 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9-5-2010 11:27, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> clipka wrote:
>
>> Strangely enough, Einstein himself had a kind of "pop star" status at
>> his time. Science was considered sort of "sexy" back then.
>
> I'm told back in the Victorian era, engineers were regarded as gods.
>
> Then again, back in the Victorian era we went from a world where
> everything is done by hand to a work of fantastical machines that are
> still celebrated in steampunk to this day. I guess that's why!
>
> Today for some reason it's fashionable to be stupid.
It is changing slowly over time. There have been periods where thinking
for yourself was considered bad by the ruling class of the time. OTOH
there were times when everybody of some standing was doing natural
science (the period of Darwin and before) even math (Japan, forgot which
period, where people nailed plagues to their houses commemoration the
formulas they discovered themselves).
I guess you will have to wait a couple of years (50-500) to a period
when the elite has nothing better to do than think.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>>> Pitty all the great scientists and mathematicians lived centuries
>>>> ago, eh?
>>>
>>> Yeah, because we had quantum physics down pat centuries ago.
>>
>> Sure, science is still happening today. But name just *one* scientist
>> who's alive today who has done anything so world-alteringly significant
>> that almost every man, women and child in the Western world knows their
>> name.
>>
>> Yeah, exactly.
>
> How about Benoit Mandelbrot or Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins?
Hawking I'll give you. (I bet he's *really* fun conversation...)
Everybody recognises fractals when they see them; far fewer recognise
the name of Mandelbrot (or Julia or Pickover or Lorenz or Barnsley or...)
Richard Dawkins? Seriously, other than writing a book, what has this guy
ever done?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9-5-2010 15:03, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>>> Pitty all the great scientists and mathematicians lived centuries
>>>>> ago, eh?
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, because we had quantum physics down pat centuries ago.
>>>
>>> Sure, science is still happening today. But name just *one* scientist
>>> who's alive today who has done anything so world-alteringly significant
>>> that almost every man, women and child in the Western world knows their
>>> name.
>>>
>>> Yeah, exactly.
>>
>> How about Benoit Mandelbrot or Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins?
>
> Hawking I'll give you. (I bet he's *really* fun conversation...)
>
> Everybody recognises fractals when they see them; far fewer recognise
> the name of Mandelbrot (or Julia or Pickover or Lorenz or Barnsley or...)
>
> Richard Dawkins? Seriously, other than writing a book, what has this guy
> ever done?
He tried a.o. to compute how much change that a gene is identical to
yours is needed to make it worthwhile for you to sacrifice your life for
the other person. And other computations to find genes with an
amplification factor greater than one. Read his "selfish gene", which
actually does not claim that genes act selfishly.
One of the problems nowadays is that there are much more and cheaper
celebrities than scientist. Most tv gameshows are full of them, mostly
ones that nobody has ever heard of. That decreases the chance of
somebody that actually knows something or can do something to come in
contact with a broader audience.
There are many scientists that have done things that influence
everybody's live still alive. Most of them indeed not very well known.
How many people know e.g. Tim Berners-Lee or any of the nobel prize
winners of the last 20 years? OTH there are people that are so well
known that you would probably not count them as scientists, Like David
Attenborough. As an intermediate conclusion: being well known costs a
lot of time, so it is one or the other.
Jane Goodall might be a compromise, did a lot of real scientific work
before, now uses her name to accomplish other things.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v8" <voi### [at] dev null> a écrit dans le message de groupe de
discussion : 4be680e1@news.povray.org...
> Sure, science is still happening today. But name just *one* scientist
> who's alive today who has done anything so world-alteringly significant
> that almost every man, women and child in the Western world knows their
> name.
A few ideas:
- A lot of the "science hero" worshipping in the mid-XIXth to mid-XXth
century was somehow propagandistic. These were times where many countries
were involved in nation-building (where non-controversial heroes were needed
to provide national role models) or in pissing contests with other countries
("MY science is better than YOUR science"). This does not diminish the
merits of those scientists (Lyssenko notwithstanding) but part of the
worship was artificially constructed. Note that the scientific hero has its
dark side, the mad scientist, a cliché that is still pestering actual
scientists today.
- Contemporary science is made by hundreds of thousands of small and large
teams all over the world, each one working for long period of times on
increasingly specialised fields. Singling out individuals is still possible
(Nobel Prize) but much of the modern science is anonymous and just too
abstract to make sense to the general public unless it's pretty (fractals,
astronomy) or made controversial by non-scientific pressure (genetics,
climate science).
- World-altering breakthroughs are harder to find today and progress seems
more incremental.
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> But name just *one* scientist who's alive today
To be fair, there's a pretty big gap between "centuries ago" and "alive today."
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
you literally shooting yourself in the foot.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 09 May 2010 10:31:15 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> But name just *one* scientist
> who's alive today who has done anything so world-alteringly significant
> that almost every man, women and child in the Western world knows their
> name.
Stephen Hawking.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 09 May 2010 14:03:20 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Richard Dawkins? Seriously, other than writing a book, what has this guy
> ever done?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins#Evolutionary_biology for a
start.
*A* book? No, several books at least. Heard the word "meme"? He coined
it to describe how Darwinian principles might be extended to explain the
spread of ideas and cultural phenomena. (from the same wikipedia
article). That's a pretty significant contribution as well (and one I
didn't know about, actually).
Read the bio and then let's talk about what he's ever done. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 09 May 2010 10:31:15 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
>> But name just *one* scientist
>> who's alive today who has done anything so world-alteringly significant
>> that almost every man, women and child in the Western world knows their
>> name.
>
> Stephen Hawking.
Or Carl Sagan, for that matter. Or Dr Hubble.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
you literally shooting yourself in the foot.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Richard Dawkins? Seriously, other than writing a book, what has this guy
>> ever done?
>
> Read the bio and then let's talk about what he's ever done. ;-)
Ask some random person "what did Einstein do?" and they'll be like
"uh... I don't know. He was a genius, right?"
Ask some random person "who is Einstein?" and they'll instantly know he
was a world-famous scientist.
Ask somebody who Richard Dawkins is and see how many of them actually
have any clue. (I've only heard of him because I read the book he wrote.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> A few ideas:
>
> - A lot of the "science hero" worshipping in the mid-XIXth to mid-XXth
> century was somehow propagandistic.
Seems reasonable.
> - Much of the modern science is anonymous
> and just too abstract to make sense to the general public unless it's
> pretty (fractals, astronomy) or made controversial by non-scientific
> pressure (genetics, climate science).
That's probably a large part of the problem, yes.
Still, how many people have even the vaguest idea what Relativity is
about? None the less everybody knows who Einstein was, even if they have
no idea why he was so important.
> - World-altering breakthroughs are harder to find today and progress
> seems more incremental.
This is probably the big one.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
