Best Scientists OAT
 

I was talking with some friends recently about how the general public perceives science and was wondering who people here would rate as the best scientist in the below fields. I'm thinking about both in influence and talent (although feel free to separate them). Life sciences are the detailed ones since I'm biased.

1) Genetics

2) Neuroscience

3) Infectious diseases and/or human health

4) Biology in general

5) Physics

6) Chemistry

7) Mathematics

Feel free to drop some other subjects in or break up some of the subjects (physics could probably have a few categories but please make them relatively general).
Please give some reasoning on why you chose who you did.

Re: Best Scientists OAT
 

"Relatively general." Heh. Nice one.

Re: Best Scientists OAT
 

It's hard to pick just one person as scientific fields are so vast these days, but for physics I would have to say Nima Arkani-Hamed for several reasons.

He's in many ways a string theorist but is not nearly so dogmatic as the majority of people working in that field. He focuses on developing theories that are empirically testable and has a few that will be verified/falsified as soon as the LHC comes online. His work on the hierarchy problem has also gotten him an international reputation as one of the best emerging physicists, and he's set records in terms of citations and academic accolades (not that this necessarily means anything, but I think it's a good indicator) relative to his age.

In addition to being a brilliant theoretician he is hands down the best teacher I've ever had, and everyone else that has taken a course from him feels the same way. The physics community suffers a lot from poor teaching in my opinion and I don't think that the value of getting the next generation of physicists interested/excited about physics should be underestimated when looking at the long term future of the field.

Anyway, I'm a little biased, but that's my 2c.

Re: Best Scientists OAT
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Relatively general." Heh. Nice one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm here all week folks, don't forget to tip your waitress.

Re: Best Scientists OAT
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's hard to pick just one person as scientific fields are so vast these days, but for physics I would have to say Nima Arkani-Hamed for several reasons.

He's in many ways a string theorist but is not nearly so dogmatic as the majority of people working in that field. He focuses on developing theories that are empirically testable and has a few that will be verified/falsified as soon as the LHC comes online. His work on the hierarchy problem has also gotten him an international reputation as one of the best emerging physicists, and he's set records in terms of citations and academic accolades (not that this necessarily means anything, but I think it's a good indicator) relative to his age.

In addition to being a brilliant theoretician he is hands down the best teacher I've ever had, and everyone else that has taken a course from him feels the same way. The physics community suffers a lot from poor teaching in my opinion and I don't think that the value of getting the next generation of physicists interested/excited about physics should be underestimated when looking at the long term future of the field.

Anyway, I'm a little biased, but that's my 2c.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of all time?

I guess I didn't say that outside of the OAT in the subject line.

Re: Best Scientists OAT
 

I'm ignorant about most of these fields but:

[ QUOTE ]
5) Physics

[/ QUOTE ]
Feynman as he was good at bringing a fresh approach which went to the heart of the matter rather than getting caught up in technical details (although he was good at that too). He was also an exceptional teacher which probably skews my perception of him.

[ QUOTE ]
7) Mathematics

[/ QUOTE ]
Gauss - because he had a phenomenally broad knowledge - I think his understanding of maths was so deep I find it incomprehensible.

Cantor is actually my favorite, because he stubbornly stuck with what the maths was saying despite considerable professional ridicule, but not the best.

Re: Best Scientists OAT
 

This is one of those threads where of course there are no right or wrong answers and the fun is in the debate. With that in mind, I'll give it a shot:

Genetics - Mendel.

Infectious disease - Salk

Biology in general - Darwin.

Physics - Feynman

Chemistry - Bohr

Maths - Leibniz


Also, these are OBVIOUSLY the correct answers so you all need not bother to post any more.

Re: Best Scientists OAT
 

Didnt mendel fake some results to match his theoretical prediction rather than modifying his theory to fit the experimental facts? This doesnt seem like "the best scientist in the field of genetics" to me (although I have hazy memories that it was one of his assistants who faked the data, presumably to fit his boss's pet theory...)

Re: Best Scientists OAT
 

Define best.

Re: Best Scientists OAT
 

Off the top of my head:
Physics -- Newton
Math -- Euler (Gauss was pretty smart too [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img])

Some areas I know less about, as far as great scientists are concerned, but I'll still take a stab at it:

Infectious disease: Pasteur
Chemistry: Dalton
Genetics: Fisher (I guess from a statistical standpoint)
Biology: Rduke!! (or that Darwin guy)

Re: Best Scientists OAT
 

[ QUOTE ]
Off the top of my head:
Physics -- Newton
Math -- Euler (Gauss was pretty smart too [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img])

Some areas I know less about, as far as great scientists are concerned, but I'll still take a stab at it:

Infectious disease: Pasteur
Chemistry: Dalton
Genetics: Fisher (I guess from a statistical standpoint)
Biology: Rduke!! (or that Darwin guy)

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh yeah, I definitely change my genetics one to Fisher. I did mine off the top of my head.

Re: Best Scientists OAT
 

I'd vote Euclid as the greatest mathematician OAT.

Re: Best Scientists OAT
 

I'm a geneticist of sorts, and I'm down with Fisher rather than Mendel.

Nobody can come close to Darwin for Biology.

Re: Best Scientists OAT
 

I think if you did a random telephone survey of 500 people, "I don't know" would win most of the categories.

My answers
Genetics - Collectively, Watson, Crick, & Franklin
Neuroscience - Ramon y Cajal
Infectious diseases - Pasteur
Biology - Darwin
Physics - Einstein
Chemistry - Mendeleyev
Math - Gauss
[Psychology - Skinner]

Public's #1 answers
Genetics - "I don't know"
Neuroscience - "I don't know"
Infectious disease - "I don't know"
Biology - "I don't know"
Physics - Einstein
Chemistry - "I don't know"
Mathematics - "I don't know"
Psychology - Freud

Re: Best Scientists OAT
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think if you did a random telephone survey of 500 people, "I don't know" would win most of the categories.

My answers
Genetics - Collectively, Watson, Crick, & Franklin
Neuroscience - Ramon y Cajal
Infectious diseases - Pasteur
Biology - Darwin
Physics - Einstein
Chemistry - Mendeleyev
Math - Gauss
[Psychology - Skinner]

Public's #1 answers
Genetics - "I don't know"
Neuroscience - "I don't know"
Infectious disease - "I don't know"
Biology - "I don't know"
Physics - Einstein
Chemistry - "I don't know"
Mathematics - "I don't know"
Psychology - Freud

[/ QUOTE ]

I was hoping you'd jump in, since you're one of the only other neuroscience guyf I know of on here.

I agree 100% with Ramon y Cajal, Pasteur, and Darwin.

However, what started the discussion I was talking about in my OP was how Watson and Crick are waaaayyy overrated as scientists, especially when you consider talent. I disagree pretty strongly with with you in this case. I think Fisher, Morgan, or Sewell (and a few others) are much better choices here - considering both talent and impact.

Also, I think Skinner's an unusual choice - especially for a neuroscientist [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]
I think Wundt and James would lead my list. Those guys were amazing.

Re: Best Scientists OAT
 

Oh man...this could be fun! Can we do a poll later?!

1) Genetics - Hmm, depends how you define it. I'm going with the obvious of Darwin because of his 'influence' points


2) Neuroscience - I'm not aware of anyone worth mentioning. Perhaps ironically given question 1, I think Francis Crick's book on consciousness is superb.

3) Infectious diseases and/or human health - Peter Duesberg. And it's not even close.

4) Biology in general - Damn. Darwin again.

5) Physics - Dirac, but i have a soft spot for Alain Aspect

6) Chemistry - Tough one. Cavendish.

7) Mathematics - Ramanujan

Re: Best Scientists OAT
 

I said Watson and Crick because they did, after all, identify the chemical structure of genetics. That gets us to sequencing and molecular biology and had an enormous practical impact after 30-40 years. Yes, somebody else would have done it if they hadn't. And of course there's the fooforall about whether they stole Rosalind Franklin's data, which detracts from the achievement somewhat.

But still, they've both gone on to continued scientific achievement.

I chose Skinner for psychology because he had enormous impact with behaviorism and completely dominated the field for 2 decades, and the basic principles he laid out are still in use today.

FWIW, my Ph.D. advisor would agree with you about James. He gave me a copy of James' book on my first day in the lab, and now he lives 3 doors down from James' Cambridge house. Maybe that's why I didn't even consider him for this list [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

<font color="red">Note from Rduke55: I initially hit "edit" rather than "reply" and put all my replies in Aviva's post. I've since removed my comments to another post and kept all of Aviva's text but the formatting may be off (I think I got it right thought). Sorry. </font>

Re: Best Scientists OAT
 

In math, almost all mathematicians give the crown to Gauss.

Physics: yeah, still has to be Newton. I mean, he revolutionized the whole damn field. And he invented/discovered Calculus. That's pretty cool, too.

Re: Best Scientists OAT
 

how can anyone not say gauss for math?

Re: Best Scientists OAT
 

Biologist - Ernst Haeckel

There's a surprise for you.

Re: Best Scientists OAT
 

[ QUOTE ]


1) Genetics - Oswald Avery, co-discoverer of DNA, '44. Remarkable part, he was in his late sixties.

2) Neuroscience - Julius Axelrod, mostly anagelsic and pineal gland research.

3) Infectious diseases and/or human health - Louis Pasteur. Making milk drinkable and transportable for the modern age is quite possibly a huge achievement on its own.

4) Biology in general - Galen, whose anatomical research and drawings especially in the 2nd century stood for a millennia and half as the hallmark.

5) Physics - &lt;clicks tongue&gt; Many. Not an easy choice, I'll have to go with Werner Heisenberg. Sorry, Albert. It's his inroads into QM moreso than anything else that allow me to get really creative these days.

6) Chemistry - slight cheating here, but I'll have to go with Curie, man and wife, and their research into radioactivity. They suffered short lifespans, most assuredly knowingly, in the name of scientific research. At least Pierre had the dubious fortune to get run over by a carriage instead.

7) Mathematics - Srinivasa Ramanujan, an inspiration. He was largely self-taught, and the elegance of the formulae is still being explored and found applicable in multiple fields today. A tragedy too, because one wonders how much more explosive his impact, which was already huge, would have been if he had not perished at 32 years of age. See #5.

Thanks for the massive shoulders.


[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Best Scientists OAT
 

Only problem with Galen is that his work was almost ENTIRELY wrong and the fanatical, almost religious reverence for his work probably set anatomy back 1200 years.

Re: Best Scientists OAT
 

[ QUOTE ]
Only problem with Galen is that his work was almost ENTIRELY wrong and the fanatical, almost religious reverence for his work probably set anatomy back 1200 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. And it wasn't as much his work as the religious taboos against exploring too deeply into dissective anatomy. The guy tried.

Re: Best Scientists OAT
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Only problem with Galen is that his work was almost ENTIRELY wrong and the fanatical, almost religious reverence for his work probably set anatomy back 1200 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. And it wasn't as much his work as the religious taboos against exploring too deeply into dissective anatomy. The guy tried.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, one of our anatomy profs is a huge history buff, especially with respect to anatomy, and so on Halloween he gave an optional lecture on the History of Anatomy and Dissection. Fascinating stuff. From the taboos and hilarious misconceptions to the beginnings of medical dissection (filled with body-snatching and worse) its really a bizarre, macabre and hilarious history. Galen is definitely the father of anatomy, but he is not the greatest anatomist. That honor probably goes to Da Vinci.

Re: Best Scientists OAT
 

Archimedes.

'cause he did it before doin' it was happenin'.

Re: Best Scientists OAT
 

[ QUOTE ]
I said Watson and Crick because they did, after all, identify the chemical structure of genetics. That gets us to sequencing and molecular biology and had an enormous practical impact after 30-40 years. Yes, somebody else would have done it if they hadn't. And of course there's the fooforall about whether they stole Rosalind Franklin's data, which detracts from the achievement somewhat.

[/ QUOTE ]

I kind of see them as a "right place, right time" deal. Not only did they have Franklin's data but also her expertise. She told them that they had the phospate groups in the wrong place because they didn't know that they were hydrophilic.
Plus they had Wilkins' data and expertise (I still think that the reason W + C are so famous and nobody knows about Wilkins sharing the Nobel with them is because of the "Slide Rule" picture) and Pauling had his travel restricted and couldn't come to England to meet Franklin and Wilkins. I would guess that if he did he would have beaten them to it.
Also, neither of them really did experients.

[ QUOTE ]
But still, they've both gone on to continued scientific achievement.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see that they did. Crick went crazy with his consciousness stuff and Watson did no real science. Crick's influence on molecular biology in the later 50's was reviewing others work.
I just don't seem them as these giants.
Was their finding really important? Of course. But too many other, more talented, people were involved.

[ QUOTE ]
I chose Skinner for psychology because he had enormous impact with behaviorism and completely dominated the field for 2 decades, and the basic principles he laid out are still in use today.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, my Ph.D. advisor would agree with you about James. He gave me a copy of James' book on my first day in the lab, and now he lives 3 doors down from James' Cambridge house. Maybe that's why I didn't even consider him for this list [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Understandable [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Best Scientists OAT
 

[ QUOTE ]
That honor probably goes to Da Vinci.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, well, Da Vinci was in a class all his own though, and was a genuine polymath.

Re: Best Scientists OAT
 

1) Genetics; Darwin


4) Biology in general; Linné

5) Physics; Newton

6) Chemistry; Pauling

7) Mathematics; Gauss

Re: Best Scientists OAT
 

Physics; I've always been a big fan of Feynman, But i'd have to say either Heisenburg or Niels Bohr.

Math; Erdos or Gauss

Re: Best Scientists OAT
 

[ QUOTE ]
I kind of see them as a "right place, right time" deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, your logic has convinced me.

How often does anybody say that on internet message boards?

Re: Best Scientists OAT
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I kind of see them as a "right place, right time" deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, your logic has convinced me.

How often does anybody say that on internet message boards?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm surprised the site is still up and working.