/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4997245]

Who's the worst scientist ever?

I'd say Darwin is the best, because in terms of who used scientific inquiry, observation, evidence, and theory, and who made the most groundbreaking important discovery, and who applied Skepticism. Newton would be second and Einstein third.

But who is the worst?

(by the way, not saying Darwin is smarter than Newton, just saying he is the best scientist).

[Anonymous No.4997247]

Darwin is not exactly a scientist. He didn't study science and he didn't apply the scientific method. What he did is giving a philosophical inspiration for real scientists later.

[Anonymous No.4997251]

The worst scientist wouldn't be a scientist.

Probably some free-energy retard that ignores all things scientific when putting together "results" of an "experiment." They just kind of spout off bullshit and claim it's scientifically proven because they bought a white coat and can make a lightbulb turn on when you attach it to a battery.

[Anonymous No.4997255]

>>4997251
lel tesla

[Anonymous No.4997342]

Tesla was probably the worst scientist.
Also, Tesla followers are almost as bad.

[Anonymous No.4997347]

Homeopaths are the worst scientist

[Anonymous No.4997352]

Dawkins

because he can't separate teaching science from his views on religion

[Anonymous No.4997358]

Trofim Lysenko

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

He was quite out of it, but the soviets saw a poor farm boy turned researcher trying to solve famine, and Stalin propped him up on a giant pedestal of nepotism. By incompetence or young-man-pressure-to-succeed or both, his research and results were fraudulent and wrong, but Stalin wanted them to be dogma anyway. Long story short, it was ruinous.

/thread

[Anonymous No.4997360]

>Darwin
>Steals his ideas from other scientists, publishes a book about it, gets hyper famous.

Yeah, no.

[Anonymous No.4997396]

The /sci/entists on /sci

[Anonymous No.4997398]

Carl Sagan

[Anonymous No.4997442]

>>4997255
half of him was amazing and important in science, the other half was conspiracy theorist crazy

[Anonymous No.4997456]

>>4997245
Tromfin Lysenko
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

[12312312 No.4997709]

aristotle

[Anonymous No.4997730]

>>4997709
Alright fuck you first of all.
Worst scientist ever is that Michael Kaku. He's full of shit.

[Anonymous No.4997773]

>>4997709

Agreed!
but can Aristotle really be considered a scientist?
OP needs to define scientist, or else it is open to interpretation, in which case the question is meaningless.

[Anonymous No.4997781]

>>4997245
That depends, OP. What are the criteria for being considered a "bad" scientist?

[Anonymous No.4997787]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szBTl3S24MY

Kent Hovind takes the cake(though he isn't really a scientist.)

Best scientist is Newton. Hands down.

[Anonymous No.4997788]

There was a woman dr who believed starving patients was the way to make them better back in the day. They would be fed only chicken broth. They basically all starved to death, and were held against their will.

She really believed it though.. to the point that evntually she got sick and starved herself to death on her own regimen.

I cant remember he name though

[Anonymous No.4997792]

>>4997247
>scientific method

[Anonymous No.4997807]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_K._Daghlian,_Jr.

MFW criticality

[Anonymous No.4997833]

>>4997807
Hey just cause the man didn't have a steady hand doesn't make him a bad scientist.

[Anonymous No.4997864]

>>4997245
In terms of morality I'd go with Andrew Wakefield as the worst scientist in the last half century, he's only beat by those scientists who used concentration campers as lab rats.

He created false evidence linking the MMR vaccine to autism because he stood to make millions if the British government started using a vaccine he held the patent on. As a result thousands of children have died because their parents believe him and won't vaccinate their children against preventable diseases.

[Anonymous No.4997869]

>>4997245
My favorite Scientist/mathematician is Donald Knuth...

Not only is he genius tier smart, but he has an amazing personality that makes me love him.

[Anonymous No.4997871]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=danYFxGnFxQ

Isaac Newton

>Faced a problem no one solved
>Invented a new kind of math to solve it

Nuff said

[Anonymous No.4997888]

It depends on how you define "scientist". If you include people who claim to be scientific yet ignore the scientific method and available evidence whenever it's convenient for their particular worldview, I'd probably say intelligent design proponents collectively are the worst.

Other candidates would be Lysenko, or Edward Teller.

[Anonymous No.4998009]

All of you who are saying Newton...

Newton was a very stubborn and somewhat irrational man. Leibniz and him argued about an absolute universe, and when it was clear the universe was relational, he still resisted because Leibniz couldn't list one answer to the question (albeit a fundamental, but Newton should have thought more about this).

He refused to interpret the universe as Godless, even though some of his work pointed towards it, and people pointed it out to him, out of sheer love for the idea of God he refused to think differently.

He spent the later half of his life debating and arguing with people, including Leibniz about who invented calculus first and the fundamental characteristics of the world.

Darwin devised a mechanism to explain self-sustaining complex systems, without resorting to divine or simply matter. He found a bridge between the two. It is such an eloquent and simple idea and yet it can render the most complex things we know of to basic matter, and describe the steps in which it can build itself to defeat entropy.

Darwin was the reason science launced into deeper and more sensitive paths. To explain the world without any notion of myths. I can sum it up in a quote:

"If the origins of species has been explained materialistically, there is no reason the universe itself cannot be as well." (paraphrasing)

[Anonymous No.4998028]

>>4998009
Saying Newton was the best* I meant.

[Anonymous No.4998040]

Newton pretty much stole from others. Just check what the poor fame Hooke did. Even in his time, Hooke said Newton stole his ideas.

Newton even made fun of Euler for... being blind.

BTW, did you ever thought how did they measure force at that time, and why is F=dp/dt and not, say, F^3=dp/dt ? When you start asking that type of questions, you'll start seeing it's not all that great.

[Anonymous No.4998043]

>>4997247
>Darwin is not exactly a scientist. He didn't study science and he didn't apply the scientific method. What he did is giving a philosophical inspiration for real scientists later.

Absolutely nothing in this comment is true. Every single thing you say is the diametric opposite of the truth. Science isn't limited to Poppian falsification. The Theory of Evolution is the most scientific collection of ideas that we have ever created as a race.

>>>4997352

>Dawkins
>because he can't separate teaching science from his views on religion

Dawkins talks about religion and a couple of his books deal with it. EVERYTHING else he has ever done is the very personification of science. Have you read any of his books? If you had read the Selfish Gene, you wouldn't be in this thread now making a fool of yourself. Moral of the story: read more.

Andrew Wakefield is obviously the best answer for this question.

[Anonymous No.4998044]

>>4998009
>>4998009
>>4998009
>>4998009

this man has it ladies and gents. Newton's true passion was actually alchemy divination and bible study. While its true that his achievements were groundbreaking and helped unlock immeasurable secrets of the universe, his personality kept him from doing much more.

[Anonymous No.4998045]

>>4998040

Euler should've replied with, "You're an aspie virgin thief faggot"

[Anonymous No.4998051]

>>4998043
>>4998040
>>4998009

forgot to mention, everyone who thinks that Newton singlehandedly created calculus does not realize the significant contributions of Leibniz. Leibniz is responsible for the way calculus is notated the way it is.

[Anonymous No.4998088]

(OP and the one who wrote up the post on Leibniz)

>>4998051
Every single notation in calculus (at least the notations that were invented at the time) was Leibniz's symbols. Leibniz also created binary, and created the metaphor of the universe as a city as a opposed to a watch 400 years ago.

>>4997247
Have you even read On the Origin of the Species? The amount of evidence and observation as well as scientific caution in that work would have you thoroughly embarrassed for posting that.

[Anonymous No.4998099]

>>4998088
Forgot to mention: also people do not credit Descartes enough for his work to make Calculus, for he "unified" algebra and geometry which made a back bone for Newton and Leibniz to create calculus on later.

[Anonymous No.4998101]

>>4997871
but calculus is awesome and is correct

[Anonymous No.4998153]

Samuel Pierpont Langley by far.

>Was given a task by the government to build a flying machine.
>They gave him $50000 dollars in 1898 (1.3 million in today's dollars)
>After failing several times at building a steam engine for it, he hired an engineer to do it for him
>His airplane had no landing gear and was launched by a catapult
>He tested the airplane over the Potomac river twice
>Both times it failed to fly and plunged into the river "like a handful of mortar," according a reporter
>Fortunately, the test pilot lived in both cases
>Bicycle mechanics in North Carolina build flying machine before him
>It comes off of the ground by itself, has landing gear, needs less than 1/4th the engine power of Langley's plane, costs no taxpayer dollars and actually flies
>Langley asks if he can meet them to congratulate them
>Wright brothers say "no, loser"

>Langley got a beach and a NASA research center named after him

[Anonymous No.4998157]

>>4998153

...But that's not science.

[Anonymous No.4998164]

>>4998157

Langley was a physicist.

[Anonymous No.4998166]

>>4997398
0/10

Please die as quickly as possible in any manner suitable to you.

[Anonymous No.4998631]

>>4998043
>>4998088
>science
>without experiments

0/10

[Anonymous No.4998667]

>>4997869
I think his surreal numbers book is on the /sci/ reading list. It's a good introduction to... something.

[Anonymous No.4998671]

>>4997787
>Best scientist is Newton. Hands down.

A guy who dabbled in alchemy and the occult. Yeah, absolutely scientific behaviour.

[Anonymous No.4998688]

The greatest scientist is Hitler because he found an open problem and created a closed form, final solution. Like all great geniuses his accomplishments were hated until people came to discover that all of his ideas were right.

The worst scientist of all time is Jesus because he used miracles instead of science and he had long hair.

[Anonymous No.4998754]

Boltzmann.
Before him everything was perfectly ordered and rational and then he had to come in with his probability shit.

[Anonymous No.4998776]

>>4997358
Wow. It's gonna be hard to undershoot that guy.

[Anonymous No.4998789]

>>4998671
Oh look it's the logical fallacy science=atheism!

[Anonymous No.4998796]

>>4998789
That's not even a logical fallacy. It's just a wrong claim.

[Anonymous No.4998814]

Though he certainly can't be the worst scientist, behaviorist John Money stands out in my mind as a bad scientist. He persistently reported the success of his subject (now David Reimer) responding to gender-identity rehabilitation therapy when in reality his subject could not be 'taught' his new gender.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money

[Anonymous No.4998841]

Despite how much of a faggot Newton was, I still hold him in highest regard. The sheer volume of contributions attributed to him is just too astounding not to take in, even when some of those works should have the glory shared.

I wouldn't say Darwin was the best. I'm only aware of him pioneering evolutionary theory, and very little else.

My guess as to why I can't seem to accept Darwin is because I view science as contributing to the existing body of knowledge. It doesn't really matter how terrible a person is, only that his works are continually made use of by succeeding generations.

After all, in the classroom and in the workplace, we don't remember the man who formulated the equations: we think only of the equations themselves, and of our own applications for such.

[Anonymous No.4999245]

>>4998841

In that case, biology has been reformed in the place of evolution. Think of all the bacteria fighting reserach done in defense of them "evolving." All of zoology changing. Biology being unified.

And I feel that this process of natural selection will be used to explain other self organized complex systems, in which case would widen evolution's use tenfold.

[Anonymous No.4999256]

Thomas Edison

Guess it's the Edgy thing right now to hate Tesla, because the A/C system and induction motor clearly didn't have a impact on the entire world....

[Anonymous No.4999258]

>>4997342
Wait, what was wrong with Tesla?

[Anonymous No.4999265]

>>4999258
Because lately his name has appeared in video games and had some well documented insane ideas. Add in that a lot of his work was then confiscated by government it makes for a good story

So eddgy teens tend to look at that as opposed to his work with AC theory, radio waves, electric motors, work x-rays, electromagnetism.....even designed a kind of spark plug which was too advanced for the day

[Anonymous No.4999276]

>>4999265
Yeah, that's what I've gotten wind of, haven't gone into a full research of him, but apparently he was the pioneer of things like Radar and electricity as we know it, and Edison fucked him over to be sure he made all the money from it, even when it denied us the chance to have radar in WWI.

[Anonymous No.4999296]

>>4999276
Pretty much, the more I read the more I admire him (No homo). Unlike most engineers (especially edison) he desired his work to advance human kind, he wanted to bring wireless power to everyone*, despised war and gave up his claims to his patents etc. so his system could become of greater use.

He also didn't like fat people
*we know it's incredibly inefficient and impractical but that's not how dreams work

[Anonymous No.4999298]

>>4999256
It's more of a hate for the dumb ass drones that "theoatmeal" comic shit spawned. And also the people that call him this peaceful humanist while he built a fucking death ray. It's not edgy. It's the Tesla fanboys that found out about him from theoatmeal that are "edgy." They read a 5 minute web comic on a man and now are sure of themselves that this is the best "geek" (so stupid) ever and Thomas Edison is a meany pants.

Yeah, Edison was a worthless person. Even though edison had over 1000 pattents. I guess he stole all of those from Tesla though.

[Anonymous No.4999318]

I'm assuming you mean worst famous/publicly recognised scientist?

'Cos if you just mean worst, then that could be any old John/Jane Doe.

[Anonymous No.4999456]

The greatest scientist of all time?

I'd say J.S. Bach. No question that this guy was brilliant. Few understand just how unbelievable the tasks this man accomplished. People today just hear music like its nothing. Go download a music program and try to write something original. I bet you can't do shit.

Bach was improvising fugues that were two hours long and would later write them down from memory. Who else has such a mastery over ones own senses? I dare say no one, ever.

www.youtube.com ----------- /watch?v=dvC0Lu623IQ&

Listen to each and every instrument and realize that each and every note had to be planned perfectly in order to harmonize.

The reason why no one today listens to him is because his music is just so far above them. People cannot even consciously realize how difficult it is to write this, and it makes me want to kill myself when someone says old music like this is bullshit. This music isn't bullshit, your brain is bullshit. Get an education.

[Anonymous No.4999503]

>>4999456
"Johann Sebastian Bach[1] (31 March [O.S. 21 March] 1685 – 28 July 1750) was a German composer, organist, harpsichordist, violist, and violinist of the Baroque Period. He enriched many established German styles through his skill in counterpoint, harmonic and motivic organisation, and the adaptation of rhythms, forms, and textures from abroad, particularly from Italy and France. Many of Bach's works are still known today, such as the Brandenburg Concertos, the Mass in B minor, the The Well-Tempered Clavier, and his cantatas, chorales, partitas, passions, and organ works – and his music is revered for its intellectual depth, technical command, and artistic beauty."

>Scientist

[Anonymous No.4999536]

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

[Anonymous No.4999552]

>>4999536

no

[Anonymous No.4999613]

>>4999503
What is a scientist? Is not science the study of that which we observe? Is not science the ability to command the worlds of our sight sound touch taste and smell? Who could ever argue against the utter brilliance that page after page of music composed so eloquent and harmonic that the peasant cannot even comprehend? Who is more brilliant? A man who discovered the laws of motion, or a man who discovered this - www.youtube.com ----------- /watch?v=LrANSq8xnDM&

from the ether and chaos, out came this two hour masterpiece.

What has science and technology done but extend the misery of our lives? What relieves us of this misery and truly gives us life? 'Tis art. Truly life without art is a grave mistake.

[Anonymous No.4999684]

>>4999613
>this is what arts majors really believe

[Anonymous No.4999800]

>>4999613
>Sleeping is the greatest thing ever. We couldn't live out sleep. Sleeping > eating.

[Anonymous No.5000142]

>>4999298

From what I understand, Edison stole most of them from his lab-slaves. You worked your ass off in Edison Labs, and unlike today you didn't get any credit, much less profit share out of your discoveries.

Also, Edison was just a plain shitty scientist. It's pretty clear when you review some of his ideas for the light-bulb he was just throwing shit at the wall and hoping something stuck.

[Anonymous No.5000212]

Thomas Midgley, Jr.

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZAnnvSOEmw

[Anonymous No.5000287]

Isaac Newton, he stumbled upon his findings, was an alchemist, used the Greek four elements in his theories and believed in Phlogiston.

Also Edison believed that there were tiny people in everyone's heads.

[Anonymous No.5000321]

Probably a criminologist.

[Anonymous No.5000369]

>>4997442
Did he really think he created a free energy thing? I thought he just made a wireless electricity transmission tower that conspiracy nuts keep mistaking for a free energy device.

[Anonymous No.5000384]

Michio Kaku
http://bigthink.com/ideas/26647
WHAT IN THE FLYING FUCK IS HE TALKING ABOUT?
Has he not heard of Hardy–Weinberg principle?
Also WTF is gross evolution?
That dumb ass needs to stop talking out of his ass.

[Anonymous No.5000397]

>>4998631

>he thinks evolutionary biologists don't perform experiments

[Anonymous No.5000393]

>>4998043
>The Theory of Evolution is the most scientific collection of ideas that we have ever created as a race.

As a biologist I would disagree. I would rank it QM, then relativity, then evolution.

[Anonymous No.5000409]

>>5000384
Also at the end he says "pretty much decades from now"
Does he not realize the average generation rate is about 2 decades for a new generation for humans?

[Anonymous No.5000410]

>>5000397
>he thinks Darwin performed experiments
>he doesn't know there are hypotheses within the framework of evolution that are not experimentally testable

Educate yourself please.

[Anonymous No.5000469]

>>4999245

>And I feel that this process of natural selection will be used to explain other self organized complex systems, in which case would widen evolution's use tenfold.


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

[Anonymous No.5000480]

>>5000142

>and unlike today you didn't get any credit,


AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA.

[Anonymous No.5000487]

>>5000410
>>he doesn't know there are hypotheses within the framework of evolution that are not experimentally testable

Name one.

[Anonymous No.5000613]

Bill O'Reilly
Things happen, can't explain that!

[Anonymous No.5000632]

>>5000630

>what is dna sequencing

[Anonymous No.5000630]

>>5000487
The lineage of dinosaurs. You cannot design an experiment to test it.

[Anonymous No.5000645]

>>5000384
>Also WTF is gross evolution?

He's not talking about 'gross evolution', he's talking about 'gross evolutionary pressures'. As in, dire pressure to change.

[Anonymous No.5000653]

>>5000632
DNA sequencing is a technique of preprocessing given DNA for further evaluation. It does not constitute an experiment but can only be part of a bigger experiment. Such experiment would have to involve finding / generating DNA. Finding new dinosaur DNA is not an experimental process though, but rather coincidence.

Your status: TOLD

[Anonymous No.5000663]

>>5000653

You can look at a variety of different fossils and hypothesize a certain dinosaur lineage. You then use statistical analysis and DNA sequences from living birds, reptiles, etc to test the likelihood of your hypothesis.

[Anonymous No.5000670]

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

Batshit asshole astronomer who was basically the obnoxious, counterproductive tripfag of the scientific world. Check him out.

[Anonymous No.5000687]

Newton was the worst

Before him we could float and shit

Then the fucker had to invent gravity

Also Darwin was wrong

Ive been alive for 23 years and ive still not evolved, what am I? A fucking Shuckle?

[Anonymous No.5000691]

>>5000663
Estimations of likelihood based on the DNA of related species are already included in the first place. Lrn2biology
This is not a test of the hypothesis. It cannot "fail" and falsify the falsify the hypothesis. Do you even science?

[Anonymous No.5000713]

>>4998040
>>4998045
Euler lost the sight in his right eye in 1735, and his left in 1766. Newton died in 1727.

[Anonymous No.5000740]

>>5000691

If you look at two fossils that look similar, you can hypothesize that they are related. You can then test their relatedness by looking at genetic data. This happened with whales and mesonychids somewhat recently. Biologists had long considered mesonychids to be direct ancestors of cetaceans, but phylogenetic analysis led scientists to reject that hypothesis and instead assert that cetaceans are actually very closely related to hippopotomids.

[Anonymous No.5000760]

>>5000740
Comparing fossils by anatomic analogies has been outdated for several decades. Hypothesis regarding phylogenesis are solely made based on DNA allignments nowadays. Did you take your biology classes in the last century?

[Anonymous No.5000800]

>>5000687
Actually...

You are.

[Anonymous No.5000835]

>>5000713

I feel like, in the academic world, if any one scientist rises to an esteemed prominence deemed to high by his peers, they all do their very best to spread rumor and slander them.

[Anonymous No.5000844]

>>5000645
No, he is making up terminology on a whim.
I have never heard someone say "gross evolutionary pressures" until that dip shit.

I know what is saying but you can't make shit up as you go along like that. He is blowing hot air and trying to make himself sound smarter. If he didn't know how to answer the question he should have just asked someone else to explain it, and not make shit up as he feels and in a way to fit his vision.

[Anonymous No.5000847]

>>5000760
>Implying fossil DNA

god people are stupid.

[Anonymous No.5000855]

>>5000847
>god

Yeah, people really are stupid.

[Anonymous No.5000858]

>>5000847

Some can get preserved if the right conditions are met.

[Anonymous No.5000865]

>>5000858

the upper bound on preservation age is about amillion years.

[Anonymous No.5000874]

>>5000858
99.99%+ of paleospecies are erected on morphology only.

I can only think of a tiny handfull of extinct animals for which we have DNA from fossils.

there's millions of paleospecies for which we don't.

ever wonder how we determine evolutionary relationships in such animals?
it isn't DNA...

[Anonymous No.5000875]

>>5000865

>What is mosquitos trapped in amber after ingesting blood from extinct creatures?

Not even that guy you're talking to but come on, I just thought of that in under a minute.

[Anonymous No.5000886]

>>5000875
lol

you believe that bullshit?
too funny!

[Anonymous No.5000896]

>>5000874

Fair enough, it was just an idea I came up with.

[Anonymous No.5000918]

>>5000874

To be fair, DNA isn't completely taken out of the picture. We can work backwards from patterns found in the DNA of modern species and average mutation rates and see approximately where a certain species should lie.

[Anonymous No.5000931]

Fritz Haber
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdEE5uvFhOM

Not so much worst as in dumbest, but ethically the worst

[Anonymous No.5000947]

>>5000918
truth, but we have no way to verify such genetic trees. Also that really only works for animals for which we have an extant descendant.

In reality we look at both, but currently the clade based on gross morphology wins any dispute.

[Anonymous No.5003487]

>>4999613

Let me help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

[Anonymous No.5003632]

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck.