"Which Ancient Geniuses Wouldn't Be Called Scientists Today?" Topic

After all, they believed in gods and all kinds of other archaic ideals, right? :)

Would they be downgraded to simple engineers, by today's enlightened standards? Would they even be allowed to speak* at a University, I wonder.

Dan
* Other than as amusing relics.

Newton spent far more of his adult life in working on Alchemy, trying to synthesize the Philosopher's Stone, religious philosophy and the occult (among others) than the branches of physics that he's better known for.

It's all about the shoulder's of giants, and focusing on the advancements. But that should excuse being an A-hole. Asimov is major part of the Sci-Fi pantheon, but he made many women uncomfortable at conventions because of his "friendly" hands. Richard Feynman was a brilliant physicist, but his behavior isn't what's to be condoned in a society that pretends to treat women as equals.

PZ Meyer sums up my feelings on that quite well:
link

Being a great physicist does not make you a great human being. Everyone is a mosaic of different properties, and there is no automatic correlation of saintliness in all dimensions. And most importantly, being really good at physics or any other intellectual endeavor is not an excuse for being a reprehensible asshole.

I dunno. I think they're valid questions.

So what's the answer, Martin?

Newton, Asimov, Feynman … Scientists today or not? Guest speakers today or not? What about those from centuries before them?

Dan

@Martin the Canadian: "Richard Feynman was a brilliant physicist, but his behavior isn't what's to be condoned in a society that pretends to treat women as equals"

The Richard Feynman? Born in 1918?

Dan

No. Since the term was not identified untill recently… up until then they were and should be now referred to as just "really smart guys."

According some Fake News I discovered on the internet "The word "scientist" entered the English language in 1834. That's when Cambridge University historian and philosopher William Peer Whewell coined the term to describe someone who studies the structure and behavior of the physical natural world through observation and experiment."

Everyone coveting the moniker "scientist" sent their written discoveries and theories to William for review after which they could boast they received a "Peer Review." Upon his death all Peer Reviews were invalidated after it was noticed that William was a Historian and Philosopher…neither of which studies qualified himself as a Scientist.

JSchutt: "No. Since the term was not identified untill recently…"

Yes, that was the year. The labels and titlles have changed, and wil surely change again. And everyday there's a new name for something that was previously part of a more encompassing sciencific field, and that now is just a tiny specialized sliver of a science.

Just like "bookkeeping" is a modern term, a practice repackaged with a new format, even though the basic concept, specialized skills and the aptitude requirement goes back to ancient times.

Dan

I mentioned Aristotle as a proto scientist a few weeks ago and was indignantly hooted down by a dude who completely missed the point.
It's kind of similar to the reaction I got the time when I suggested that Mozart, if he were alive today, would be writing movie music because that's where the money is.

Aristotle could be wrong, as Father Desharnais pointed out in a Philosophy of Science course that I took. Ari said that women had fewer teeth than men. Why, I don't know. Father Desharnais suggested he consult Mrs Aristotle.
Aristotle was descriptive and an encyclopedist. The "scientific method" came along much later, but that does not invalidate describing him as a scientist. Or Pliny, Galen, Hieronymous…
It's hard being the smartest guy in the room. That pretty much describes Asimov, but that was mostly in his own mind and that of his disciples.

I keep hearing the phrase "standing on the shoulder of giants", but I don't really see them treated as giants. :)

Dan
PS. A couple of hundred years from now they'll probably think it was so cute how our contemporary scientists thought they were the first true men/women of Science.

I mentioned Aristotle as a proto scientist a few weeks ago and was indignantly hooted down by a dude who completely missed the point.

That was me, and you can mention me next time.

I don't remember it the same way you do. If I truly "indignantly hooted" you down, then I apologize. I do remember stating that the "scientific method" didn't really exist at the time, and Aristotle wasn't doing science "as we understand it today". Your characterization of Aristotle as a proto-scientist is fine with me and corroborates my point (missed or otherwise).

And that it not to belittle his massive achievements. I would not hesitate to suggest that he was one of the greatest intellects ever produced.

Here is the process known as the scientific method. You are, of course, well aware of this from your schooling. I'm not sure Aristotle took part in this as this is a relatively new concept.

Sadly the English language has, for the last few years, been under attack by pedants who like to restrict the meanings of words to very narrow limits. Thus perfectly valid general meaning are shouted down as incorrect. I doubt that the Natural Philosophers of the past would appreciate being labelled 'scientist' – it would restrict their achievements too much.

Well sure. Looking in Mrs Aristotle's mouth would have been applying the Scientific Method. Which was the point my professor was making.
He was cataloging facts.
He made a stab at explaining gravity. He got it wrong, but he was trying. He believed that it was the nature of things to be on the ground. Simplified, but who can argue with that, particularly since nobody would have a telescope for more than a thousand years.
Aristotle was one of Newton's giants. And Newton was a giant too.

Aristotle was one of Newton's giants. And Newton was a giant too.

He certainly was. A read of his life will turn up a disappointing fact with him, however. He was totally consumed with alchemy and the occult, in fact, this is what he spent most of his leisure time doing. Think of what he could have accomplished had he stuck to "real" science. (Of course at that time, there was little difference in attitude towards chemistry and alchemy).

Of course, giant or not, Newton was also not the nicest person.

I think they took all or most of the steps in the "scientific method", but didn't exactly label the steps as such. They hadn't received the memo or that PowerPoint slide yet.

Dan
PS. Bowman, Newton was not the nicest of persons by the standards of the day, or by today's standards? :)

I think they took all or most of the steps in the "scientific method"

I doubt it. Of course you may prove me wrong here. Be interested in you showing me this with Aristotle, for instance.

I think they started at 12 o'clock and usually ended at 4 o'clock. (Using the flow chart as a clockface)

PS. Bowman, Newton was not the nicest of persons by the standards of the day, or by today's standards? :)

Both actually.

He was not well liked by anyone, it seems. Here is a precis from Oxford University's Newton Project:

link

Let's just label them differently ..

1- They take notice of something;
2- They wonder what it might mean in the bigger scheme of things, or what applications it may have;
3- They take a guess or make an assumption;
4- They initially conclude this is the norm;
5- As they work on the subject further they notice what works for them and what doesn't;
6- They adjust their initial assumptions accordingly; and
7- They reach (and broadcast) conclusions

And if others in their world challenged those conclusions, or made claims that independent results proved to be different, our fellows would likely return to their little "lab" to see what they missed.

That, my friend, is essentially what you and your peers have been calling "the scientific method".

Dan
PS. Lol, Bowman I'd like to meet a room full of overachievers that are all well liked, specially by those who are achieving slightly less than those in the lead.

abstrusegoose.com/31

I think they started at 12 o'clock and usually ended at 4 o'clock. (Using the flow chart as a clockface)

Newton's Opticks?

Wonder which of the posters here are each of the door knocking solicitors? I have my opinions. 8)

What's with all the hand wringing about what kind of a guy they were? Their scientific accomplishments are a totally separate thing. Just like in many other fields.

I'll bet that anyone here can identify folks in their own life who are great at doing X but suck as a person. In "the great outdoors" whether we are talking about acting, music, sports, art, government, the military, whatever there are many obvious examples.

Are any of them less gifted at what they do simply because as a human being they may be complete maggots?

What's more, who are the giants of today that no one yet appreciates as such. Were any / all of the folks referenced above seen as "giants" in their time? Don't think so.

Bowman I'd like to meet a room full of overachievers that are all well liked

Yep.

But in Newton's case it's more than that. We are talking about clinical depression, psychotic episodes and general mental illness.

Here is a study from The Royal Society, something Newton was a Fellow of:

PDF link

Let's just label them differently ..

Well at 6 o'clock we have "Develop testable predictions". I doubt you can show that in the work of ancient "proto-scientists". As far as I can see, that is a new development. As is falsifying hypotheses, and distinguishing between hypotheses and theories.

What's more, who are the giants of today that no one yet appreciates as such. Were any / all of the folks referenced above seen as "giants" in their time? Don't think so.

That's usually true, but there are exceptions. Giants in their own time:

Newton
Liebniz
Kelvin
Darwin
Rutherford
Curie
Pauli
Feynman
Einstein
Pauling
Watson and Crick
Guth
E O Wilson
Weinberg
Hawking
Venter

I could go on.

Einstein was a bit of a jerk too.

That comes with the mind.

Since most of these individuals are not wired the same as normal individuals.

Everyone has a brain though none are the same and many really have no clue on how to use theirs.

I doubt that being a brilliant, influential scientist comes with the risk of mental illness, unsavoury personal traits or sociopathy. These conditions afflict everyone, you just notice it more with well know people.

If Newton was alive today, he'd have access to modern medicine and be be a productive, healthy and happy individual. (Prozac may have been prescribed though)

No certain individuals are just wired differently.

link

link

link

Though some of the issues from Newton's time were due to those stupid Powdered Wigs that they all wore back then.

Giants in their own time:

Newton – link – discusses other scientists of the time who completely disagreed with him
Liebniz –
Kelvin – opposed Darwin, was a creationist link

Darwin – was opposed by a number of scientists who were well regarded in their own right in addition to the religious folks. But AT THE TIME his position was controversial and not completely accepted for what we now know what it is. The following people were critical of Darwin's theory of evolution:

Louis Agassiz, Karl Ernst von Baer, John Herschel, Charles Hodge, Fleeming Jenkins, Charles Lyell, John Stuart Mill, St. George Jackson Mivart, Richard Owen, Adam Sedgwick (geologist), William Thomson (Lord Kelvin), William Whewell, Samuel Wilberforce

Rutherford – laid the foundation for nuclear physics, but I don't know that its significance elevated him to giant status at the time.

Curie – had her own eminently qualified scientific opponents

Didn't go through the entire list, but I think you get my point. They did get recognition among parts of the scientific community. But were they giants? They may have been recognized for their ideas and contributions, but that does not mean the impact of those contributions were recognized and valued for what they were.

Not claiming that they aren't giants now, looking back. Just questioning whether they were giants then or just smart scientists who had mad a discovery or formulated a theory.

Considering that the foundations of science were in religion – all of those priestly astrologist/astronomers looking to predict lunar and solar cycles for agriculture among other things (Nile Floods), believing in gods shouldn't be a dis-qualifier.

And they did get to number six – they made predictions based on the theories they developed from their observations.

The fact that they believed in invisible beings who provided order (and disorder) to the world rather dark matter and dark energy doesn't change the fact that they were the first scientists.

Lol. And they must have attracted people who wanted to use (and withhold) mathematical, astronomical and other knowledge to control the masses, and who wanted minimal contact* with the peasant workers they tried to impress and awe. That's why the word hierarchy is so appropriate.

Dan
* Except for ceremonial and astronomical events.

Newton – link – discusses other scientists of the time who completely disagreed with him
Liebniz –

I think saying Leibniz "completely disagreed" with Newton is a poor characterization of what happened. In fact their fighting stemmed from them both independently inventing calculus. Newton may have discovered it earlier but never published it. LIebniz published his work first, and we still use his notation. Ultimately when Newton became head of the Royal Society he charged Leibniz with plagerism.

Most of the disagreements outside of that were on the metaphysical attributes of the nature of space and time. When it comes to the meat and potatoes of astronomy they were in lock step. Both championed Kepler's still controversial idea of elliptical orbits and formed the calculus to make the suitable calculations.

Darwin – was opposed by a number of scientists who were well regarded in their own right in addition to the religious folks. But AT THE TIME his position was controversial and not completely accepted for what we now know what it is. The following people were critical of Darwin's theory of evolution:

I don't understand how having non-biologist scientists, bishops and philosophers disagreeing with you, is a counter argument against the notion of being a giant in your own time.

EInstein had his detractors, in fact they published, "100 Authors against Einstein" in 1931. By the time Einstein landed in the US he was a bona fide giant and the arguments of the 100 authors was a footnote.

The exact same thing happened with Darwin. He resisted publishing his work because he was fearful it would cause consternation within society. However, when Wallace sent him his own notes on evolution, Darwin realized that Wallace had independently discovered the concept of evolution by natural selection as well (shades of Newton and Leibniz). His friends pleaded with Darwin to publish, which is why Darwin is the creationist's whipping boy and not Wallace.

In 1859 On the Origin of Species was published. However, many scientists immediately did see the value of the work and championed it. Most notable are the anatomists Huxley, Haeckel, Owen, Von Humbolt and the botanist Asa Gray. The most famous hold out (as you correctly show) was the great, influential Louis Agassiz. It seems his main arguments were religious ones however.

Within 10 years, Darwin's book had undergone 5 separate printing editions. Many biologists were actually supportive of Darwin's painstaking examples of his well reasoned arguments. So yes, there was some attacks on Darwinism as it was now called but not much of it scientific. I couldn't care less that Bishop Wilberforce was a contrarian. He is now a mere footnote due to the historical smack down he received from Huxley. By the time of Darwin's death his theory was well established in the scientific community and he was considered the most influential scientist of his day.

Rutherford and Lord Kelvin are interesting cases. I'm not sure they disagreed with Darwin due to differences in biology. Both understood thermodynamics well enough to "know" the Earth couldn't be billions of years old. Kelvin even calculated the age of the Earth at 100 million years. There wasn't enough heat to support the warmth of the Earth long enough for evolution to occur. That is because no one at the time was aware of the huge amount of heat released from nuclear reactions. How could they? Rutherford was the father of this new field. In his time he was the preeminent physicist and was hugely influential. As was Kelvin before him.

Marie Curie had detractors? Again so what? She also had a huge amount of supporters. Enough to recommend her to win two Nobel Prizes in science, a feat not duplicated since. (Pauling also won two, but not both in his scientific field).

I'm not sure why you have Hershel in your list. Hershel taught Darwin at Cambridge and was highly influential in Darwin's life. Darwin even gave props to Hershel in the Origin of Species. While on his famous cruise on the Beagle, Darwin dropped in on Hershel in South Africa and showed him his notes. Hershel owned an annotated copy of the Origin which is still in the Cambridge library.

PDF link

Considering that the foundations of science were in religion – all of those priestly astrologist/astronomers looking to predict lunar and solar cycles for agriculture among other things (Nile Floods), believing in gods shouldn't be a dis-qualifier.

And they did get to number six – they made predictions based on the theories they developed from their observations.

Interesting argument, but I don't find it very persuasive.

First off, your comment of, "….believing in gods shouldn't be a disqualifier", did anyone claim this? Most of the great people mentioned in this thread were theists of one type or another.

More importantly, I think the scientific method goes beyond simple pattern recognition.

Look, ancient men were smart. They noticed things change, and usually change in repeatable patterns. Every year has at least 4 eclipses (of course they can't be seen by everyone on Earth). The lead up to them are observable to those who bother. Ascertaining that conditions are right for another eclipse is not the same as formulating a theory and then basing new predictions based on your theory. Ancient hunters knew of the migratory patterns of the herds that they hunted and took advantage of that. They also knew where they ground up the hard grain seeds would result in new growth of grains when they returned next year to the same site. Doesn't mean they are doing science.

Sticking with the eclipse example, a priest predicting the next solar eclipse is very far removed than the 1919 solar eclipse predictions that verified Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.

Or, on a different tack, discovering that the antecedents of the modern bacterium Rickettsia Prowazekii were the origin of human mitochondrial DNA.

That is doing science. Me predicting that the Sun will rise in the east tommorrow, due to my previous observational experiences is not. There is no theory that my observations are corroborating.

Oh and by the way, I think the ancient Egyptians already knew that the flooding of the Nile didn't correspond to lunar or solar eclipses.

Lol. And they must have attracted people who wanted to use (and withhold) mathematical, astronomical and other knowledge to control the masses, and who wanted minimal contact* with the peasant workers they tried to impress and awe. That's why the word hierarchy is so appropriate.

Yep.

Who was it who taught that human souls reincarnated in beans, so you shouldn't eat beans? Pythagoras?

Anyway: "When I was young, I admired clever people. As I grew old, I came to admire kind people." -- Abraham Joshua Heschel.

My question to Mr. Herschel is, "Why not admire both?

Hmm. Well, there are a lot of unkind clever people in the world who are simply emboldened by any admiration given to them. I've met many through the years.

Dan

Granted CC, but that doesn't answer my question.

Just looked up Heschel. Looks like he went to the same prestigious Humboldt University of Berlin as my father did. However, as a Science and Engineering student my Dad went to the Adlershof campus.