/sci/ - Science & Math

Also some noteworthy people who deserve honorable mention but didn't make the top ten

>William Shakespeare
>Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
>Steve Jobs
>Ludwig van Beethoven
>Nikola Tesla
>Galileo Galilei
>Aristotle
>Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
>Plato
>Sun Tzu
>Confucius
>Socrates

>no nietzche

I don't see Siddhartha on your list, op
u fail

Edison above Tesla?

>Tyson

>>5908718
Well Edison contributed more to society and mankind, more noteworthy than Tesla who was more specialized, Edison was more of a Renaissance man.

Obviously troll list, but
>Freud
just wanted to chime in with the obligatory "All Freud's theories are bullshit" post

Jesus Christ what a shit list. It's like you're 12. Where's Euler,. Gauss, or Ramanujan?

>>5908724
He contributed more to his field than anyone else. Even though some of his theories are now defunct, he was the biggest pioneer of psychology.

>>5908725
I guess I shouldn't admit this on this board, but I don't know who they are. I looked at the names from this list and picked who I personally felt were the most influential and important.

http://www.thetoptens.com/smartest-people-history/

>Steve Jobs
die

>>5908727
>People who expounded pure bullshit are okay if they inspired other people to make their bullshit absolutely irrelevant
>People who expound bullshit are "intelligent" because they once had a lot of followers

>#1 Myself
>#2 von Neumann
>#3 Einstein
>#4 Witten
>#5 Dirac
>#6 Feynman
>#7 Darwin
>#8 Norman Wildberger
>#9 Newton
>#10 Susskind

>>5908727
I agree completely, but in the top ten smartest people to ever live? No way.

0/10
troll harder

Ok im going to have to reject the notion that darwin was in the top 10. I saw it was predicted by a few places that his iq was somewhere in the 120-130 range which definitely does not put him in the highest range. Its in the 95th percentile I believe but its not rediculous

Darwin was a genius but he wasnt newton or einstein genius, just a really observant biologist

>>5908735
Again, it isn't just about IQ, it is also about their notoriety and how they revolutionized their field, how they contributed to humanity, it's a cross index. If we just wanted to list the smartest people ever we could go find some IQ scores and list ten people you never heard of.

>>5908739
>and list ten people you never heard of.
You must be at least 18 to post on 4chan.

>>5908741
So you know who the current top ten IQ holders are huh? You know the name of the professor in Greece, the woman in New York, Chinese guy, and the strip club bouncer? So what are they?

>>5908739
Well then don't call it a list of smartest people to ever live. Even with the disclaimer at the bottom it's just not a good title for the list you're trying to make.

>>5908747
Intelligence isn't just about IQ. You can have revolutionary ideas and change the world and still score average on standardized tests. There is a creative intelligence that tests can't measure, and it is far more important. Look at a musician like Chuck Berry, he'd probably score very low on a math test, but in his field he is a genius, basically invented an entire genre of music and changed American culture forever. And I do believe Albert Einstein dropped out of school.

>>5908737
I didn't say the list is the end all be all, these are my personal opinions (obviously). The point of the thread is for YOU to make your own list, if you don't like my list, then make your own, retard. That's the whole point.

this is a NORP (normal, ordinary, regular person)/"casual"/"lay" list.


A better list would include names like:


James clerk maxwell
george green
Joseph Louis Lagrange
Emmy Noether
Gottfried Leibniz
Oliver Heaviside
Ludwig Boltzmann
Henri Poincare
Joseph Fourier
Augustin-Louis Cauchy
Pierre-Simon Laplace
Henri Lebesgue
david hilbert
Leonhard Euler
Jean le Rond d'Alembert
Karl friedrich gauss

Modern times....

bardeen
bloch
dirac
feynman
fermi
kohn
bose
carothers
Flory


the modern list is extremely long, much much longer than the historical list. the last guy, for example, is basically the founder of the modern theoretical application of physical and statistical methods in polymer systems. His impact was the main reason why plastics became so ubiquitous over the last 40 years. You may not know his name, but how much plastic shit do you own? how much plastic is hiding inside of shit you had no idea about? Not just "plastic" but polymers.

>>5908771


You could even add MacDiarmid, Shirakawa, and Heeger (organic conductivity; the other guys didnt discover shit) to that list.

Seeing as how that development is a fundamental augmentation to the theory of electrical conductivity in real materials (eg, as opposed to the phenomenological Maxwell's Equations).

>>5908771
Looks to me like you were just trying to be edgy and pick a bunch of names nobody ever heard of. I guess it makes you feel it makes you look smarter to know a bunch of obscure people, but everyone knows people like Leonardo da Vinci and Mozart for a good reason, because they really were some of the most brilliant people to who ever lived. Likewise just because Steve Jobs and Neil deGrasse Tyson are new doesn't make them any less smart, ancient doesn't make something superior, just older. Also you have to take into account that there are a lot less things to discover these days, and discoveries are a lot more difficult. Had a Steve Jobs or a Niel deGrasse-Tyson been alive in Plato or Mozart's time, they probably would have been just as influential and revolutionary.

>>5908729
>I guess I shouldn't admit this on this board, but I don't know who they are.

>>5908787
Why would you post a picture like that?
You need at least a few digits to calculate. I can´t be a scientist because I know that pie is 3.1415?

Well, that´s how quickly my career ends.

>>5908733
By that logic, Aristotle was an unintelligent person, as was anyone else who lived in an ancient era.

>Leonardo da Vinci
>Albert Einstein
>Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
>Galileo Galilei
>Isaac Newton
>Carl Friedrich Gauss
>Socrates
>Charles Darwin
>Richard Feynman
>Dante Alighieri

That's it.

>>5908784

0/10, no one is this retarded

>>5908862
Nobody except you that is. If all you have are insults, then you have already lost.

>>5908656
>nietzche

Gets an immediate disqualification due to his association with nazim. Also he wasn't that amazing anyway, mostly he has just gotten popular these days thanks to edgy teens, see Little Miss Sunshine.

>>5908725
Fuck Ramanujan

>All these scientists
>No artists/writers/filmmakers
come on, m8s.

>>5908874
Why? The man was clearly a genius. Who knows what he would have accomplished later in life?

>>5908650
>Steve Jobs

>>5908892

>filmmakers

Nope.

Not at fucking all.

>>5908636
>>#4 Leonardo da Vinci
>>#5 George Washington Carver
>>#6 Carl Sagan
>>#7 Thomas Alba Edison
>>#10 Charles Darwin

kill yourself

>ctrl+f
>no Stephen Hawking

>>5908650
>martin luther king

...

>>5908636
>#3 Niel deGrasse-Tyson
youre joking right?

>>5909006
>no Stephen Hawking
And that's fine.

People keep talking about him just because of is disease-related deterioration.

He did some good work, yes. But not THAT much.
For years now, he's just writing bad books for plebs

He's not a genius at all.

It's so politically correct to admire a Impaired guy.

>>5909041

>He did some good work, yes. But not THAT much.

Well he has over 200 publications and 11 books (+/- 100% of calculation errors)
http://www.hawking.org.uk/publications.html

Add to that numerous other contributions, awards, positions and film and television appearances and by no means that is little.

It's time for you to stop with your funsposting and go back to pol
>>>/pol/

>>5909041
I have no idea what you're talking about with liking him because of a disease. If you feel that way I guess but I like him because of his amazing work on Black Holes, expanding general relativity, etc.

Though I DO believe his condition quite possibly hindered a lot of his ability to do more than he did, what he has done is enough to earn him a spot somewhere on these dumb lists.

I honestly think Ron Paul should be one because I feel as though he's the only man with a grasp on how into Economics. And he can into Economics quite well.

I'd hate to see OP's definition of "smartest".

Notice how, since there is no objective measure of intelligence, this thread will simply be a shitflinging competition over who has the best list of smart people?

>>5908636
obvious troll is obvious

>>5909058
>I like him because of his amazing work on Black Holes, expanding general relativity, etc.

Be serious pliz. You understand nothing at this.
You just read people who say is smart (and actually he is), but he's really too much over-exposed.

Only because of his handicap...

Open your eyes

>Well he has over 200 publications
I keek only this part, which is the only one revelant ( television appearances , pliz) ( books -> for pleb) (awards -> OMG a scientist who has handicap, it's so emotionnal....)

Read them. Yes, good job (as far as I understand them...). I'm not claiming is a dumbass, of course. But there are a LOT of other scientists, working in the shaddows, who have really more publications. 200 is not really impressive, given his age
(and check also the revues, 1 science <> 1 unknown one)

>>5909086
Do you ever get tired of posting that in response to every message you disagree with? Do you have an original thought in your head or are you just a human bot that goes around copy pasting ancient replies thought up by ages ago by people capable of original thought? Let me guess, your second favorite response is to greentext "implying". But once in a while you get really wild and post a picture of George Costanza. Seriously, what is the purpose of even posting when you clearly have nothing original to contribute.

>>5909099
What the fuck are you even saying? Because his handicap suddenly his accomplishment shouldn't be notable? Because he's one of the more popular scientist he should be written off?

Get that ridiculous hipster tripe out of here.

I told you why I liked the man, but you plugged your ears, told me what I do and don't know, and then restated your retarded theory. Not even worth discussing this with you honestly.

Pic related.

>>5909163
>le amusing trolle

>>5908825
if youre gonna use 4 decimals you should use 3.1416, since its 3.14159...

>>5909060
Seriously? Ron Paul's economics are typical of an entire school of economics - the Austrian School.

>Edison above Tesla

>>5909126
he's one of the more popular scientist
BECAUSE of his handicap.

his accomplishment ARE notable, but don't make him a genius.
At all.

>I told you why I liked the man
Yes, you're a fan.

In 200 hundres years, I bet nobody's gonna remember him.

But we all know Newton, da Vinci, ...

>>5909212
>that being the only thing you have a problem with

>>5908636
>Sagan
>deGrasse-Tyson
>Carver
>Eidson
>Salk

>no von Neumann
>no Feynman
>no Euclid
>no Euler

10/10 made me rage.

>Steve Jobs

I don't even.

If you are serious, kindly fuck off back to leddit. Homo.

>>5909234

>...g...guys, stop giving credit to a goy!

>>5909260
>If you are serious,

How autistic are you?

> just one the Buddha

Troll or reddit

>>5908755
>Albert Einstein
>A dropout
pick one and only one

>>5908734
>witten
>feynman
>susskind
learn some mathematics stringfag not everything is "subtract by infinite lolol"

>>5908784
6/10 I'm sure I've seen such claims in real life, just not all at once.

>>5908636
>Edison
>Stole inventions

>>5908636
>albert einstein
>smartest person who ever lived

6/10, gave it away with #3.

>>5908845
This is the best list thus far.

>>5908873
>Gets an immediate disqualification due to his association with nazim

Get a load of this faggot dismissing something because of feels. I'm not even a nationalist socialist/facist fag.

>>5908873
>Gets an immediate disqualification due to his association with nazim

Read his books.
Absolutely NO association with nazism (I'm german, trust me I read it in Deutsch).
I could quote you lot of sentences were he claims his angriness against nazism.

But his sister was a true asshole, and she cheated to make him look like a nazist.


Doesn't make him smart or amazing, you're right.

Impressive mustach though

>that list
>that honorable mention list

You forgot Paris Hilton and 2pac

>>5909495
Gave what away, that's he's not racist like most of the anti-intellectuals on here?

>>5909619
It isn't JUST his association with nazism that makes him suck, also it's the fact edgy teens like to claim they are a fan of his. Liking him is a thinly-veiled form of racism, a way edgy white kids can be racist wthout actually admitting they are racist.

Newton should be higher on just about every list.

Too many great forgottens though, serious contenders mentioned maybe once include:
Euler
Daniel and/or Jakob Bernoulli
Gauss
Bardeen
Hertz

Take out Degrasse, he's a sharp and likeable enough guy but not a research scientist; doesn't belong here.

>>5909626
>Implying Tupac wasn't a world class genius in his respective field
>Associating Tupac with spoiled vapid white debutantes

1/10, best i can give you.

>>5909851
The stuff newton discovered would be child's play by today's standards. he wasn't a genius, he was just alive at a time when there was still loads of elementary shit available to figure out. The only reason he was in a position to figure out was he was a rich white male at a time when 99% of the world was starving with no time to sitting around all day watching apples drop off trees.

>>5908892
Context my friend; science and math (which is underrepresented here - Let's not forget Hamilton, Hilbert, Poincare, Russell to name a few)
But yeah; Shakespeare, Tolstoy and Twain. That about does it.

>>5909857
>Twain
>Delusional amerifat detected

>>5908636
>>#3 Niel deGrasse-Tyson

too soon

>>5909856
It's not as if there weren't other mathematicians and natural philosophers living in relative comfort for many centuries before him. They didn't come up with calculus because it's not easy to do from scratch.
(And yes Leibniz deserves mention in the same breath)
You can make that argument about any non-modern scientist; it's very easy to see how something is simple in comparison
And 99% of the world wasn't starving.

>>5909862
Just because he is new doesn't make him any less valid than the older people on the list. The sciences have gotten much harder these days as things have gotten more and more technical and specialized. For him to be at the top of his field in this day and age is a tremendous achievement. A lot of the people we hold up as geniuses from the past were just at the right place at the right time and probably couldn't even get through a modern PhD program.

>>5909869
By today's standards, 99% of the world would have been classified as living in extreme poverty.

>>5909871
He's not at the top of any field. He's a promoter of science (and a laudable one) but not really a scientist.
Much of his public exposure is due to the fact that he is politically valuable. There are guys teaching at community colleges on his level.

>>5909877
He is currently at the top of the astrophysics field. Also he is responsible for probably the biggest astronomical discoveries of the past ten years or so, it was deGrasse-Tyson who first proposed that in fact Pluto was not a planet. And if I'm not mistaken for a long time he was head of the astrophysics department at Harvard. You don't get a position like that unless you are the top, or at least one of the top guys in the world. Stop trying to tear him down just because he's black, are you really that petty and insecure?

>>5908636
>Sigmund Freud

>Top ten smartest people

>Sigmund Freud
>Sagan

Laughing my fucking dick off

>>5908636
It would have been much more funny with a Richard Dawkins somewhere in the list.

>>5909887

>Just because he's black

When did that guy EVER say anything about him being black you ignorant fuck? Are you really this stupid you're going to try to pull the race card? Fuck you, you're the problem with humanity. Making racism an issue when it's really NOT an issue.

Fucking bleeding heart faggot.

>>5909887
This list is about top genius people of all time. Pluto isn't a planet sure changed everything about how we live, right?

>>5909887
What discoveries are you talking about? Really, I'm serious, name one. Because suggesting that the planet smaller than our moon is not a planet is not significant nor new.
And if you don't recognize the rather large role politics plays in university positions you're being naive.

>>5909850
Ok, here I'm on your side.

Dunno why, people think it sounds cool to be a fan of Nietzsche.
But nobody read him...

And his sister was really a fucking slut http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nueva_Germania
And I'm sorry for the sluts by saying this

>>5909894
You are the one making a race a problem, if he was white there is no way you would have had such a big problem with his presence on the list. I'm black as well so this shit really, REALLY gets under my skin. You guys are totally incapable of giving credit where credit is due, if the person is black you immediately try and tear them down, as if their skin color immediately invalidates them.

>>5909897
It changed something we took for granted in astronomy for the past hundred years or so. Not exactly insignificant now is it? he changed the face of the field quite literally. What has Stephen hawking changed? Now I'm not saying Stephen Hawking is bad, I like him too, but he hasn't changed anything fundamental in the field like deGrasse-Tyson has. Hawking deals mostly with theoretical stuff, while degrasse-tyson is one of those guys actually working in the field down in the ditches getting his hands dirty and producing real results.

>niel degerasse tyson
>bill nye
>richard dawkins
>vsauce
>the amazing atheist
>einstein
>tesla
>numberphile

>>5909898
If if wasn't anything new, then it wouldn't have taken him to make the discovery, we would have already known.

>>5909904

>Implying I am white
>implying I judge by race and don't judge by a persons character or accomplishments

You are the exact reason why people still don't like blacks. You fit the stereotypical "I'm a black man being oppressed by the evil white man" type.

I'm not giving Tyson any credit because I don't think he's made any significant contributions to humanity. Suggesting Pluto isn't a planet didn't really change much.

You are once again, a massive faggot. And you have no place on this board because you are the racist here. I bet you think you can't be racist because you're not white. But you can be, and you are.

Now shut your fucking mouth.

>>5909908
It changed terminology and nomenclature. It generated no new knowledge.
I'd reiterate my request; what exactly has Degrasse contributed to his field? Because I'm pretty sure it's virtually nothing - that's why he doesn't belong here, not because he's part black. I think he's a great guy, very much like Carl Sagan, but isn't himself a significant originator of scientific knowledge.

>>5909910
Dawkins and Tesla did revolutionize their fields. And even you gotta admit Bill Nye is pretty awesome. As for Neil Degrasse Tyson, the guy has done more for his field than anyone else in several decades, on top of being just an all-round bad ass.

>>5909910

>Bill Nye
>The Amazing Faggot
>Dawkins

Not sure if troll or 15 years old.

>>5909908

>"Oh my god, he's a black man in science! This must mean he's smarter and greater than any white man that ever lived!"

>>5909918
Who cares if he belongs on the list or not, the fact you singled him out to complain about says a lot about what your true motivations are. You may not know you are racist, but to everyone else it's pretty obvious. he accomplishes more in one hour than you probably will in your entire ignorant life. Fuck off back to Florida, idiot.

>>5909912
You should read that again. It's a tautology: It's new because it's new. It still isn't significant contribution to astronomy.
(For what it's worth, I'd repeat it wasn't new. Astronomers have been debating whether or not to classify Pluto this way or that since it's discovery)

>>5909923

I care. Because the list is the top 10 smartest people that ever lived. He's not in the top 10. Top 100 maybe.

You only support him so strongly because he's your own race, black. Also you ignorance and saying "fuck off back to Florida" is hilarious. I'm not even from the USA.

Typical black man, pulling the race card.

>>5909922
>"Oh my god, he's a black man in science! This must mean he's smarter and greater than any white man that ever lived!"

Cool strawman idiot. You'll notice he's somewhere towards the middle of the list, plenty of white boys above him. Won't your friends on /pol/ be missing you? I suggest you get back to them

>>>stormfront2.0

Gauss
Euler
Ramanujan
Newton

>>5909930

I can't be a white supremacist because I'm not white. Nice try though.

>>5909927
You are the one who made this about race. How dumb do you think we are to believe that by complete chance you just happened to single out black people on the list for removal. Go fuck yourself.

>>5908636
>ranking Neil deGrasse Tyson above Charles Darwin and Sigmund Freud
OP is a massive faggot

>>5909936

Actually no, you started accusing others that they dislike him because he is black. You started this. You made this a race thing. Don't try reverse psychology on me you fucking moron.

>>5909934
I am asian, I wind


What a shitty thread...

you're all anon here...white, black, dumb (a lot), HS, Phd, fag, yellow, fat

You are Anon.

And when you "win" a discussion, the only person who knows it is... you
And nobody gives a shit

You are Anon.

You are Anon.
And so I am


We are Anon

4chan is full of retarded, pervert

They are anon

There was some genius here, they were Anon

And yall stay Anon forever

>>5909934
Then you are an uncle tom version of whatever race you do identify as, and are playing right into the white supremacist agenda with your ignorant arguments. I repeat, fuck off idiot.

>>5909937
Again, new doesn't automatically make someone inferior. Dead white males get built up way too much just because the passage of time has artificially inflated their importance.

>>5909942

Maybe I just don't think Tyson is as smart and important as Tesla or Newton? Hmmm?

Because honestly, he isn't. He doesn't rank in the top 10 smartest people and you'd be lucky if he even ranked in the 90's in a top 100.

>>5909949

You seem to hate white people. Why is that?

>>5909951
I'd be lucky? Isn't a brilliant person a net gain for all of humanity?

if anybody posts about that Jacob Barnett twat i will kill myself.

>>5908636
Good to Salk isn't forgotten. He was, in addition to being brilliant, probably the greatest philanthropist of the 20th century. He had the most valuable thing in the world and didn't even try to profit from it.

>>5909956

You seem to worship him so much, when he really isn't anything special and there are dozens of smarter people than him.

Is he smart? Yes.

Is he the smartest man that ever lived? No.

Has he significantly contributed to the human species such as Tesla, Newton or Wernher Von Braun?

No.

Those are facts. You just can't stand that some of the most important people is history were white.

>>5909945
>>5909945
>>5909945
THIS.

you are pathetic

>>5909954
I don't hate anyone based on superficial things like skin color. But I do find it very suspicious that such a big deal is being made about deGrasse-Tyson's presence on the list. He's one of the greatest minds of our generation, and he deserves far more recognition than he gets. If you really want me to believe you aren't tearing him down based on race, then please give me a few names of black people that you feel should be on the list in his place. Do that and I'll gladly admit my miscalculation about you and call the matter settled.

Jacob Barnett
Carl Sagan
Einstein

>>5908845
The only list here worth paying attention to.

Not ranked in order, because how?

Aristotle
Avicenna
Einstein
Euler
Galileo
Leibniz
Mendeleev
Newton
Planck
Ramanujian

>>5909968

A black man wouldn't rank in the top 10 because there have not been any contributions made by black people that would rank them in the top 10. You seem to have an inferiority complex. However, I would credit Dr Ben Carson with being probably the 50th. But of course you probably don't know who that is.

>>5908845

Excellent list. I completely agree.

>>5908636
Not bad, but I would alter it as follows:


>#1 Albert Einstein
>#2 Sir Isaac Newton
>#3 Leonardo da Vinci
>#4 Thomas Edison
>#5 Charles Darwin
>#6 Niel deGrasse-Tyson
>#7 Nikola Tesla
>#8 Sigmund Freud
>#9 Jacob Barnett
>#10 William Shakespeare

>>5909234
>you are what's wrong with /sci/
Why? Is science suddenly about recognizing famous faces and celebrities? Here all along I assumed it was about ideas and stuff. Hell, I couldn't identify portraits of half the people posted in this thread if they punched me in the face.

>>5909963
>Is he the smartest man that ever lived? No.

Cool strawman.

>>5908636
>This thread.
>People arguing about smart guys they have never read or understood

My list :
dad
mum
brothers
sister
uncle
grand-dad
best friends

And I read Socrate a liitl, it was intersting.
Listening Mozart or Beethoven makes me feel good also

But all other, I just know their names.
I bet no one here have actually read Einstein/Newton/Freud(!) work

>>5909977
>A black man wouldn't rank in the top 10

Thank you for proving everything I said about you correct.

>>5909991

It's not a strawman, it's a known fact. He never discovered electricity, he never invented a propulsion system that go the USA to the moon, he never successfully performed an extremely complex surgery that was never performed before. He is nothing compared to the dozens of other great minds that exist(ed). You just can't handle that because of your inferiority complex.

>>5909994

Black people have contributed far less than Asians or white people to humanity as a whole. And when they have, it is rare that there inventions or achievements are on par with other white or Asian scientists. This is an objective fact. I mean there are still black people that believe raping virgins will cure HIV, and they hunt in tribes. This is primitive.

I'm sorry but Tyson is not on par with Tesla or Newton. Never has been and never will be. You just can't handle that because once again, you have an inferiority complex.

>>5910002
>Has never heard of Egypt
>Has never heard of the Moors
>Has never heard of Nubia

Stay ignorant stormbro.

>>5909994
What's wrong with that position? Wouldn't you say the same about Inuits or Australian Aborigines?

>>5910002
You escaped from /pol/ ?

>>5910008
Wait nonononononononon i see; the list should follow this format:
1 NW european
1 Southern European
1 N African
1 Subsaharn African
1 N Am. Native
1 S asian Native
1 SE asian
1 NE asian
1 Middle eastern
1 N asian

Anything else is racist.

>>5910010
No.
It should be
9 asian
1 other

speaking of inhabitants

>>5910010
The list also has to follow an alternating male-female format. With a female in the number one position.
Anything else is sexist.

>>5910016
I gave 4 to asia, more than any other continent.
But we should go by recognizable ethnic groups not population size. 9/10 is wrong proportioning anyway, no to mention racist like I said.

>>5910021
>learning irony

>>5910019
I'd completely forgotten about the penisless. Yes of course, although the top position ought to alternate .

>>5908636
>edison
>not tesla
>freud
>sagan
Yeah, no.
>>>/v/

>>5910005

Once again I am not white.

Also the Persians and Turks were much more advanced than the Egyptians. Also the Egyptians were not black. Technically African yes, but North African. Bottom, black people have always been the least advanced people.

>>5910009

Nope. /pol/ is retarded.

>>5910024
my soul is crushed by the enormity of your racism

>>5909992
I've read books by Planck, Newton, Leibniz, Russell, Aristotle, Freud, and a couple of Einstein's papers in the original.

The thing is, science is different from literature. We're not interested in citing primary sources and interpreting the words of the author directly like they are some Urtext to be exegetized. Science is about ideas, and sometimes a life of research and thinking can be summed up in a few sentences. You can learn Mendelian genetics in an afternoon, but it took Gregor about 20 years to compile all the necessary data to draw those conclusions, and to interpert it correctly.

>>5910029
>still doesn't understand I was on his side...

>>5908650
>Nikola Tesla
agreed, definately not top ten smartest. however, i would rank him top 3 as far as histories greatest engineers.

>Nelson Mandela
>Martin Luther King Jr.
>Rosa Parks
>Malcom X
>Barrack Obama
>Neil Degrasse Tyson
>Shahrazad Ali
>Jesse Jackson
>Malcom X
>Ella Backer

>>5910033
You must be so smart !

And Freud really ? what about
"The Twilight of an Idol: The Freudian Confabulation" ?

>The thing is, science is different from literature. We're not interested i
>we
>We
>WE

lol'd hard

>>5910040
Yes Freud really. It was for a class, and unsurprisingly his writing style is as self-absorbed as his theories.

But oh no, just keep projecting your own insecurities onto me. It's ok.

>>5910034
Ah, you think I don't understand just because I'm obviously not a member of your ethnic group. Can't you see we're all one?

>>5910040
It's hilarious to see someone mock someone for having read something they haven't.
It's a slightly fancier, roundabout what of drunkenly challenging "You think you bettern' me!?"

>>5910002

You know what I hate about anons like you, you always claim something but rarely if ever attempt to prove the claim.

I bet you never invested anything more than a 30 second google search on the contributions blacks have brought to table in science because you never actually care the issue period.

You're just an being edgy faggot honestly. Infesting the threads like this with zero contribution and bitching about other peoples opinions on matters that shouldn't be taken seriously.

Yeah guys like Niel deGrasse-Tyson may not be the top of top in terms of smarts but that's op's prerogative to choose him. Op probably has never heard of blacks like Alexander Animalu or Arthur Lewis or Ernest Just or David Blackwell or Al-Jaḥiẓ. He's probably doesn't know about nubian vault or Haya people of Tanzania either.

But that's just because op isn't aware of this info, you notice how put down George Washington Carver who in fairness was a brilliant but is only well known because the media parade him around like a black da vinci. Hell they poster his head up all over the place when it came down to african american history month but they almost never did the same with Lewis Howard Latimer, Fred Jones, James E west, Dr. Patricia Bath and George Edward Alcorn.

Oh and by the way I just listed 10 blacks who contributed quite a lot to humanity in terms of math and science if you haven't notice.

>>5910049
Ctrl + F "sage" dude...

Really, nobody noticed ?

>>5909945
First post

>>5910054
I you had really read and understood Einstein, I'm pretty sure you won't be on 4chan right now...

>>5909904
I like how everyone but Tyson cares about his race.

Really, I hope this guy does not know how leddit workships him because he's black and people like /pol/ hate him because he's black. He's not the 3rd smartest person by any rate, I hope you're trolling, but he's a decent enough astrophysicist that's also good with the media. I don't know how I would feel if my work couldn't be validly appreciated, by one exteme or the other, by 90% of the people that know me because of my race.

>>5909949
>implying that's my argument at all

Why is the creator of the theory of evolution and the creator of psychoanalysis ranked below a guy who isn't even famous for his scientific accomplishments?

>>5909989
That's John Bardeen though. If you've read anything about computer science, you've heard his name. His face is super recognizable too since he looks totally ugly.

>>5910204
>creator of the theory of evolution

Biologist here and I'm not quite sure if Darwin would make it to the top 10. He was smarter than me, but his results are more thanks to his observational power and hard work than anything. Still good at deductive reasoning, but hey, not putting him in the top 50 would be a sin, but not sure if top 10.

>the creator of psychoanalysis

Also a guy that didn't use the scientific method. As soon as Popper made up the falsifiable test most of Freud's stuff was deemed as bullshit. Psychologists today do little to follow him.

>>5910038
Nelson Mandela is an amazing human being, but why do you think he's the smartest?

>>5910233
I think it's le ironic shitposting bro, putting people just because of the race or gender card.

>>5910231
Alright, I'll give you Sigmund Freud, but hell, Leonardo Da Vinci was an amazing polymath who wrote out detailed descriptions of inventions that weren't created until hundreds of years later. Surely he is smarter than Neil deGrasse Tyson, right?

>>5910238
You won't see me saying Tyson should be in the top 10, specially after saying Darwin doesn't make it.

I'm this guy
>>5910132

And that's pretty much it. He's a decent astrophysicist that's also funny and good with people, and I don't get why some people on /sci/ hates pop science as long as it doesn't get the facts wrong (maybe I'd get hate for some pop science fans, but that's not their fault). It really bothers me that he gets so much love and hate from both sides because of the color of his skin, that should be a non-issue today, but that's it. Not top 10.

As for Leonardo Da Vinci I only have the most basic knowledge of the guy, so I can't really tell.

>>5910263
If you're basing intelligence off of the whole theory of 'multiple intelligences', then Leonardo Da Vinci should probably be #1.

>>5909272
0%. l2conditional statement faggo, or did you never learn logic?

Da Vinci
Newton
Tesla
Gauss
Euler
Von Neumann
Al Hazen
Gödel
Galois
Abel

>>5910275
Well, if we go by "artistic intelligence counts", people like Shakespeare and Cervantes would also make it pretty high, if not 10. I think the rest of the (I hope trolling) list and the board it has been posted on takes narrowing it to a few types of intelligence for granted.

>>5910028
>black people have always been the least advanced people.
>Nope. /pol/ is retarded.

If you truly believe that, then you belong on pol. because you ARE a retard.

>>5910236
Back to your pol cage stormpleb. The adults are talking here.

>>5910385
What evidence do you have that demonstrates that he is wrong and you are right?

>>5910263
Tyson should be in the top ten. Watch any of his lectures and youll see why, the guy is a genius of the first degree. Leonardo da Vinci is a mroe questionable choice than Niel deGrasse-Tyson. Yes da Vinci is famous, but what has he contributed? His paintings would be considered sub-standard today and he never actually got any of his "inventions" working. Also he set philosophy back many hundreds of years with his ideas about how we should follow nature and his opposition to external experimentation.

>>5910392
All humans came out of Africa, so pretty much 99% of the einventions we take for granted, such as spoon, chairs, cups, fire, etc are thanks to black people. Also the first really great civilization was Egypt, and greece inherited civilization directly from Egypt. So if it were not for black people, Europeans would probably still be living in caves hiding from lightening.

>>5910397
>White people used to be black, so anything a white person does, the credit should really go to black people.

>>5910394
>Watch any of his lectures and youll see why, the guy is a genius of the first degree.

I've seen two and one where he talks with Dawkins. He's intelligent and I liked them, but he's not in the top 10 of most intelligent humans by any rate.

>>5910397
>also the first really great civilization was Egypt

what is Babylonia or Uruk? (those weren't white anyway, so don't try to attack me with name calling relative to stormfront of /pol/)

Egypt was only predominantly black towards the middle of its history. The rest of it had what we'd call white or araba today.

Heck, if you count these invetions, your top ten list should probably have "Donge Bonkler, inventor of fire", but it doesn't.

Seriously, you're drawing race in a place where it isn't an issue.

>>5910394
>Leonardo da Vinci is a mroe questionable choice than Niel deGrasse-Tyson

Gawd I hope you're trolling.

>>5908825
if your ever going to calculate it for realsies why the fuck would you do it by hand. Any scientific calculator/PL has it set as a default var.

Back of the envelope calculations ain't real science friend.

>this thread

So what's with all the buttpain ITT over Neil deGrasse-Tyson?? Shouldn't /sci/ be above small minded racism? Did /pol/ raid this thread or something??

>>5910416
But I've repeteadly said I like him in this thread. He's just not in the top 100.a

Heck, if we go for racism, I could probably name three or four black scientists I consider smarter than him.

>>5910402
How about we just don't divide people up by a bunch of illogical social constructs period? Everyone from every group has contributed something to society, and without any one group we all fall. In the end we are all the same race, humans.

Sure are a lot of brainwashed racists in this thread. I actually thought sci would be above anti-intellectualism, I thought wrong.

>>5910406
Intelligence, especially the high end of intelligence is nearly impossible to measure. there is really no objective way to determine who is the smartest, in the end it comes down to our own personal viewpoints and preferences. Niel deGrasse-Tyson is as good a choice as any, he is certainly 50 times smarter than anyone on this board.

>This thread

I'll play along
>#1 Ayn Rand
>#2 Milton Friedman
>#3 Alan Greenspan
>#4 St. Ronald Reagan
>#5 Adam Smith
>#6 Bill Gates
>#7 Steve Jobs
>#8 J.P. Morgan
>#9 Rockefeller

>#0 John Galt

WHO SAYS THE TOP 10 STARTS WITH "1"!!

>>5910421
Then why are you so obsessed with him being on the list? Why don't you spend hours crying over Carl Sagan being on there? Oh right, cuz you're racist. Kill yourself retard.

>>5910430
>WHO SAYS THE TOP 10 STARTS WITH "1"!!

Wow, so edgy.

>>5910425
>Neil Degrasse Tyson is smarter than anyone on /sci/
Ok
>Neil Degrasse Tyson is one of the ten smartest people who ever lived.
Yeah, no.
I haven't the slightest clue how OP could place him at number 3. HIGHER than Leonardo da Vinci

>>5910425
>Intelligence, especially the high end of intelligence is nearly impossible to measure
>he is certainly 50 times smarter than anyone on this board.

>>5910422
If I told you my ideas of what things are a social construct and stuff like race, nationalism and gender you'd be calling me a social marxist at best. My idea is probably more extremist than yours.

>>5910431
I just told you. If it was an issue of race, I couldn't name 3 or 4 black scientists that with a quick google search I could verify their names that I consider smarter than Tyson.

Now that you mention it, yes, I consider Carl Sagan more worthwhile than Tyson. Tyson would probably agree.

>>5910425
>>5910416

butt-hurt liberals using intellectual name-calling to try and argue their point.

Everyone arguing against having him in a top 10 agree that he a decent scientist - just not an extraordinary scientist.

If you honestly feel that his contribution via popularization has moved the world forward then you are lacking the experience of having dealt with a mathematical, engineering or scientific problem first hand and used one of the tools created the greats. The fact that you would be utterly powerless without the contributions of these people can fill you with awe and reverence. Popularizers don't get the same love as the greats because they simply don't participate at such a fundamental level to the human enterprise of knowledge-production.

Get your hands dirty - then we'll talk.

Also
>Zuse
>Turing

>>5910436
Again, you can't really measure high intelligence, it's extremely subjective. So in the end you are left making choices based on who you personally feel is the smartest. If he thinks degrasse-tyson is one of the smartest, then who cares, it isn't any more questionable than any other choice, degrasse tyson is unquestionably one of the smartest people in the world currently, whether you feel he's one of the smartest of all time is entirely in the eye of the beholder. I personally agree with the choice, if you ever watched him on PBS the guy really is a beautiful mind.

>>5910437
Tyson would agree because he is extremely modest, but in reality tyson has contributed far more on a technical level than Sagan ever did.

Newton should be top of everyone's list.

>>5910448
>tyson has contributed far more on a technical level than Sagan ever did.

Which contributions?

This is not ironical or saying he hasn't. Really, list them. It would help to argue the opposite of this argument agaisnt stormfags.

So far I think contributing to the Voyager project, for example, is more important than deciding that Pluto is not a planet, again for example, but expand of this. Whether you change my mind or not, it would be helpful.

>>5910457
http://space.about.com/od/astronomerbiographies/a/ndgysonbio.htm

Educate yourself.

Just because you can't understand him doesn't mean he isn't brilliant, maybe you are just dumb.

>>5908845
what about Leibniz?

>>5910464
I can do that too, but I won't resort to name calling.

http://www.notablebiographies.com/Ro-Sc/Sagan-Carl.html

http://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/carl-sagan-155.php

Although now I can quote for certain more than star formation to list the fields he has contributed to. Hey, gotta thank you for that.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,14&q=Neil+deGrasse+Tyson
>No citations on real research

What you need to do is set aside 15 minutes of every day and find a quiet and secluded place. Take a few deep breaths, clear your mind and purge your soul of desire.

>>5910481
>implying that you meditate

>>5910500
Not him, but I meditate.

It helps being Half Buddhist Half Hindu, but it really helps me focus my mind for the day.

>>5910500
Not necessarily - but I spent a lot of time going over my actions and thoughts to make sure that I'm not an asshat (especially over the internet)

>>5908917
Yes, I agree. It's the only honorable thing left for him to do.

Note Thomas "Alba" Edison. Yes, that's right. He was actually Jessica Alba's great grandfather. Remember that little known fact to break the ice at parties.

Also Tyson>Witten. I'm still laughing.

Mine

>#0 God
>#1 Jesus
>#2 Matthew
>#3 Mark
>#4 Paul
>#5 John
>#6 Luke
>#7 Moses
>#8 Abraham
>#9 David
>#10 Pope Benedict XVI

>>5908845

/thread

>>5908650
>Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
>Confucius

>>5908771
>Joseph Fourier
FYI, the Fourier transform was invented a few years before by Gauss, along with the nlogn decimation in frequency implementation (over 200 years before Cooley and Tukey). Fourier is nothing.

Gauss didn't publish it until 1866 though, because that's just how Gauss rolls.

>>5908845
>no Ayn Rand

>>5911078
>>>/pol/
>>>/reddit/
>>>/rapture/

>einstein over netwon
>tyson over da vinci
>everything else

>>5908735
>IQ
the american guy with an enormous IQ has never done anything for any of us nor has he contributed anything to any kind of science

Steve Jobs was a marketer. He told his engineers what he wanted and they designed it for him.

>>5908873
Just because the Nazi's adapted some of his philosophies to their cause doesn't make him any less great. You should know better than that.

>>5909041
But people don't give a shit about his physical disability

>>5910385
>black people have always been the least advanced people.
>implying 'advanced' isn't just a measure of how hospitable the environment was to human society and agriculture

read 'guns, germs, and steel' you retard.

>List takes into account both:
>their contributions to their respective fields
>their importance to humanity
>their overall genius factor.
>both

If contributions to their field and importance to humanity are key criteria then Zefram Cochrane and Ug The Monkey Prometheus should top that list (Warp Drive and Fire, respectively)

>No Euler
>No Archimedes
>Neil "420degrasse"Tyson
shit I've been rused

>>5909383
You say that when he has Wildberger on his list
>being trolled this subtly

1) J. von Neumann
2) I. Newton
3) A. Einstein
4) C. Gauss
5) D. Hilbert
6) M. Planck
7) E. Galois
8) L. Euler
9) S. Ramanujan
10) J. Nash

>Niel deGrasse-Tyson
>Carl Sagan
>Thomas Alba Edison

Americlap detected.

>not a single person said william j sidis

what has become of you /sci/

>>5911243
Sidis is irrelevant. Barnett is our new hope.

>>5911247

>paying attention to Barnett instead of Evan O'Dorney

Evan has actually accomplished stuff including

>National Spelling Bee Champ
>4 time International Math Olympiad gold medalist
>Intel Science Talent Search Winner
>2 time Putnam Fellow
>biggest autist humanity has ever produced (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3_tn4qcSNw))

>>5911260
He won contests, big deal. I'll give him attention, when he actually does science instead of solving problems that were designed to be solved in a short amount of time.

>>5911269

>Evan solved his first math mystery in less than two weeks.

>While taking a linear algebra course at UC Berkeley, his professor gave him a problem and offered Evan a deal. If he could solve it, the teen wouldn't have to take the final exam. He didn't tell the boy that no one had ever solved the problem, which, for what it's worth, dealt with matrices and bonding the Cayley transform, a complicated mathematical concept.

>Evan e-mailed the answer back in 11 days.

>He didn't have to take the final.

Also...

>The second problem, the one he tackled at age 16, took longer to solve.

>Stanford math Professor Brian Conrad gave Evan the problem and told him he needed to find a new way to think about it. The problem involved the ability to determine whether a fraction will accurately predict irrational numbers like square roots.

>Evan didn't have a lot of time to spend working on it, but turned the problem over in his mind for a year or so. Then over a two-week period, he worked on it and nothing else.

>The effort produced a beautiful and simple formula: 4d{+2}/k-d{+2}.

>Conrad was astonished.

>"I didn't know how to get started on it," he said. "He did it without talking to anybody."

>And it got Evan into the Intel finals.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Evan-O-Dorney-already-has-formula-for-success-2528210.php

Evan is doing stuff that has stumped professors for years. This is far more than Barnett will ever do.

>>5911311
You're argument is invalid, because Barnett is a published physicist.
http://pra.aps.org/abstract/PRA/v84/i2/e024103

>>5911260
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3_tn4qcSNw

Holy shit what an aspie little worm. Remember when we used to have intelligent people who didn't act like complete asses? Now with the dumbing down of the population through lack of natural selection, the only brilliant people we get anymore are anomalies the result genetic disorders like this little creep.

I am so happy I am very smart and not a fucking autist.

>>5911329
>http://pra.aps.org/abstract/PRA/v84/i2/e024103
lol

>>5911490
>"King of the words"
>Can barely communicate with others
>Can barely express ideas through concepts that aren't purely logical repetition of axioms and previous definitions

Being healthy and normal and smart, priviliged checked

steve jobs for stealing other peoples inventions and ruining free equipment by patenting it as his own

Me
Martin Luther King
Malcom X
Carl Sagan
Neil deGrasse-Tyson
Lenin

*tips fedora* I bid you gentlemen adoo

Stanley Kubrick, Socrates & Nikola Tesla.

Personal favorites is'all

I'm very surprised by the distinct lack of Eulers here.

>>5908636
William Shakespeare
Mozart
they're both pretty smart

>>5911568
I was not aware that they had taken IQ tests.

>>5910558
Good list!

>>5909034
This.

I mean, the guy's awesome as a popularizer, but really?

>>5910422

>Race
>Social construct

Retarded sociology major detected

Get the fuck out of here

1. Richard Feynman
2. Albert Einstein
3. Stephen Hawking
4. Jerome Lettvin
5. Antoine Lavoisier
6. Bernhard Riemann
7. Alan Turing
8. Ludwig Wittgenstein
9. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
10. Roger Penrose

control-f no reagan... this threads a joke

>>5913020

I know. Anyone saying Neil Tyson is a fucking moron who watches too much TV scientist shows.

I can think of 9. In no particular order,

Newton
Leibniz
Kant
Nietzsche
Goethe
Gauss
Aristotle
Wittgenstein
Euler

It's easy enough to find intelligent people who contributed much to human knowledge/arts/etc., but rarely in history do we meet actual larger than life giants who truly stand out above the rest of humanity like these guys.

It was obvious as soon as you put Newton anywhere that is not #1

>Ctrl+F
>Fib- DUN DUN DUN

No Fibonacci?

>>5908636
>#3 Niel deGrasse-Tyson
>#5 George Washington Carver
>#6 Carl Sagan
>#8 Sigmund Freud

This thread is just a troll. Don't bump it.

>>5909910

So little mention of A. Turing. Poor man

>>5909887
Jesus, stupid argument here, pulling the race card when he made no indication about race what so ever. You can't just assume racism because he doesn't consider him for his list. I pretty much like the guy, he's pretty awesome.

Out of everyone though, you seem to be the racist, you have a right to be sensitive about discrimination, but you can't just pull the race card out of your ass.

>>5908636
what the fuck does smartest even mean? what qualifies one to be smartest? most accomplished genius then i would rank

#1 da vinci
#2 newton
#3 einstein

>>5908845
nice.

Hero worship should be a bannable offense.

>>5908845
Fun fact, my ancestor was taught by Gauss.

>>5908723
Still..we're talking about intelligence.

>>5908739
In terms of pure IQ, I would be appalled not to see Wittgenstein on the list

>>5908636

>not Jacob Barnett

>>5908845
This is actually a shockingly good list...however, as another anon mentioned, should pop in Leibniz

>>5908636
>#1 Jacob Barnett

>>5914659
The list also does not include Nikola Tesla.

>>5912831

>List takes into account both their contributions to their respective fields, their importance to humanity, and their overall genius factor

>>5914640
>>5914659

is a troll I am unaware of? if so, 7/10 nice effort - you had my jimmies rustled for a second there

>>5908636
>Freud
Leave.

>>5908771
Oh god, thank you for including some mathematicians

>>5908636
No Leonhard Euler?

That's harsh

>>5908784
do you even mathematics you fucking pleb

>>5909041
>not a genius at all
>please go

He may not be 'top 10 all time' but he is definitely a genius. Do some research

"Bacon, Locke and Newton... I consider them as the three greatest men that have ever lived, without any exception, and as having laid the foundation of those superstructures which have been raised in the Physical and Moral sciences".
- Thomas Jefferson
>le Anglocentric face

>>5910277

Ha, l2autism faggo, you should know that autism is spectrum. "How autistic are you" is perfectly valid.

>>5914969
Probably because he never did any noteworthy science.

>>5910430

holy shit after #2 your list goes full retard. This is /sci/ not /bus/ faggot

>>5909856
>The stuff newton discovered would be child's play by today's standards. he wasn't a genius,

"Taking mathematics from the beginning of the world to the time when Newton lived, what he has done is much the better part."
-Leibniz

>>5911329
dear God, have you even seen Barnett's TED talk? He is so factually incorrect it is mindblowing

A few names from the top of my head that might not immediately occur to laymen:

Gamow
Lorenz
Stokes
Hamilton
Kolmogorov
Lord Kelvin
C. Shannon

Bobby Fischer

>>5915430
>After #2
>Thinking Ayn Rand as a genius

1.Carl Sagan
2.Neil Degrease Tyson
3.Michio Kaku
4.Richard Dawkins
5:Steve Jobs

>>5915456
>CS

Why aren't there any blacks or women on any of your lists? Stop being so sexist and racist and accept the contributions of minorities to humanity.

1. von Mises
2. Rothbard
3. Hayek
4. Rand
5. Friedman

>ctrl + f
>gödel
>only one result
>iamdisappoint.jpg

>this thread

Master troll.

I won't bother reading through the thread but I hope Leibniz and Heaviside were mentioned.

>#3 Niel deGrasse-Tyson
>#3
>smartest people who ever lived

>>5908825
How often are you calculating with pi by hand?

There is a pi button on every calculator I own, and a pi constant in every mathematics program I use.

>>5914205
Thank you Fedora.

>>5915531
Rothbard > Hayek > Friedman > Mises > Rand

>>5915572
Im never sure how high to rate logicians/mathematical philosophers.

I mean... Godel, Russell, Zermelo, etc.
can they really be thought of as being as great as the Diracs, Schrodingers etc.? I mean, its fucking philosophy.