/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.1114066]

ITT: the top 10 scientists of the world according to the significance of their contribution to science

Here are some people that should definitley be in:

Newton
Einstein
Darwin

Who else?

[Anonymous No.1114082]

Dmitri Mendeleev maybe? Definitley some chemistry needed here

[Anonymous No.1114086]

Laplace

[Anonymous No.1114088]

Neils Bohr for atomic theory

[Anonymous No.1114089]

Freud

[Anonymous No.1114091]

Maxwell's equation are well important, so I guess he aswell

[Anonymous No.1114093]

>>1114086
and Fourier

[Anonymous No.1114099]

>>1114089
>science
>Freud

hahahahaha

[Anonymous No.1114106]

Robert Trivers, E. O. Wilson.

[Anonymous No.1114107]

Need some QM In there aswell heisenberg and possibly schrödinger

[Anonymous No.1114108]

Do ancient philosopher/scientists count?


If so Archimedes.

[Anonymous No.1114115]

OP here, while I am a physicist myself I am afraid we should probably have a few non-physichists aswell ...

Anymore chemists / biologists / psychologists?

[Anonymous No.1114116]

Fucking ridiculous thread.

[Anonymous No.1114119]

Gregor Mendel

[rec & play !!ZeLOSlAhY6W No.1114121]

>>1114116
This.

[Anonymous No.1114124]

I.C. Posse for his work regarding magnetism.

[OP No.1114129]

Newton
Einstein
Darwin
Neils Bohr
Maxwell
Heisenberg
(no particular order)
Are these so far acceptable to everyone?

[Anonymous No.1114135]

can Da Vinci be considered a scientist?

[Anonymous No.1114136]

>>1114129
No Planck or Leibniz?

[OP No.1114141]

>>1114136
I am for Planck, cause he invented quantum theory, but Leibniz, while being important, doesnt belong to the top 10

[Anonymous No.1114142]

Those that I'm sure to be on this list:
John von Neumann
Isaac Newton
Albert Einstein
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
Max Planck

Other possibilities:
Ernest Rutherford
Galileo Galilei
Nicolaus Copernicus
Michael Faraday

[Anonymous No.1114149]

Faraday for fucking certain

[OP No.1114150]

Who is the most important chemist?

[Anonymous No.1114152]

>>1114141
Fair enough.

[Anonymous No.1114154]

gauss??

[Anonymous No.1114155]

>darwin

[Anonymous No.1114158]

Stephen Hawking

[Anonymous No.1114159]

>>1114150
Boyle? Dalton?

[Anonymous No.1114161]

>>1114142
I'd rather place da Vinci with people like Isambard Kingdom Brunel

[Anonymous No.1114163]

Heisenberg?

I thought heisenberg made crystal meth?

[Anonymous No.1114167]

>>1114150


Dmitri Mendeleev, IMO. First one to truly understand and organize the concept of the periodic table, and his understanding of his own novel take on it allowed him to correctly predict with stunning accuracy the existence and properties of quite a few elements which hadn't even been considered/isolated yet.

[Anonymous No.1114168]

lol einstein front and center

fucking drama queen

[Anonymous No.1114171]

Dawkins is the most important scientist in the past 100 years.

Any true atheist would know this.

[Anonymous No.1114176]

>Nobody mentions Leonhard Euler

[Anonymous No.1114180]

Fuck it, I'm only ranking Solvay '27.
Red = God Tier
Green = Demigod
Blue = Major Player
Purple = Significant Player
Yellow = Average Player

[Anonymous No.1114189]

>>1114176
You mean YOULER

[Anonymous No.1114190]

>>1114171
I had great respect for Dawkins until I've seen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRTfgQG5Yn8
That showes he is quite a hypocrite

[Anonymous No.1114196]

>>1114171


Dawkins is a PR man, scientist only in profession and title. His real job and influence comes from his outgoing and vocal nature. He hasn't done anything profound or new, hasn't helped expand any ideas - only has repackaged and distributed stuff to the masses. Which don't get me wrong is an important part of helping science march forward, but he is not an integral part of profound works. Not even close.

[OP No.1114199]

1) Newton
2) Einstein
3) Darwin
4) Planck
5) Maxwell
6) Faraday
7) Bohr
8) Mendeleev
9) Heisenberg
10)Mendel

Just a suggestion for now

[Anonymous No.1114202]

>>1114176
this guy>Euler

[Anonymous No.1114214]

>>1114180
Planck is God tier
Heisenber is almost God tier

[Anonymous No.1114236]

>>1114196

Sure, but being better at PR than at Science always makes you more well-known among the public.
Hence you see a lot of Dawkins, Sagan, Hawking, Kaku and (most recently) Venter around here, all the while 99% the /sci/ crowd couldn't predict a Nobel Prize winner to save their life.

[Anonymous No.1114237]

>>1114196
He expanded upon the idea that selection occurs at the level of the gene, and also helped it to become more accepted among biologists.

[Anonymous No.1114247]

>>1114236


Please re-read thread concept. No one argues with your point, it's just not the point of the thread. Dawkins doesn't belong.

[Anonymous No.1114254]

>>1114202
But isn't gauss just a theory (a geuss)?

[Anonymous No.1114277]

Paracelsus.

Without him we'd still be using greek science and medicine

[OP No.1114289]

I'd appretiate it if you'd not only make suggestions about whom to put in, but also about whom to take out. I know there are a lot of important scientists, but they can't all be top 10

[Anonymous No.1114292]

Why the fuck did it take that long until someone mentioned Galileo

[Anonymous No.1114293]

Kent Hovind for contributions to Creation Science.

[Anonymous No.1114299]

FEYNMAN
FEYNMAN
FEYNMAN
FEYNMAN
FEYNMAN
FEYNMAN
FEYNMAN
FEYNMAN
FEYNMAN

[Anonymous No.1114305]

>>1114299

FEYNMAN

[Anonymous No.1114306]

>>1114199
the fuck including Newton but not Galileo

[OP No.1114311]

>>1114292
Galileo isn't actually that important, they don't even mention him in most physics lectures

[Anonymous No.1114314]

maxwell

[Anonymous No.1114315]

Robert Trivers

[Anonymous No.1114324]

Chinese, Russians, Arabs, Indians, etc.. never had an important scientist?

[Anonymous No.1114331]

>>1114306
He didn't do much and was too chickenshit to stand by his beliefs

[Anonymous No.1114332]

>>1114311
what kind of physics lectures did you go to?
And newton's first two laws were Galileo's anyway.
Galileo was the person who finished with the lame "durr we must all memorize Aristotle's works" and made people think and experiment.
And he was the first person to give actual reasons to believe that Earth could orbit the sun

[Anonymous No.1114338]

>>1114332

And Galileo just ripped off Kepler!

[Anonymous No.1114339]

>>1114324
No. Inferior races.

[Anonymous No.1114341]

Nicolas Steno anyone? Father of geology and stratigraphy as well as the greatest anatomists of all time.

[Anonymous No.1114352]

>>1114339
>russians..

>inferior races..

[Anonymous No.1114358]

>>1114331
that makes no fucking sense

[OP No.1114360]

>>1114332
Okay if you want me to take Galileo in tell me at which place and whom I should kick out

[Anonymous No.1114361]

Yves Rossy for inventing the jetpack!

[Anonymous No.1114362]

>>1114299

As much as I love feynman his actual contributions are not as great as Heisenberg, Einstein, Bohr, etc.

What we may see though are generations after generations of students inspired by feynman so in the long run his influence may be phenomenal.

[Anonymous No.1114368]

>>1114324
You might as well note that there aren't many important scientists pre-1500. The scientific revolution took place in the West, and that's why most of the most important scientists were Western.

[Anonymous No.1114375]

>>1114338
Kepler was insane and his writings are 95% garbage anyway. It was a merit to discover something worthy of being mentioned in the middle of all of Kepler's shit.

[OP No.1114379]

>>1114368
or no female scientists cause feminism is mid-late 20th century

[Anonymous No.1114388]

>>1114358
>Can't understand simple sentences

[OP No.1114391]

1) Newton
2) Einstein
3) Darwin
4) Planck
5) Maxwell
6) Faraday
7) Bohr
8) Mendeleev
9) Galileo
10)Mendel

This better?

[Anonymous No.1114396]

>>1114311
"Galileo isn't actually that important, they don't even mention him in most physics lectures"
Alright this is my mantra from now on.

Pointless thread otherwise, already full of bad bad sad bad stuff.

[Anonymous No.1114399]

>>1114391
For some reason it seems like Fermi and Feynman should slot in there somewhere...

[Anonymous No.1114401]

Einstein is fine too, but in terms of impact on society I would say Watson and Crick.

We can now find out which nigger did the rape

[Anonymous No.1114405]

>top 10 scientists

why do you want to compare pears with apples?

[Anonymous No.1114406]

>>1114391
>No paracelsus

[Anonymous No.1114415]

>no Faraday
>no Pauling

[Anonymous No.1114420]

>>1114406
>>1114399
Stop throwing out names without suggesting who they should replace. There are plenty of important scientists.

[Anonymous No.1114421]

>>1114391
yes, the top scientist in history should always be an alchemist

[OP No.1114424]

>>1114401
Impact on society doesnt matter

[OP No.1114430]

>>1114415
Faraday is already in there,

Pauling might have to go in, but is he more important than Mendel?

[Anonymous No.1114439]

Walter White and maybe Jesse Pinkman

[Anonymous No.1114440]

>>1114430
Well biology is a low tier science so I say yes.

[Anonymous No.1114442]

My short list for greatest scientists would include Newton, Einstein, Erwin Schrodinger for devising the wave equation, Richard Feynman for his contributions to QED, I'd put Copernicus and Kepler on that list as well since to do what they did WHEN they did it, required a level of audacity and genius that most people who aren't well versed in the political and social conditions of the time (middle ages) would simply be oblivious to.

[Anonymous No.1114445]

>>1114424

Then what's the point of science if we can't use it for good?

inb use it for bad

[Anonymous No.1114448]

>>1114440
Biology: so simple a woman could do it

[OP No.1114459]

1) Newton
2) Einstein
3) Darwin
4) Planck
5) Maxwell
6) Faraday
7) Bohr
8) Mendeleev
9) Galileo
10)Pauling

Everyone agree?

[Anonymous No.1114460]

>>1114368

Check out how much the "inferior races" contributed to math, before many of them were rediscorered by scientists you know:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_mathematics

[Anonymous No.1114464]

>>1114420
Paracelsus as 1 bump others down a place. Advanced chemistry and biology hundreds of years and gave medicine it's first real advancement since the greeks 1,500 years earlier. Was the first to mention the sub conscious, advocate cleaning wounds, tell people that outside forces could influence the body, treat people that needed treated instead of who could pay. Had many attempts on his life for his rejection of the methods of his peers and published some of the most influential works of the next 300 years. He also revolutionised the magic and alchemical worlds but they don't matter.

[OP No.1114466]

>>1114460
>implying maths is a science

[Anonymous No.1114469]

>>1114448
There are women mathematicians and physicists.

[OP No.1114483]

>>1114464
>my face when nothing you have mentioned is a significan scientific discovery

[Anonymous No.1114486]

No love for Linus Pauling?

[Anonymous No.1114490]

>>1114469
As well as female car drivers.

[Anonymous No.1114491]

>>1114483
>My face at your troll attempt

[OP No.1114493]

>>1114486
Well where do you suggest I place him? You have to make constructive suggestions

[Anonymous No.1114494]

>>1114486

Pauling = Most significant chemist, or at the very least, theoretical chemist, of the 20th century. Hands down.

[Anonymous No.1114495]

>>1114459
Mendel deserves a place. Fuck Galileo or Pauling.

[OP No.1114497]

>>1114491
Science: clean wounds

[Anonymous No.1114499]

>>1114466
1021 intromission theory of light, Alhazen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-Haytham

[Anonymous No.1114500]

>>1114497
>Implying they weren't pouring boiling oil on wounds to stop the bleeding before

[OP No.1114505]

9) Pauling
10) Mendel
-----------
11) Galileo

?

[Anonymous No.1114506]

>>1114388
I meant that Galileo was anything but a coward

[Anonymous No.1114517]

>>1114483
>nothing you have mentioned is a significan scientific discovery
>gave medicine it's first real advancement since the greeks 1,500 years earlier.

Oh you

[Anonymous No.1114519]

>>1114459
Maybe you could throw Marie Curie there too, but I have no idea about who should be replaced

[Anonymous No.1114521]

>>1114506
Then why did he withdraw his statement that the earth revolves around the sun?

[Anonymous No.1114524]

>>1114519
She didn't do anything any other human being couldn't have done

[OP No.1114526]

>>1114517
>implying medicine is science

[Anonymous No.1114528]

hippocrates for his researched use of opiates to alleviate pain back in acient Greece

also for being a son of Zeus

[OP No.1114533]

>>1114519
Na, she is definitley not more important than any of the ones in the list

[Wally thief No.1114542]

John Paul the II for his contribution to the Vatican.

[OP No.1114543]

FINAL VERSION:

1) Newton
2) Einstein
3) Darwin
4) Planck
5) Maxwell
6) Faraday
7) Bohr
8) Mendeleev
9) Pauling
10)Mendel

This is now the absolut truth.

[Anonymous No.1114544]

Fuck Galileo, Nicolas Steno did so much more. He was the first real geologist and discovered the defining principles of stratigraphy. He was also an awesome anatomist and made shitloads of discoveries in that field as well.

[Anonymous No.1114548]

>>1114543
facepalm
I'm sure you must be a high school faggot

[Anonymous No.1114554]

>>1114526
>Implying it isn't
>Ignoring his contributions to chemistry, biology, toxicology and psychology
>Implying if it weren't for his advances the modern world would exist

[Anonymous No.1114555]

1) PERELMAN
2) PERELMAN
3) PERELMAN
4) PERELMAN
5) Feynman
6) PERELMAN
7) PERELMAN
8) PERELMAN
9) PERELMAN
10) Einstein

[Anonymous No.1114557]

>>1114543
>No paracelsus

[Anonymous No.1114561]

Economics -> Adam Smith

[Anonymous No.1114566]

>>1114557
>>1114554
>>1114406
Go back to dead Paracelsus.

[Anonymous No.1114567]

>>1114543
>Pauling
:/

[Anonymous No.1114570]

Geofag here. Any top scientist discussion by default should include Alfred Wegener and/or Charles Lyell.

There would be no theory of evolution without Lyell, the father of uniformitarianism, which gave evolution time to progess.

Alternatively, the theory of plate tectonics is to geology what evolution is to biology and ties together all subdisciplines of geology. Without Wegener and plate tectonics we would still be in the fucking bronze age.

[Anonymous No.1114574]

>>1114566

[Anonymous No.1114578]

>>1114544
how is geology more important than physics anyway?
physics was a subsector of philosophy with no math whatsoever until Galileo's methods were accepted. Religion, science and philosophy depended completely on each other and actually paying attention to natural phenomena was considered practically heresy for contradicting Aristotle, whose works were memorized

[Anonymous No.1114584]

>>1114570
>NO MAFFS SO IZ NO ZIUNCE

[Anonymous No.1114586]

>>1114555

>111
>555

double tripples

this list is truth

[Anonymous No.1114588]

>>1114578
>This is what highschool children actually believe

[Anonymous No.1114590]

Wait nobody mentioned Nikola Tesla? Man invented wireless electricity for god's sake!

[OP No.1114592]

>>1114570
Your suggestions are very reasonable, but would you seriously say either one of these is more important than Mendel, who discovered genetics?

[Anonymous No.1114593]

>>1114544
You can't really ignore Galileo if Newton makes the top 1 in the list anyway.

[Anonymous No.1114596]

>>1114570
As a geofag you shouldn't fail to mention Steno!

[Anonymous No.1114598]

>>1114578

geology has actually done shit in the past 50 years (mining, oil, plate tectonics, history of mars/moon, plus anything not grown is mined), while physics has remained stagnant and is a collective circlejerk of wasted time and minds.

[OP No.1114599]

>>1114593
turns out I can

[Anonymous No.1114604]

>>1114592
Mendel FTW

[Anonymous No.1114608]

>>1114596

point taken good sir. however, i feel that wegener and lyell are more important in the big picture. however, stenho was highly influential nonetheless.

[Anonymous No.1114610]

>>1114588
exactly what is wrong there?
of course there were some exceptions, like Tycho Brahe, but esentially Galileo and Newton were both the main protagonist of the great scientific revolution. Copernicus only started the problem in a philosophical way using terrible experimental data and mimicking greeks as much as possible, and Kepler was... Kepler...

[OP No.1114618]

Anyone who just mentions a scientist without stating whether he is actually more important than Mendel or Pauling will now be ignored

[Anonymous No.1114624]

Gregor Mendel.

[Anonymous No.1114625]

>>1114618
wtf Pauling?

[Anonymous No.1114631]

THIS WHOLE THREAD

>>implying that science hasn't progressed since the enlightenment

[Anonymous No.1114632]

Marie Curie amirite

[Anonymous No.1114634]

>>1114624

Motherfucker was all like Genetics man.

[Anonymous No.1114640]

>>1114610
The great scientific revolution that couldn't have taken place without paracelsus so publicly rejecting the greeks (book burning rallies) and the elitist establishment in favour of facts and the scientific method

[Anonymous No.1114642]

>>1114561
Not only economics isn't a science, but also Adam Smith was a philosophy professor who fundamented economics in anglicanism

[Anonymous No.1114648]

>>1114618
THATLLTEACUM

[Anonymous No.1114652]

>>1114592
Lyell at 9, Mendel at 10.

[Anonymous No.1114655]

>>1114642
>Doesn't know what science means

[Anonymous No.1114656]

Tesla? Edison?

[Anonymous No.1114660]

>>1114656
>Implying edison did anything note worthy

[OP No.1114661]

>>1114640
>implying influence on the societies attitude towards science is actually a criteria
>implying anyone before galileo used the scientific method and could thus be seen as a scientist

[Anonymous No.1114663]

>>1114655

>>implying that he knows what science means.

[OP No.1114676]

1) Newton
2) Einstein
3) Darwin
4) Planck
5) Maxwell
6) Faraday
7) Bohr
8) Mendeleev
9) Mendel
10)Lyell

[Anonymous No.1114678]

This thread is an insult to all those people who devoted their lives to science.

[kramerr No.1114684]

Implying the significance of a scientist's contributions is equivalent to their celebrity.

[Anonymous No.1114692]

>>1114661
>Implying such public displays of rejection didn't inspire others to reject falsehoods and accept discernible facts.
>Implying Paracelsus wasn't methodical in his research and didn't apply the scientific method to his work

[Anonymous No.1114693]

>>1114640
During that period, the dilemma of how much knowledge can really be achieved by mankind didn't even start really, Copernicus and Paracelsus were pretty much the precursors of modern science, but didn't really give much validity to their claims.

[Anonymous No.1114696]

>>1114676
>No paracelsus

[Anonymous No.1114698]

>>1114678
>>1114684

agree

[Anonymous No.1114699]

>>1114676
Darwin did not just come up with the mechanism of natural selection, he made many important discoveries in biology, geology, and psychology. Darwin should be moved up.

[Anonymous No.1114709]

>>1114129

No because Einstein and perhaps Newton to an extent were plaigerists. Darwin was a moron, he's elevated over mendel who knows why.

[Anonymous No.1114710]

>>1114684

stfu faggot.


Though they may all have celebrity, these men, without a doubt, have revolutionized their fields that still resonates today. /drunk

[Anonymous No.1114711]

m00t

[Anonymous No.1114713]

>>1114663
...No, I'm implying the exact opposite

[OP No.1114714]

>>1114692
>still implying that this is a criteria here

Also: Can you list a simple hypothesis which he stated, from which he then derived testable predictions and then sucesfully tested?
I am not very familiar with his work, but I can't imagine he did that

[Anonymous No.1114726]

>>1114676
I would move Mendeleev down to 10. His main contribution was the periodic table, which I would place below genetics certainly and probably Lyell's ideas as well.

[Anonymous No.1114727]

>>1114713

orly

[Anonymous No.1114733]

>>1114699
you can't really compare a physicist/mathematician with a biologist/naturalist.
Just attempting to make this list is something stupid and oh so american like pretty much every "top X".

[OP No.1114740]

>>1114726
good point

1) Newton
2) Einstein
3) Darwin
4) Planck
5) Maxwell
6) Faraday
7) Bohr
8) Mendel
9) Lyell
10)Mendeleev

[Anonymous No.1114743]

>>1114709
Mendel wrote an essay on peas and had a cool idea. Darwin spent decades making grand contributions to biology, geology, and psychology. He discovered plant hormones, wrote volumes on geology, drew up much of the currently accepted theory on evolution of emotions, for example.

[Anonymous No.1114748]

>>1114714
>He doesn't know paracelsus was the first to determine that quantities have an enormous impact on the body.

"The dose makes the poison."

His work on miners lung and other afflictions of miners was the most important on the subject and was always mentioned in other works on it for the next 150 years minimum.
His prediction that outside force influence the body e.g. coal dust causing miners lung or that pouring boiling oil on a wound to stop the bleeding caused infection

[Anonymous No.1114749]

>>1114676

This list is ridiculous, it doesn't mention Archimedes, Davinci, Avicenna, Shen Kuo all of whom trumped half the people in this list in their own way.

[OP No.1114754]

>>1114749
>not making constructive criticism

[Anonymous No.1114759]

MOTHERFUCKING TESLA NIGGERS

[Anonymous No.1114760]

>>1114709
Darwin was a first-class scientist. He didn't just theorize the most important idea in biology, he spent decades working to prove it through careful empirical research and compilation.

[Anonymous No.1114761]

Boltzmann was pretty tight, too.

[Anonymous No.1114763]

>>1114754
This thread needs to die. Please put "sage" into e-mail fields every time you post.

[Anonymous No.1114766]

>>1114743

At least take Einstein off it then. Darwin may have been a plodder and a plaigerist too but Einstein is a joke. Besides being accused of being a thief his work has started to be debunked to an extent although I admit I haven't looked into the details.

[Anonymous No.1114778]

>>1114766

[OP No.1114779]

>>1114766
Einstein discovered special and general relativity, effectively proving newton wrong and forming the foundation for modern cosmology. He also discovered the photoelectriceffect, and thus contributed significantly to our understanding of light.

[Anonymous No.1114780]

>>1114761
i like boltzman because he killed himself when he realized he was surrounded by idiots.

[Anonymous No.1114782]

>>1114766
>Besides being accused of being a thief
being accused =/= actually being a thief
>his work has started to be debunked to an extent
lol wut? how so?

[Anonymous No.1114784]

>>1114543
Darwin is too high

[Anonymous No.1114789]

>>1114760

Ok I retract what I said about Darwin then. I was under the impression he just smoked some hash and guzzled a lot of booze on some island and rolled over one day realizing what evolution was.

[Anonymous No.1114793]

does anyone here knows anything at all about the history of sciences?

[Anonymous No.1114794]

>>1114780

yeah, it was either that or his suspected bipolar disorder.

[Anonymous No.1114795]

>>1114779 He also discovered the photoelectriceffect
Nope, that's the first Becquerel.
Just let this thread die..

[Anonymous No.1114797]

who gives a shit about darwin. I beleive in evolution, but who actually gives a fuck. Newton for the win, darwin for the loss.

[Anonymous No.1114809]

>>1114779

He's accused of stealing that from others though. From what I understand he worked in a patent office as a clerk which sort of makes one think about plaigerism too. He was also supposed to be quite a dimwitted student and physically abusive towards his sister according to records.

Also, Newton himself had written about mass being convertable to energy long before and others were working on it before Einstein was.

[Anonymous No.1114816]

Galileo Galilei. The father of science.

[OP No.1114820]

>>1114795
It was Hertz, sorry my bad, but Einstein explained it and thus gained a lot of knowledge about light

[Anonymous No.1114822]

>>1114809
One thing is for sure:
Einstein could never have stolen General Relativity from anyone.
As for Special Relativity, that's another thing.

[OP No.1114836]

>>1114809
At a science symposium, one scientists presents a revolutionary new theory and has lots of evidence to support it.

An other scientist response: Ah this might be very well, but as I understand it you hit your sister, so your theory is invalid

[Anonymous No.1114852]

>>1114816
true there

[Anonymous No.1114871]

>>1114740
What's newton doing on top? Einstein should be there, newton maybe 3rd-4th

[OP No.1114877]

>>1114852
Galileo helped revolutionise the societies attitude towards science, but that is not a criteria here.

He did also made a lot of discoveries, but I wouldn't say more than Mendeleev. If you convince me otherwise, that would be fair enough

[Anonymous No.1114879]

>>1114820
Woops you're right. Becquerel discovered the photovoltaic effect, not quite the same.
Now this thread remains pointless and I'm afraid it will be bumped forever..

[Anonymous No.1114886]

richard dawkins

[OP No.1114888]

>>1114871
Newton wrote down most of classical mechanics, gravity, and did a lot of work in optics and thermodynamics. I am afraid Einstein has no chance here

[Anonymous No.1114895]

I posted a new thred on /sci/

the top 10 scientists of the world according to the significance of their contribution to science

1) Newton- Anglican
2) Einstein- Jewish
3) Darwin- Anglican, Unitarian
4) Planck -Christian
5) Maxwell- Christian
6) Faraday - member of Sandemanian Church (a christian sect)
7) Bohr- Jewish Lutheran
8) Mendeleev - ??
9) Mendel - Augustinian Priest
10)Lyell- ??

[Anonymous No.1114901]

>>1114809
Rofl...
> Doesn't know special realtivity is 90% maxwell's work
Einstein just put c = const into them, that's it. takes no amount of stealing

General relativity on the other hand is Einsteins ACTUAL work, and blows every scientist before him and after him out of the water so hard it's not even funny.

[Anonymous No.1114918]

>>1114888
Newtons shit would have been done anyway by someone else, its so basic. Only thing he has going for him is gravity.

[Anonymous No.1114930]

Marie Curie

[OP No.1114939]

>>1114895
Einstein and Darwin were both Atheists for most of their lifes, including death

[Anonymous No.1114941]

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck

[Anonymous No.1114943]

>>1114918
>Newtons shit would have been done anyway by someone else
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg_of_Columbus

[Anonymous No.1114945]

>>1114888

ALso calculus

And he invented paper money

[OP No.1114962]

>>1114901
Any theory in science would at some point have been discovered by someone else, that doesn't matter. Also you are forgetting things like Newton's law of cooling and his work in optics

[Anonymous No.1114996]

>>1114962
Most of that is just simple mathematical methods to solve rather basic problems. especially in optics. Only real discovery he did was gravity. It's on par with relativity, I'll give you that. But the rest... not nearly on the same level.

[OP No.1115011]

>>1114996
The significance of a scientific contribution is not determined by how complicated its maths is

[Anonymous No.1115027]

>>1115011

[Anonymous No.1115035]

>>1114066

Newton
Einstein
Darwin
Mendeleev
Heisenberg
Schrodinger
Tesla
Feynman
Turing

Uhh...

[Anonymous No.1115053]

>Darwin

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
GTFO

[Anonymous No.1115055]

One woman to be fair, Curie :O

[Anonymous No.1115081]

>>1115011
And I wasn't implying that either. You don't agree that his biggest discovery was realizing what gravity is? It's really simple mathematically. But the significance is there.

The optics shit is just straightforward equation solving. There was pretty much zero understanding of thermodynamics, and classical thermodynamcis was a dead end field anyway, first real insight into that came with Boltzmann. Newtonian mechanics is just... meh.

[Anonymous No.1115090]

>>1114996

Basic problems to somebody who already has the maths and the Newtonian framework, something he did NOT have.

Coming up with the present day definitions of work/energy, force, acceleration, etc is not trivial. Assuming objects in motion stay in motion (despite 'common sense' saying the opposite) is not trivial.
Anybody who dismisses Newton as lightly as you just did only proves that you're taking what he did for granted.

[OP No.1115097]

>>1115055
How would that be fair? That would just be positive discrimination

[OP No.1115106]

>>1115081
I do agree that gravity is his greatest work, yes

[Anonymous No.1115112]

In no real order

Top 10:
Copernicus
Newton
Einstein
Feynman
Planck
Rutherford
Faraday
Tesla
Maxwell
Boltzmann

Honorary Mention:
Euler

[OP No.1115121]

>>1115112
lol, copernicus

[Anonymous No.1115125]

>tier-thread

[Anonymous No.1115131]

Boltzmann
Copernicus
Einstein
Faraday
Feynman
Maxwell
Newton
Planck
Schrodinger
Tesla

[Anonymous No.1115138]

>>1115097
True, but radioactivity was cash anyway

[Anonymous No.1115142]

>>1115112
>>1115131
>no Darwin
>what the fuck am I reading

[OP No.1115147]

>>1115138
yes, but Lyell contributed a lot, too, don't forget that

[Anonymous No.1115168]

>>1115121
Copernicus>>>Galileo

Galileo should have had his head cut off by the Pope. All he did for science was steal the looking glass as his own and saw some extra stars while watching undressing woman in upper story buildings.

[Anonymous No.1115191]

>>1114135

Why not? To be considered a scientist you have to discover something unknown and optionally put it to practical use. Davinci, Archemedes and Avicenna should be in this list somewhere because they were giants in their own time and more importantly nobody even came close to approaching them.

People like Einstein just barely beat others in their sub-fields and just barely got away with stealing the work of others while well lol Darwin didn't even have the braincells to discover what Mendel did independently yet he is on that list partly because of his religious rivalry with religion. Oh and the kicker is that Mendel as I understand it was some sort of a priest? lulz

[Anonymous No.1115205]

>>1115142 Stop worshiping your atheist god

I don't class Biology with the other mathematical sciences. Name one thing Darwin did for science that was later built upon and further mankind's scientific knowledge? (Historical knowledge doesn't count as science) "Hey, this bird look like this on. Oh wait, everything has two eye. Eureka!"

[Anonymous No.1115213]

>>1115191
davinci? lol no

well yeah, he drew a lot of designs and inventions, too bad they all sucked donkey cocks...

[Anonymous No.1115221]

>>1115112
>>1115121
>>1115131
>>1115168

Copernicus used awful observations from different sources and badly translated works, including stupid epicicles to justify them.
And believed that the sun should be in the center of the solar system because it was prettier than the Earth

[Anonymous No.1115234]

>And believed that the sun should be in the center of the solar system because it was prettier than the Earth

Your point?

[OP No.1115239]

>>1115205
Darwin first purposed evolution by means of natural selection on which the modern synthesis is build

[Anonymous No.1115256]

>>1115213

Archimedes then, he actually built a lot of functional war machines for the greeks and pissed the romans off so much that they killed him the first chance they got. So theory + practice.

Avicenna's canon of medicine ruled supreme until 400 years ago. Theory and practice once again. Scientists + engineers rolled into one, that's no small feat.

[Anonymous No.1115267]

YOU'RE ALL FAGGOTS TO ME
STOP BUMPING THIS THREAD

[Anonymous No.1115268]

>>1115205

Speaking of Eureka why isn't Archemedes in there?

[OP No.1115279]

>>1115256
as you said yourself, he build warmashines, which makes him more of an engineer (a faggot). This is however about science.

Also sage cause this is starting to bore me

[Anonymous No.1115283]

>>1115239
>natural selection

Big fish eat little fish
The retarded/sick/malformed are fucked
Smart people get ahead

Really? Darwin, you so smart!

[Anonymous No.1115299]

>>1115279

Designing and building warmachines is not science?
War is faggotry?

[Anonymous No.1115302]

>>1115205
>implying the theory of evolution by natural selection isn't the centerpiece of biology
>implying biology is somehow less important, or less a science, than the 'mathematical' sciences

[OP No.1115304]

>>1115283
You obviously don't understand what Darwin actually did. He didn't simply discover natural selection, he explained how natural selection can drive evolution, and how this can lead to common descend. He spend years gathering evidence for this. I do agree with your general point that a lot of what he did seems quite obvious to us now, but still no one before him grasped it.

[Anonymous No.1115305]

>>1115268
>Archemedes

His contributions are no longer that important to modern science.

[OP No.1115307]

>>1115299
Designing war mashines is engineering. You obviously don't even know what science is.

[Anonymous No.1115312]

>>1115307
>mashines

[Anonymous No.1115322]

>>implying biology as important, or as a science, as the 'mathematical' sciences like Physics or Chemistry...

[Anonymous No.1115326]

>>1115322
Guess you don't need antibiotics or medicine in general, then.

[Anonymous No.1115328]

>>1115305

Yes but they were a quantum leap at the time. If you were to whisk them away someone else like another Newton would have had to redo all that work from the ground up before people could build on his work again. The man was a pillar and so was Avicenna if you accept biology as a science. In fact if you want to think about practical applications that were implemented in the same timespan as theoretical works rather than just pure theory which is what Darwin's "contributions" boil down to then Avicenna should replace Darwin. I mean Avicenna introduced modern surgury ffs...now surgery isn't science?

[Anonymous No.1115332]

>>1115205
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." - Theodosius Dobzhansky

[Anonymous No.1115338]

>>1115299
No, OP is right. Building machines is engineering (faggotry).

[Anonymous No.1115341]

>>1115328
>quantum leap
I hate it when people use that word...

[Anonymous No.1115347]

>>1115307

I know it's engineering. But he didn't just design the war machines he also created some of the science behind his own designs. Back in those days the division between theoretical scientist and practical engineer just wasn't the same as it later became partly because of the exponential increase in the number of people connected to science/engineering.

[Anonymous No.1115348]

>>1115326
All advances is medicine have been the work of chemists.

Do you think biologists know anything about targeted synthesis of organic compounds?

[Anonymous No.1115360]

Newton, Einstien, Hawking, Dalton, Darwin, Galileo, Oppenheimer, Planck, Copernicus, Watson & Crick (together)

[Anonymous No.1115361]

>>1115341

[OP No.1115365]

>>1115347
he did discover the archimedian principle and the principle behind a lever, but you can't compare that to what people like Mendel have done, who founded genetics

[Anonymous No.1115379]

>>1115365

Mendel should replace Darwin then or Darwin should be taken off. Why do I get the feeling Darwin is only on there because fundies pick on him?

[Anonymous No.1115380]

>>1115360
Watson and Crick reproduced the results of Franklin and took credit for a new idea. And how can all you bitches be ignoring Lavoisier?

[Anonymous No.1115389]

>>1115365
Mendel didn't know about genes. He studied heredity. All he did was formalize what farmers had been doing for centuries with seeds and livestock.

[OP No.1115394]

>>1115380
You are right, Laboisier is very important.

But here is the current list:
1) Newton
2) Einstein
3) Darwin
4) Planck
5) Maxwell
6) Faraday
7) Bohr
8) Mendel
9) Lyell
10)Mendeleev

Would you say he is more important thatn Mendeleev? I am skeptical

[OP No.1115408]

>>1115389
Mendel did know about genes, he simply didn't know about DNA. Back in those days heredity was actually a big problem. It was the best argument critics had against the theory of evolution. Unfortunatley Darwin never read Mendel's paper

[Anonymous No.1115428]

>>1115389
Pfft. That's not true. This thread is bad and you should all feel bad.

>>1115379
You don't realize how insightful was Darwin but you're right, upset fundies inflated the whole thing.

[Anonymous No.1115431]

My science teacher.

[Anonymous No.1115434]

1) Newton
2) Einstein
3) Bohr
4) Darwin
5) Pasteur
6) Galileo
7) Lavoisier
8) Kepler
9) Copernicus
10) Faraday

[Anonymous No.1115436]

>>1115394
The better way to make this list would be to name the 10 most important fundamental contributions to science and then find out who made them.

Laws of motion
General Relativity
Natural Selection
et. al. et. al. et. al.

[Anonymous No.1115450]

>>1115434
Galileo Kepler and Kopernic. there can be only one.

[Anonymous No.1115455]

>>1114066
Gimme Hawking and list is fine.

[Anonymous No.1115471]

>>1115455
Hawkings contributions, while cool, are not that significant to science as a whole.

[OP No.1115492]

>>1115436
That would be a different list though, because it doesn't take into account whether a scientist just did one thing, or lots of things.

[Anonymous No.1115499]

>>1114066
I will never be on a list like this ;_;