nature and he proved a lot of things here, mostly proving things wrong, even though that wasn't his goal. He believed in the validity of alchemical thoeries until they were proven wrong, but if science showed that it was wrong then it was wrong. A good scientist doesn't have to know everything, they just have to progress.

And Newton's statement about God keeping the planets in their course was basically saying, "I'm not perfect so I could've screwed up, but the planets are still the way that they are even if we don't understand it." That's not a bad scientist either, just humility. Saying that God is in charge is not the mark of a bad scientist or mathematician since science has never proven that God doesn't exist. Of course any statement dealing with the existence of God is not science since no experiment has ever been developed to prove the existence or non-existence of God. In other words, statements about God are independent of science and math, they aren't really a part of this thread.

And I'd like to say right now that I'm going to ignore anything that is basically an athiesm vs. deism argument since that only leads to flaming, and I'd encourage everyone to do the same.

Umm... no rediscovering happened. Newton did it single-handedly when he was 18. Leibniz was smart, but he couldn't have invented calculus himself without some hints from Newton.Archimedes beat 'em both to it. He discovered it a long time before that. His works were lost though and not found again until the 1900s.

Umm... no rediscovering happened. Newton did it single-handedly when he was 18. Leibniz was smart, but he couldn't have invented calculus himself without some hints from Newton.

the ancient greeks discovered calculus. they recently found parchments that had been written over and reused by monks for which the original ink showed mathematics that appeared to be calculus.
what hints from newton were there? leibniz developped his calculus separate from newton. if anything, there was suspcion that newton may have gotten some ideas from leibniz.

also, no one has mentioned why einstien wasn't on there. sure newton may have noticed that things fall with a certain acceleration due to gravity, but einstein explained why.

The Greeks (specifically Archimides) were headed towards calculus concepts, but they didn't have the calculus. I've taken calculus and you can't do it without analytic geometry, which the Greeks certainly didn't have. And I know that Archimedes had some calculus ideas, which is why he's so awesome.

As for Einstein, what he did didn't require nearly the genius in the guys that I have up there. All of the theory of relativity comes from Maxwell's equations and conclusions based on those, and the mathematical effort there was insufficient to have stumped Newton or Euler if they had been around after Maxwell's equations. It's just plain simpler. Beside that this is Einstein's only real contribution to science, he just leaves the picture afterward.

There was already some talk about this... have you taken calculus? I have, and as a result I've heard the history and such (my teacher's into that stuff), and on top of that I've seen that Euler's right, you can't do it with just geometry, which is all the Greeks had. Archimedes discovered some calculus concepts and did some calculus problems (by which I mean that they are problems done using calculus, and he specifically did quadrature or finding areas under curves), but didn't actually have the calculus. It's already been said that that's the main reason Archimedes is on the list, because he was a great enough mathematician to almost invent algebra and calculus without even having zero, but he didn't quite get either.

EDIT: I ask whether you've taken calculus because honestly it does make a difference, not to patronize you.

I'll go with Einstein, Hawking and Fermi especially.

Blaise Pascal

There's no comparison

Paul Erdös, all the way ;)

Me and a few other people at university had a 'Great Debate' at university, on who was the greater, Euler or Gauss. My Euler team won 8)

Pythagorus or Jonny Von Newman for math as the coolest. But, all around I'd have to agree with Bodies Without Organs for ol' Ari, who catagorised everything and started a school...

I'm going to agree that Newton was a superior scientist to Aristotle, basically because he was right. Certainly he dabbled in alchemy, but most of his alchemical pursuits were scientific in nature and he proved a lot of things here, mostly proving things wrong, even though that wasn't his goal. He believed in the validity of alchemical thoeries until they were proven wrong, but if science showed that it was wrong then it was wrong. A good scientist doesn't have to know everything, they just have to progress.

And Newton's statement about God keeping the planets in their course was basically saying, "I'm not perfect so I could've screwed up, but the planets are still the way that they are even if we don't understand it." That's not a bad scientist either, just humility. Saying that God is in charge is not the mark of a bad scientist or mathematician since science has never proven that God doesn't exist. Of course any statement dealing with the existence of God is not science since no experiment has ever been developed to prove the existence or non-existence of God. In other words, statements about God are independent of science and math, they aren't really a part of this thread.

And I'd like to say right now that I'm going to ignore anything that is basically an athiesm vs. deism argument since that only leads to flaming, and I'd encourage everyone to do the same.

1) you cannot say that newton was a superior scientist just because he was 'right'. Newton didn't live in ancient greece, Aristotle did and therefor he lacked a lot of experimental knowledge.
2) in fact, newton has been proven 'wrong' (if you insist on giving a boolean value to theories). His theory does has the advantage that it describes the movement of normal-sized objects moving at low speeds and under normal conditions in a relatively easy way and with a small, neglectible error and therefor his theory is very useful, but not 'right'.

Blaise Pascal

There's no comparison

I agree.
He had better verbal skills than these others (except Aristotle, but I can't respect an apologist for slavery)

Fermi on the other hand is a liar, thief, and bastard.

Tom Lehrer.

Seriously though, I'd consider Maths AND Science two completely different points even though they are linked.

I'd have to say Einstein or Hawking.

Poisoning pigeons in the park!
Pure genius.

1) you cannot say that newton was a superior scientist just because he was 'right'. Newton didn't live in ancient greece, Aristotle did and therefor he lacked a lot of experimental knowledge.

Newton himself stated that he only saw further because he was "standing on the shoulders of giants"...

I think al-Kindi was the best. Unless I'm confusing him with another mathematician, he was the one who invented algebra. No future scientific or math systems were possible without algebra. And algebra needs only a few basic math principles to exist, though doing algebra is a different story.