/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3063092]

Top 3 living intellectuals, go!

[Anonymous No.3063099]

freud

[Anonymous No.3063105]

>>3063099
die in a fire

[Anonymous No.3063108]

Dawkins
Chomsky
Neil deGrasse Tyson

[Anonymous No.3063112]

>>3063092
>Freud
>living
tryagain.jpg

Hawking would have to be #1

[Anonymous No.3063115]

Perelman
Tao
Witten

[Deist No.3063116]

Chomsky
Hitchens
Dennet

[Anonymous No.3063122]

>>3063112

He lives on in his fascinating and accurate theories.

[Anonymous No.3063125]

'Therefore God' guy
Sanjay Gupta
Schlavoj Zizeckh

[Deist No.3063126]

>>3063112

I wouldnt give hawking number 1.

he is really smart true. However when i think of 'intellectuals' i conceive of someone with a wide degree of expertise and knowledge encompassing a wide variety of disciplines. In those terms i'd put bill clinton above hawking if it came down to it.

[Deist No.3063128]

>>3063122

>implying freud was not accurate
>implying, much like ayn rand, people dont just ignore him because what he said makes them uncomfortable
>implying you understand his theories

[Anonymous No.3063131]

>>3063112
even if he was alive he shouldnt be on the list freud deserves no respect he was an idiot with one good idea he modernized psychiatry but ALL his ideas about it were wrong

[Anonymous No.3063133]

>>3063128

Sex is great. IN A NUTSHELL LOL

[Anonymous No.3063136]

>>3063126
>hawking
>smart
maybe 30 years ago

[Grothendieck !Topos4qCwc No.3063141]

>>3063128
>ayn rand

0/10

[Anonymous No.3063145]

Gell-man
(any other two living people from the physics nobel prize list)

[Anonymous No.3063152]

>>3063126
>bill clinton

>got a 1032 on the SAT
>quote: "I loved music and thought I could be very good, but I knew I would never be John Coltrane or Stan Getz. I was interested in medicine and thought I could be a fine doctor, but I knew I would never be Michael DeBakey. But I knew I could be great in public service."


why would you think he's an intellecutal?

[Anonymous No.3063153]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Ung-yong

[Anonymous No.3063157]

God
Jesus
Mary Magdalene

[Deist No.3063159]

>>3063136

sorry, are you as smart as hawking?
even close?
in the same ballpark?

nope. Are any of us? no. Is he in the top .5% of the planet? obviously

are you a troll? either that or an idiot.

@freud
The proof is in the pudding as they say. His nephew Edward Bernays basically put freud's theories to practice with the development of propaganda and found it to be incredibly effective. So i guess you could say empirical testing that put freuds ideas into practice basically showed them to be highly accurate at predicting and controlling the behavior of people.

Those that dismiss freud and his ideas out of hand dont really understand them. What he said makes you uncomfortable so you ignore it.They've also been altered and built on by psychologists that have come after him. The ignorance of /sci/ can get astounding sometimes

[Anonymous No.3063160]

>>3063153
>Back in Korea, he decided to switch from physics to civil engineering

you obviously don't know what an intellectual is, you faggot. if they aren't doing physics or math, the don't qualify. end of story.

[Anonymous No.3063165]

>>3063157
Mary Magdalene is dead. It doesn't matter what your beliefs are or who you worship. She's dead.

Also, God and Jesus are the same person.

[Anonymous No.3063171]

>>3063152
wasn't 1032 very high back in the day?

[Anonymous No.3063180]

>>3063171
considering 1000 has always been average, no it wasn't. he was only slightly better than average. the only thing he is good at is macking hoes and giving speeches.

[Anonymous No.3063190]

>>3063160
>Intellectual:
>possessing or showing intellect or mental capacity, especially to a high degree: an intellectual person.

You're right, my mistake. /sarcasm

[Deist No.3063195]

>>3063180

1000 is not average. about 1500-1600 is average today
the test used to be graded differently and was out of 1600 not 2400 like it is today

but ignoring that, do you not realize the complete and utter abject absurdity of presuming to judge a person's intelligence based on how they did on one test?

For a group of people so ardently opposed to IQ tests who so often assert that intelligence can not be accurately tested, i find this odd.

[Anonymous No.3063196]

>>3063165
Jesus and God
>the same person
>wat

[Anonymous No.3063206]

>>3063153
I've read about him. He (suspiciously) works at the department of transportation. Dont know if he qualifies as an intellectual, but he may be the smartest living person. What do you think he's working on?

>>3063159
Yes, I'm in the top 0.5%. Hawkins is much smarter than that though...

[Deist No.3063207]

>>3063196

the triune god. Dont worry no one else understands it either

Father, son, holy ghost.

[Anonymous No.3063219]

>>3063206
>Yes, I'm in the top 0.5%.
lol, lemme guess, you got a National Merit scholarship?

[Anonymous No.3063248]

>>3063195
no shit shitface. I said 1000 has always been average for the math plus verbal section, because the test is set so that 500 on each section is the official average, although there are random differences in each year.

[OP No.3063259]

Justify your answers, go!
1. Dawkins
2. Chomsky
3. Hawking
4. Neil deGrasse Tyson
5. Hitchens
6. Dennet

[Deist No.3063264]

>>3063248

You mad bro?

>considering 1000 has always been average

but 1000 is not the average. You did not specify. You little aspie.

how can i tell you're an aspie? you ignore the substance of what i said and instead pick apart the small throwaway point vaguely contradicting what you said. and you get butthurt about it.

[Anonymous No.3063285]

>>3063264
yeah I am mad, because I have to defend such a trivial point, and read your shitty post which mentioned a bunch of irrelevant shit that I already knew.

[Anonymous No.3063289]

stephen hawking
do i even have to say why
edward witten
arguably the smartest man in the world founder of m theory
i dont have a third

[Deist No.3063296]

>>3063259

1. Dawkins - Spreading scientific literacy around the world. Publishing books of the highest quality informing the general public of scientific principles.
2. Chomsky - Revolutionized the field of linguistics, his ideas have broad applications in the fields of cognitive science, linguistics as i mentioned, philosophy, political science, and psychology. An extremely smart man with an encyclopedic mind.
3. Hawking - Came up with a theory for radiation emission by black holes. Good at math. He wrote 'A brief history of time' giving millions a nice overview of how the universe works.
4. Neil deGrasse Tyson
5. Hitchens - Completely brilliant. All encompassing knowledge of literature, philosophy, history. He had a scathing wit and keen penetrating journalistic style.
6. Dennett - One of the few respectable philosophers. He focuses on consciousness and tries to incorporate scientific principles into his work.

[Anonymous No.3063294]

1. Noam Chomsky
2. Stephen Hawking
3. Carl Sagan
4. My dog

Pic related, the fourth one

[Deist No.3063303]

>>3063285

further evidence you are an aspie:

You chose to defend the trivial point instead of letting it die. In fact, you're the one who started harping on the trivial point.

>implying what i mentioned in my post was not relevant

and if you already knew it, why not state it seeing as no one had yet done so and it pertained to the discussion? dude just leave

[Anonymous No.3063306]

>>3063294
Sagan's dead. ;_;

Also, as much as I hate to admit it he's not much of an intellectual compared to Feynman or Bardeen. He was an above average astronomer, but became famous because he was fantastic with the media.

[Anonymous No.3063310]

>>3063294
I just discovered Carl Sagan is dead, what a shame.
My dog is now the third living intellectual

[Anonymous No.3063346]

wtf everyone names fucking popsci people. Chomsky wtf. Ok I guess he is alright but linguistics common.

1. Witten (anyone who doesn't put him number is full retard)
2. Hawking
3. Perelman

[Anonymous No.3063350]

>A random telescientists because I've never actually communicated with anyone within the field and believe that these people are the best scientists just like I believe that Jack Bower saves America from certain doom every 24hours.

>Noam Chomsky: Because I'm a pseudo-intellectual who doesn't know shit about linguistics or how much Chomsky's work is bashed upon.

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

>Stephen Hawking: Because I don't realize there are dozens of scientists that posed magnificent questions for Hawking to even consider black-body radiation. He's in a chair and I believe that people with physical handicaps are super talented. Look at Xavier!

Stay pop-/sci/ bros

[Deist No.3063372]

>>3063350

The fact that he has detractors is irrelevant. Galileo got locked up by the church for his ideas it did not make them less correct. Why dont you attack them on their own merits instead of googling 'criticism of noam Chomsky' and pasting in the wiki link? Most of that article critiques his political positions not his linguistic work.

>you didnt look at the article just pasted in a link

you're a jackass.

[Anonymous No.3063395]

>Ctrl+f "Zakaria"
>Nothing
plebians, all of you

[Anonymous No.3063410]

1. Sam Harris
2. Bill Clinton
3. William Lane Craig

[Anonymous No.3063419]

>>3063372

Oh no, you mistake my intentions. I wasn't against him for his political ideals. Many believe his linguistic ideals are thrown around dogmatically when anyone else comes up with an ulterior method. I could care less if he's a liberal.

>Criticisms of Chomsky as a linguist
>Criticisms of Chomsky as a linguist

[Deist No.3063458]

>>3063419

fair enough but look at the actual criticisms
There are 5
1)While Brown describes Trask as highly annoyed at the attention that "the Chomskyans" have received, Brown does state that Trask does accept Chomsky's basic contention as indisputable: that the human faculty for language is the result of evolved and innate skills

2)This is about his intellectual integrity not linguistic work
3)This is about his focus on syntax. OMG he focused on something. Fails.
4) This just states his theories are hard to implement in computational linguistics. Also not important.
5)Steven Pinker criticizes Chomsky as being "militantly agnostic" about how language might have evolved,

They mad because Chomsky has not clearly stated his position on something he is not sure about


Basically all the criticisms amount to nothing of overt importance.

Next.

[Anonymous No.3063474]

>>3063350
>Chomsky has detractors, therefore he shouldn't be considered as a relevant intellectual, or as an intellectual at all

I'm majoring in Linguistics, Chomsky knows his shit

[Anonymous No.3063524]

>>3063474
chomsky knows his shit, but there's a certain irony in chomsky berating social science as unscientific when the concepts of deep structure and generative grammar are equally unobservable. chomsky insists that these ideas make scientifically verifiable claims, but really until we can explicate the logical precepts that could generate deep structure or intrinsic grammar, his ideas are no more scientific than those of Foucault.

[Anonymous No.3063536]

>>3063410

Now you're not even trying to troll

[Anonymous No.3063578]

Stephen Hawking
Edward Witten (field medal)
John Wheeler

[Anonymous No.3063605]

1. Dawkins has no social skills, and is only useful as a biologist.
2. Dennet just isn't impressive
3. Chomsky's fanboys are obnoxious, therefore I hate him
4. He's black, that's about it

Hitchens is by far the best


Hitchens is by far the best.

[Anonymous No.3063626]

>>3063605
Is that Basil Marceaux Dot Com?

[Anonymous No.3063649]

gell-man
tegmark

[Anonymous No.3063686]

Perelman is the only person I feel qualified to list. Not like he's so far ahead of everyone or other subjects besides math don't matter but he's the only one I feel qualified enough to support.

[Anonymous No.3063689]

1. me

None compare to me.

[Anonymous No.3063684]

use the H-index

strangely enough i work in the dining hall for the person who created the index, jorge hirsch. shitty $$$ food, only my schools physics profs are too lazy to go elsewhere.

Computer Science
105 Scott Shenker (Berkeley)
100 Terrence Sejnowski (UCSD)
99 Tomaso Poggio (MIT)
96 Anil K. Jain (Michigan State U),
94 Deborah Estrin (UCLA),
94 Stephen Grossberg (Boston University)
90 Ian Foster (Argonne National Laboratory & U Chicago),

Physics
Edward Witten: h = 132
John Ellis: h = 101
Steven Weinberg: h = 88
Dimitri Nanopoulos: h = 86
Cumrun Vafa: h = 85

Chemists
1 Whitesides, G. M. 163 Organic
2 Karplus, M. 143 Theoretical
3 Corey, E. J.# 139 Organic
4 Heeger, A. J.# 128 Organic
5 Huber, R.# 122 Bio

[Anonymous No.3063713]

Neil Tyson
Higgs
Michio Kaku

[Anonymous No.3063717]

>>3063684

Wow... didn't know there was a theoretical chemistry.

[Anonymous No.3063720]

Alan Guth, Physics
Thomas Sowell, Economics
Herb Kelleher, Southwest Airlines, Business

[Anonymous No.3063721]

>>3063684
>Perelman
>Witten
>maybe hawking

[Anonymous No.3063729]

>>3063721
lol, wrong pic.

[Anonymous No.3063736]

Sarah Palin
Glenn Beck
Michio Kaku

[Anonymous No.3063738]

>>3063713
hahaha oh lord this is what teeny bopper atheists actually believe

the only thing that would make it sweeter is if you replaced higgs with dawkins

[Anonymous No.3063743]

>Craig Venter
>Robert Sapolsky
>Michio Kaku

yew med?

[Anonymous No.3063750]

max tegmark
edward witten
jose maldecena

[Anonymous No.3063756]

>>3063738
I guess someone here is mad, who is it?

[Anonymous No.3063763]

>>3063743
No, just disappointed by how much television you watch.

[Anonymous No.3063766]

Me
Who ever agrees with me
Who ever agrees with who agrees with me

[Anonymous No.3063775]

Witten
Perelman
and Frederick Sanger

In no particular order. Though Perelman will shoot to the top of the list assuming he does solve the Stokes equation.

[Anonymous No.3063831]

>>3063763

>Implying I own such a plebian device and don't just watch particular things on the internet

Furthermore, how would I have known about these people from the TV?

I know about Venter from internet, Kaku from books, and Sapolsky from internet/books.