# Who is/was the world's greatest scientist?



## Morrus (Jul 16, 2013)

Defining "greatest" in any way you choose, who do you feel is or was the world's greatest scientist - and why?  

As a starter to get our brain juices running, I'll just throw a few names out there from history.  This is NOT a comprehensive list; it's just for inspiration.

Marie Curie, Alan Turning, Richard Feynman, Niels Bohr, Max Planck, Charles Darwin, Leonardo de Vinci, Galileo Galilei, Nikola Tesla, Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, Oppenheimer, Fermi, Ptolemy, Archimedes.

Or there are famous living scientists: James Watson, Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins, Jane Goodall, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Tim Berners-Lee, Noam Chomsky, Roger Penrose,


----------



## jonesy (Jul 16, 2013)

I want to say either Archimedes or Euclid. Archimedes was the Einstein of his time, coming up with grand visions that influenced everything after him. Euclid was the Richard Feynman of his time, making the complex understandable.


----------



## Deset Gled (Jul 16, 2013)

All of the scientists you started with are notable because of their amazing contributions to understanding.  But if we're going to say "greatest", I think we should consider a scientist's contribution to humanity.  To be truly the greatest, it's not just enough to think great thoughts, you have to use those great thoughts to make the world a better place.

I would like to nominate Norman Borlaug, whose contributions to agricultural science have (arguably) saved more lives than any other single person in history.  Fritz Haber and Carl Bosch should also be noted as contenders for inventing the chemical process estimated to fertilize a third of the worlds food supply.  Edward Jenner, inventor or the smallpox vaccine, also deserves a note as a runner up.


----------



## Janx (Jul 16, 2013)

Louis Pasteur for pasteurized milk (didn't he also invent the rabies vaccine?)

that monk with the pea plants, who figured out how inherited traits work (the start of genetic/DNA research)

that other guy, who did that thing, with the you know whats.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jul 16, 2013)

James Dewar, inventor of the thermos.  It keeps hot things hot and cold things cold but _how does it know which?!?!_


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jul 16, 2013)

Janx said:


> Louis Pasteur for pasteurized milk (didn't he also invent the rabies vaccine?)



Not exactly, but he did some important work in the field.



> that monk with the pea plants, who figured out how inherited traits work (the start of genetic/DNA research)



Gregor Mendel.

***

For my part, I think I'd have to say Darwin. His ideas have been so widely influential, not just in the life sciences field as a whole but particularly in understanding humanity, and his findings were so cleverly observed before anyone had a clue what DNA was.

Though I might have to spare an honorable mention to Jonas Salk for refusing to patent the polio vaccine. Sadly, he wasn't influential enough in that regard.


----------



## jonesy (Jul 16, 2013)

Mark CMG said:


> James Dewar, inventor of the thermos.  It keeps hot things hot and cold things cold but _how does it know which?!?!_



Vacuum. No heat transfer, no change in temperature (of course there is some transfer through the stopper).


----------



## Tonguez (Jul 16, 2013)

Uup, the first monkey to dance in front of the fire...


----------



## Deset Gled (Jul 16, 2013)

jonesy said:


> Vacuum. No heat transfer, no change in temperature (of course there is some transfer through the stopper).My sarcasm detector is fusion powered. Yeah, that's powerful enough.




Watch out!  Your fusion reactor has shut down.  Please check it immediately, a chain reaction may be imminent!


----------



## Umbran (Jul 16, 2013)

In terms of impact upon all science in their fields that followed, the two big winners are Darwin and Newton.  Darwin's impact on the fields of biology and medicine cannot be understated.  Newton, well, he enabled modern engineering as we know it.  

Einstein runs a close second to Newton, in terms of the leap of understanding he undertook.

I would take Neil deGrasse Tyson off the list.  He is a good scientist, don't get me wrong, but his contribution to the world is not from his scientific discoveries, but instead from his communication and education efforts.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 16, 2013)

And even there, he's second to Sagin.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Jul 16, 2013)

Would you classify Westinghouse as a Scientist or an Engineer? Or both?

Sir Isaac Newton is an interesting character. Died a virgin. Only spoke once in his years in the House of Lords (to complain about a draft). Invented calculus to solve mathematical equations that only he himself could comprehend (at the time).

Tesla: brilliant, robbed by Edison (an absolutely evil um, male offspring of unwed parentage), was held back by a lack of funds. Figured out WHY electric motors worked (everyone knew that the did, but not why).

Da'Vincci: just bloody brilliant at inventing machines well in advance of the technology to build them.

The inventors of Insulin get a nod.

As for the scientist who has had the most influence... well, the scientist who invented ballistics. Yep, bullets and firearms have affected more people than anything else. And they still do. (You didn't say it had to be a positive influence)


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jul 16, 2013)

Ben Franklin - the guy was a rock star and did a lot of things in a lot of different fields.  Mostly he was a gamer, yes a gamer mostly Chess..
from his wiki page


> Franklin was an avid chess player. He was playing chess by around 1733, making him the first chess player known by name in the American colonies.[55] His essay on the "Morals of Chess" in Columbian magazine, in December 1786 is the second known writing on chess in America.[55] This essay in praise of chess and prescribing a code of behavior for it has been widely reprinted and translated.[56][57][58][59] He and a friend also used chess as a means of learning the Italian language, which both were studying; the winner of each game between them had the right to assign a task, such as parts of the Italian grammar to be learned by heart, to be performed by the loser before their next meeting.[60] Franklin was inducted into the U.S. Chess Hall of Fame in 1999.[55]


----------



## Umbran (Jul 16, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And even there, he's second to Sagin.




Well, Carl Sagan had *Cosmos*.  And, guess what Tyson is going to have?  



sabrinathecat said:


> Tesla: brilliant, robbed by Edison (an absolutely evil um, male offspring of unwed parentage), was held back by a lack of funds. Figured out WHY electric motors worked (everyone knew that the did, but not why).




Tesla, unfortunately, is a victim of the process that made him legend.  The principle of the operation of the electric motor was worked out by François Arago in 1824, decades before Tesla was born.  Tesla improved the practical approach to constructing them several times over, but he was not the first to figure out how and why it worked.



> The inventors of Insulin get a nod.




Mother Nature invented insulin.  Several different people are separately responsible for practical extraction/discovery (1921-23), determining the primary structure/amino acid sequencing (1950), and synthesizing the stuff (1960s).


----------



## reelo (Jul 16, 2013)

Ahnehnois said:


> For my part, I think I'd have to say Darwin. His ideas have been so widely influential, not just in the life sciences field as a whole but particularly in understanding humanity, and his findings were so cleverly observed before anyone had a clue what DNA was.




Indeed. A famous biologist once said "Without the knowledge of evolution, nothing in biology makes sense. In the light of evolution, *everything* in biology makes sense."

The impact of Darwin's findings in MANY branches of science is so massive. And they finally led to science shaking off the shakles of religion...


----------



## jonesy (Jul 16, 2013)

Deset Gled said:


> Watch out!  Your fusion reactor has shut down.  Please check it immediately, a chain reaction may be imminent!



It's sarcasm. My sig. The second line is in italics. Means I can't read sarcasm.

(It's like we're stuck in an infinitely recursive sarcasm tautology.)


----------



## Janx (Jul 16, 2013)

reelo said:


> The impact of Darwin's findings in MANY branches of science is so massive. And they finally led to science shaking off the shakles of religion...




Let's be wary of the religion aspect here.  Religion is a disallowed topic on ENWorld as it is easy to disagree and offend others.  If you're going to dance on the subject, implying anything negative about religion specifically or in general would likely cross that line.

On Darwin specifically and religion, it was my understanding that he was religious and did not want his work to be construed as a rejection of religion. Though I am not religious, I can respect that there could be a way to accept and integrate science and religion.  In my view, Darwin described the process by which various species could emerge, and not the stimulus that might instigate that.

I suspect Umbran will step in if we go any further here.


----------



## reelo (Jul 16, 2013)

Janx said:


> Let's be wary of the religion aspect here.  Religion is a disallowed topic on ENWorld as it is easy to disagree and offend others.  If you're going to dance on the subject, implying anything negative about religion specifically or in general would likely cross that line.
> 
> On Darwin specifically and religion, it was my understanding that he was religious and did not want his work to be construed as a rejection of religion. Though I am not religious, I can respect that there could be a way to accept and integrate science and religion.  In my view, Darwin described the process by which various species could emerge, and not the stimulus that might instigate that.
> 
> I suspect Umbran will step in if we go any further here.




I heed your warning.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 17, 2013)

> Well, Carl Sagan had Cosmos. And, guess what Tyson is going to have?




Carl also had a memorable voice & delivery that- while mocked- was endearing.  And we all remember what we love.  Tyson will get a boost on his outreach, but I'm not sure he has the same geeky charisma that Sagin had.  Michio Kaku, on the other hand...

Re: Religion vs Science

All it boils down to is that the eventual split between the two- believing what we are told is divine will Vs believing what we can diectly expereience and test- was crucial.  Once that became the dominant method of studying how the world works, it was a revolution.  Science became the study of what we can determine with rigor.  Religion is what we take on faith.

(I say that as a practicing Catholic.)


----------



## Morrus (Jul 17, 2013)

So my gut says Newton to me. I'm not entirely sure why I'd rank him above Darwin or Einstein; he just kinda "feels" more solid in my mind. Obviously there have a been a lot of other genuine geniuses who have made important discoveries or introduced new ways of approaching things. 

It's interesting that we tend to be looking backwards for greatness, rather than modern times. We do that for other things, too, I guess. Is that because the further back we go, the greater the number of potential massive fundamental discoveries is? I mean, obviously someone could hypothetically discover evidence of a multiverse or resolve quantum theories with relativity or figure out how to do something incredible and magical like warp speed or a transporter beam. But without delving into scifi too much, historical figures got to figure out the beginnings of awesome stuff like gravity, heliocentricity, relativity, evolution, etc. Big but basic things which needed that leap (well, relativity isn't so basic). 

These days folks do make big discoveries (accelerating expansion, for example) but most of the time it seems to be about refinements and ever more specialized fields with the occasional big moment.

Then again, it was probably always like that. It's not like someone discovered gravity every week.


----------



## Kaodi (Jul 17, 2013)

It would be a definite stretch to call them "greatest" (or even a "scientists") but Leucippus' / Democritus' theory about how everything was made up of unseen tiny "atoms" that somehow stuck together was amazingly prescient.


----------



## freyar (Jul 17, 2013)

Interesting discussion, and there's a fine point about medical/agricultural discoveries.  But I'd still have to go with either Newton or Darwin.  Without what they did (or several someones else doing the same things, like Liebniz and others with calculus), pretty much none of the other scientific work would really have been possible or made sense.  If forced to pick between the two, I'd go with Newton --- there is a real sense that mathematics, and largely calculus, is the language that describes pretty much all of science.


----------



## ggroy (Jul 17, 2013)

Al-Khwarizmi

Formalized the rudiments of basic algebra as it is known today.


----------



## Bullgrit (Jul 17, 2013)

Morrus said:
			
		

> It's interesting that we tend to be looking backwards for greatness, rather than modern times.



Much of the reasons we're looking backwards is because we see how things have progressed and built on what those older scientists started. We're seeing the skyscraper built on their foundations.

People discovering and creating things today have only laid the foundation. It will be a while before we can see exactly what can be built on their discoveries and creations.

Bullgrit


----------



## Umbran (Jul 17, 2013)

Morrus said:


> It's interesting that we tend to be looking backwards for greatness, rather than modern times. We do that for other things, too, I guess. Is that because the further back we go, the greater the number of potential massive fundamental discoveries is?




In a word: yes.  My professors (several of them, at different times) noted that not only do we stand on the shoulders of giants, but those giants did all the easy stuff!  

In addition, part of our measure of "great science" is impact upon either our lives, or the world of science in general.  That takes time to see.  We really don't know the impact of stuff discovered last week.


----------



## ggroy (Jul 17, 2013)

Umbran said:


> In a word: yes.  My professors (several of them, at different times) noted that not only do we stand on the shoulders of giants, but *those giants did all the easy stuff!*




Such stuff may look "easy" by the standards of today.  In their time, it may not have been.

For example, mathematicians from antiquity didn't always have the formal notation to express their ideas.  So they had to write it out in words, and not equations.  (Such as Al-Khwarizmi).

http://www-groups.dcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Arabic_mathematics.html


----------



## Nagol (Jul 17, 2013)

I suggest several of the Muslim scholars like Ibn al-Haytham of the 10-11th centuries who went a long way towards defining the scientific method.

Or Roger Bacon who helped weave the concepts together for Europe.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 17, 2013)

ggroy said:


> Such stuff may look "easy" by the standards of today.  In their time, it may not have been.




Yeah. I know.  It was a joke.  Jokes are usually funny because they hold a grain of truth in them.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 17, 2013)

...Grain of Truth...a magic item for Divine Bards?


----------



## Raunalyn (Jul 17, 2013)

This is a tough one for me.

For me, Sagan is way up there. While his contribution to science is not as great as some, it was his love of science and his ability to transfer that love of science to his audience that, to me, was his greatest contribution. If it wasn't for Sagan, I don't think I'd have the love of science that I do.

Einstein is also pretty high on my list. It was through his contributions that our understanding of the universe that we can see is as defined as it is. 

Stephen Hawking is almost as high on my list as Einstein, but I will admit a little bias in the fact that I have gobs and gobs of respect for that man. My grandmother died of ALS, and he has lived with it most of his life. Not only that, but look at some of the brilliance he achieved, even with his handicap! Mad props, man...

I also think that the man who invented microwave ovens should be honored. Without him, I would not have survived my bachelor years...


----------



## Derren (Jul 17, 2013)

Da Vinci.

Comparing inventions is pointless, as every scientist could only build upon the knowledge of his time and thus the importance of what he was able to discover to us is hardly a good indication of his "greatness". Would Einstein still be a great inventor when born in the 18th century? What if Archimedes were alive today?

From all the inventors listed, Da Vinci was the most versatile, not only creating some of the most valued pieces of art but also doing many (sadly often theoretical) studies on many topics from anatomy to mechanics.


----------



## Janx (Jul 17, 2013)

What did Da Vinci actually discover or invent that was used by anybody else?

Yes he made some nice art and drew some interesting diagrams of machines that we later invented in the future.

But he didn't invent algebra or calculus.  he didn't invent a flying machine or submarine.  He didn't create the foundation for medicine, genetics, chemistry or physics.

He didn't do science.  he didn't contribute to science in a way that changed anything.  he was at best, the renaissance version of Gene Roddenbery.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jul 17, 2013)

Derren said:


> Da Vinci.
> From all the inventors listed, Da Vinci was the most versatile, not only creating some of the most valued pieces of art but also doing many (sadly often theoretical) studies on many topics from anatomy to mechanics.



Ben Franklin was just as versatile and his inventions were humanitarian.


----------



## Tonguez (Jul 17, 2013)

Newton is interesting as he was a celibate religious man who belived that all minerals arose through the interaction of ether, molecules and divine breath and that Genesis was a symbolic alchemical text. His contribution to science is undeniable but he himself was an alchemist and natural philosopher not a true scientist...


----------



## Morrus (Jul 17, 2013)

Tonguez said:


> Newton is interesting as he was a celibate religious man who belived that all minerals arose through the interaction of ether, molecules and divine breath and that Genesis was a symbolic alchemical text. His contribution to science is undeniable but he himself was an alchemist and natural philosopher not a true scientist...




He was deeply religious.


----------



## Derren (Jul 18, 2013)

Janx said:


> He didn't do science.  he didn't contribute to science in a way that changed anything.  he was at best, the renaissance version of Gene Roddenbery.




Except that De Vincis machines actually worked with a little tinkering.
Would be nice if the Star Trek tech manual would contain the blueprints of an actual, working warp drive.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 18, 2013)

Tonguez said:


> Newton is interesting as he was a celibate religious man who belived that all minerals arose through the interaction of ether, molecules and divine breath and that Genesis was a symbolic alchemical text. His contribution to science is undeniable but he himself was an alchemist and natural philosopher not a true scientist...




You seem to mistake "has 21st century understanding" with "being a scientist".

It is perhaps best to say that Newton was among the first of what today we would call "scientists".  So, he was laden with a whole lot of stuff that wasn't true - they'll say the same about us n a few hundred years.  Newton had a bunch of incorrect theories.  But so do we today.

Scientist isn't about what you know or believe today.  Scientist is about trying to figure out.  That, Newton did.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 18, 2013)

Umbran said:


> You seem to mistake "has 21st century understanding" with "being a scientist".
> 
> It is perhaps best to say that Newton was among the first of what today we would call "scientists".  So, he was laden with a whole lot of stuff that wasn't true - they'll say the same about us n a few hundred years.  Newton had a bunch of incorrect theories.  But so do we today.
> 
> Scientist isn't about what you know or believe today.  Scientist is about trying to figure out.  That, Newton did.




That very topic came up in The Infinite Monkey Cage this week. They asked the panel to define science.

As they all agreed, science isn't the topic. Science isn't even being right. Science is the method.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 18, 2013)

Janx said:


> What did Da Vinci actually discover or invent that was used by anybody else?
> 
> ...
> 
> He didn't create the foundation for medicine, genetics, chemistry or physics.




Da Vinci was an observational master.  His power was not in creating theoretical models, but in clear observation and description of physical reality.  What he handed down to posterity was the idea that in order to understand the universe, you must clearly observe it first, and record and report what you saw.  That's pretty much a foundation principle right there.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jul 18, 2013)

I am thinking the reason we all can't find common ground on this topic is that these guys are our heroes.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 18, 2013)

Hand of Evil said:


> I am thinking the reason we all can't find common ground on this topic is that these guys are our heroes.




This is just how these threads go. It's fun, but admittedly they do become increasingly a competition in listing things that nobody has said yet!


----------



## Phototoxin (Jul 18, 2013)

Personally I think Louis Pasteur.

The main problem is that there are so many fields and they all build on each other. So Van leeuwenhoek 'only' made a microscope but it helped others later down the line.
I don't think Darwin's was that significant, at the moment it's in vogue due to the whole creationism v darwinism thing that's going crazy in the states. 

The greatest medical advancement was general hygiene, so the proto-nurse, Nightingale was a great contributor in that field for example. (changing bandages ! *shock* Care?! *gasp*)


----------



## Phototoxin (Jul 18, 2013)

Morrus said:


> This is just how these threads go. It's fun, but admittedly they do become increasingly a competition in listing things that nobody has said yet!




Must you always be the sober voice of reason? 

Shake it up, state that Simon Cowell is the best scientist EVAR to see who dies of nerdrage!!


----------



## Umbran (Jul 18, 2013)

Phototoxin said:


> Must you always be the sober voice of reason?




I suspect, on occasion, we may have heard a tipsy voice of reason from him.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jul 18, 2013)

Lets do a KickStarter on the Greatest Scientist Ever...could be a Drinking Card Game.


----------

