Who is the Greatest?
by BradfordIs that true? My favorite is James Clerk Maxwell.
In the early nineteenth century, despite many individual advances in knowledge, there was no inkling of a comprehensive theory of electricity and magnetism. In developing this, Maxwell pointed the way to the existence of the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation. Defining fields as a tension in the medium, he stated his belief in a new concept - that energies resides in fields as well as bodies. This pointed the way to the application of electromagnetic radiation for such present-day uses as radio, television, radar, microwaves and thermal imaging.
Who is your candidate? The scientist must have performed the major body of his work during the 19th century. So, for example, Einstein and others would not be considered even though they were born in the 1800s.
August 22nd, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Hi Bradford,
I would agree that Maxwell is up there. But, I would like to throw out a couple more names.
Freud and Faraday.
Comparing Freud to Maxwell is like comparing apples and oranges. However, that is not much different than comparing Darwin to either. Freud is a hard one to beat as a scientist who influenced/created an entire scientific field of study.
Maxwell, on the other hand, was one of many luminaries in his field. Faraday is one such 19th century luminary.
link
In a way, Maxwell mostly just formalized Faraday's discoveries. Sure, the equations are named after Maxwell, but Faraday was the one who figured out the basic characteristics of, and relationships between, magnetic and electric fields. Choosing between scientists is hard when they are standing on the shoulders of others.
One more name that just barely makes (or arguably misses) the list of 19th century scientists, Minkowski…
link
FYI, Minkowski died of a burst appendix in Jan 1909, age 44.
I'm of the opinion that the significance of Minkowski's contribution to science has yet to be fully realised.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 22, 2008 @ 11:45 pm
August 23rd, 2008 at 6:37 am
According to the 1996 book "The Scientific 100. A Ranking of the Most Influential Scientists, Past and Present", by John Simmons, the top ranking 19th century scientists are:
4. Darwin
5. Pasteur
6. Freud
11. Faraday
12. Maxwell
13. Bernard
14. Boas
17. Virchow
24. Boltzmann
Why did Bradford choose Maxwell? Could it be because Maxwell has been hailed so often as a creationist by Salvador Cordova (yes, the same who likes to "hail" Darwin for kicking a puppy)? I strongly suspect so, and I also predict that Bradford will deny this.
PS: TP, Minkowski did not make into the 100
Comment by Raevmo — August 23, 2008 @ 6:37 am
August 23rd, 2008 at 8:53 am
TP, Faraday was one of the greats and I had him in mind too. You're right about his insights preceeding Maxwell's formal mathematical formulas which effectively completed what Faraday started. I provided the link to show the versatility of Maxwell. He was involved in much more than what he is usually credited for and his investigations led to 20th century breakthroughs.
I also agree with you about Minkowski and strongly suspect that he would be on Einstein's short list. Freud's impact was great but aren't some of his core theoretical ideas now seen as off the mark?
Raevmo, I chose Maxwell because he was a great scientist by objective standards and we all know I'm more objective than you.
BTW, it's interesting that I, who believe in the existence of a deity, would be the free thinker and you would resort to an "authoritative" source book. 
Comment by Bradford — August 23, 2008 @ 8:53 am
August 23rd, 2008 at 9:19 am
Bradford, I have to admit you're a real freethinker and scholar of the history of science.
But I suggest the real purpose of your post was discrediting Darwin by providing the link to a book that accuses Darwin of "[committing] one of the greatest scientific crimes in history".
Do you think that character assassination of Darwin makes ID more plausible?
Comment by Raevmo — August 23, 2008 @ 9:19 am
August 23rd, 2008 at 10:01 am
Raevmo:
No, but here is the actual trail of events. I came across a blog entry, in what would be considered an ID blog, plugging the book in question. I'm not very interested in the types of personal attacks suggested by the book. I think you'll agree I rarely promote them either at TT or at my own blog. But when I read that Darwin was considered the greatest scientist of the 19th century I was intrigued by that. I'm the type of person likely to think about whether Paul Morphy would have beaten Kasparov if he had the benefit of 21st century chess theoretics as I stand in line at a supermarket. It passes the time for me. I did the same with the scientific luminaries of the 1800s and thought it would make for a lighthearted blog entry.
Comment by Bradford — August 23, 2008 @ 10:01 am
August 23rd, 2008 at 10:36 am
Bradford:
Raevmo will have none of that! Bradford's no better than Sal-I-Hear-Darwin-Liked-To-Kick-Puppies-Cordova. "Do you think that character assassination of [Sal] makes ID [less] plausible?"
Anywho, back on topic, and in keeping with the typical TT subject matter; how about: Charles Lyell?
Figured I'd get a post in before Fay's back-side crosses into Panama City and possibly knocks the power out.
Regards.
Comment by Rob R. — August 23, 2008 @ 10:36 am
August 23rd, 2008 at 10:39 am
You could have made the same point and raised the same question without the link.
* Darwin's Theory of Evolution predates Wallace.
* Their theories were jointly presented to the Linnaean Society in 1858.
* Darwin was certainly one of the greatest scientists of his age.
This is your opportunity to set the record straight.
Comment by Zachriel — August 23, 2008 @ 10:39 am
August 23rd, 2008 at 10:39 am
"…lighthearted blog entry"? Well then, because you asked the question (with no qualification) in your title, I'm definitely going with…
Mohammed Ali.
What? You say this is about older-timey eggheads and BigBeards? Sorry, I don't recall. I'll have my people get back to you on that. I'm off to catch up on how many houses John McMansions owns today, and drink more good ol' Navy float-a-spoon coffee to make up for having to get up at 3:30 in the danged morning because some idiot sent me an 'urgent' text message that wouldn't quit beeping…
[Emily Litella voice] …Never mind.
Comment by Joy — August 23, 2008 @ 10:39 am
August 23rd, 2008 at 10:43 am
Robb R: Anywho, back on topic, and in keeping with the typical TT subject matter; how about: Charles Lyell?
Another good nominee.
Comment by Bradford — August 23, 2008 @ 10:43 am
August 23rd, 2008 at 10:45 am
Zachriel:
I'm not disputing this.
Comment by Bradford — August 23, 2008 @ 10:45 am
August 23rd, 2008 at 10:47 am
Joy:
He did some excellent work on butterflies and bee stings but I said 19th century Joy!
Comment by Bradford — August 23, 2008 @ 10:47 am
August 23rd, 2008 at 10:49 am
Okay, since we're allowed to go for more than one …
Faraday (wide-ranging scientific and economic impact as well as popularizer and experimenter - respecter of fact over theory)
Joseph Henry (he beat Faraday, Morse and Maxwell … timewise, that is)
Pasteur and Lister (can't beat the real impact of all those saved lives)
Joule (can't go wrong with the First Law and for impact … refrigeration)
But I agree, Maxwell it is.
Comment by Pez — August 23, 2008 @ 10:49 am
August 23rd, 2008 at 10:57 am
You da man Pez.
Comment by Bradford — August 23, 2008 @ 10:57 am
August 23rd, 2008 at 11:02 am
Oops, gotta get Mendel on that short list somewhere as well.
Comment by Pez — August 23, 2008 @ 11:02 am
August 23rd, 2008 at 11:11 am
Hey Bradford,
You have to take my picks with a grain of salt.
My authority and scholarship extends only as far as my keyboard.
Comment by Pez — August 23, 2008 @ 11:11 am
August 23rd, 2008 at 11:45 am
Hi Raevmo and Bradford,
Excuse me for giving into temptation to pat myself on the back, but I was surprised with how well Raevmo's list matched my perceptions.
I had even thought about mentioning Pasteur, but his field was closer to Darwin's than Maxwell's.
Bradford, the fact that scientists are still comparing and contrasting their ideas to Freud goes to show just how influential he was. Like Freud, it is Darwin's continuing controversy which keeps him near the upper end of Top 100 lists.
In a way, religious movements (for an example, see http://www.discovery.org) are helping maintain Darwin's status. Similar to the banned-in-Boston effect.
Raevmo, of course Minkowski isn't even mentioned. That was my point. Popular public perception often doesn't match reality. Einstein gets the credit while Minkowski not only had the base idea for General Relativity, he provided the mathematical tools to understand why it is correct.
Einstein's Special Relativity was wrong ("improperly formulated"). However, Einstein's popularity is so strong that scientists and historians are forced to bend over backwards to avoid presenting it that way even though it causes confusion to students and teachers. I have already had multiple people arguing with me over this by claiming Special Relativity is, somehow, a required subcomponent. Starting with "basic" Minkowskian geometry one can derive Schwarzschild geometry with a straight-forward Cartesian/polar coordinate transformation. The much vaunted "Schwarzschild radius" is a parameter that falls out from this simple transformation. Karl Schwarzschild worked with Minkowski and Hilbert at Göttingen from 1901 to 1909.
It's not like scientists aren't giving due Minkowski credit. For example, Sir Roger Penrose makes it clear his Twistor Space acts on "…a slight extension of [Minkowski space] known as compactified Minkowski space" (The Road to Reality, pg 968).
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 23, 2008 @ 11:45 am
August 23rd, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Tesla
Comment by chunkdz — August 23, 2008 @ 12:06 pm
August 23rd, 2008 at 12:19 pm
chunkdz:
Now there's a legendary figure.
Comment by Bradford — August 23, 2008 @ 12:19 pm
August 23rd, 2008 at 12:27 pm
I was going to nominate Zachriel as my favorite 19th century scientist. (C'mon buddy, I can rib you. You know I love you.)
But instead I'll nominate Alfred Russel Wallace. Raevmo. LOL
Comment by Rock — August 23, 2008 @ 12:27 pm
August 23rd, 2008 at 12:53 pm
"Tesla"
You've gotta love anyone who can make lightning.
Comment by Pez — August 23, 2008 @ 12:53 pm
August 23rd, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Everybody forgets the monk Mendel, the other half of the modern evolutionary synthesis.
But Freud? Come on. Phrenology is a better science than Freudian claptrap. If Freud was a scientist then Wilhelm Reich should have won a Nobel prize for his orgasm energy cannon.
"Tell me more about your mother." Groundbreaking, I tells ya, groundbreaking.
Anyway, my other nominees would be Friedrich Wöhler, without whom we would still be in the chemical dark ages, and the team of Michelson & Morley who laid a large portion of the empirical foundation for relativistic and quantum physics in the 20th Century.
Comment by angryoldfatman — August 23, 2008 @ 2:52 pm
August 23rd, 2008 at 2:57 pm
I retract my previous nominations and nominate Wilhelm Reich!!
How come I never heard of this "cannon" before? One of the unsung heroes of 19th century science?!
Comment by Rock — August 23, 2008 @ 2:57 pm
August 23rd, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Time to be less subtle.
As expected, it should be obvious by now there is no single "greatest" scientist. While independent thinking people can have favorites, we can still have an open back and forth discussion making "for a lighthearted blog entry".
Likewise it should be obvious there is no single greatest prophet. People like Buddha, Socrates, Jesus and Muhammad all made good contributions. However, it's unfortunate that discussions on these topics tend to be neither lighthearted nor open.
Something to think about.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 23, 2008 @ 3:24 pm
August 23rd, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Brilliant, TP, ever the culture warrior.
Comment by Pez — August 23, 2008 @ 3:42 pm
August 23rd, 2008 at 3:48 pm
I don't expect a consensus TP. It's a subjective thing. The reason it should be lighthearted is that whether one thinks Faraday, Darwin, Maxwell or someone else was the greatest really does not have much consequence. On the other hand…
On the other hand now you are wading into value systems and how people lead their lives. This is more serious.
Comment by Bradford — August 23, 2008 @ 3:48 pm
August 23rd, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Satisfied that my previous comment achieved what I wanted it to, let's try to get back to this "…lighthearted blog entry".
What is it with angryoldfatman? He likes scientists whose experiments are spectacular failures. Michelson & Morley failed in their attempt to measure the velocity of the ether wind. As for Friedrich Wöhler…
link
However, I would agree that Wöhler's contribution to science definitely warranted being in the top 100 list. Raevmo, did you miss Wöhler's name?
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 23, 2008 @ 4:02 pm
August 23rd, 2008 at 4:10 pm
And you petition to be a moderator.
Comment by Pez — August 23, 2008 @ 4:10 pm
August 23rd, 2008 at 4:33 pm
TP:
He didn't make it in Simmons' list. Perhaps he was too much of an engineer, like Tesla.
Comment by Raevmo — August 23, 2008 @ 4:33 pm
August 23rd, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Hi Pez,
You commented…
Yes, I do.
If I became a moderator at Telic Thoughts it would be a clear statement that this blog is independent of the Discovery Institute and Uncommon Descent.
It would show a willingness to consider ID alternatives that don't presume the existence of God.
It would show that, here, the science of ID takes precedent over the politics of ID.
By now no one should doubt my religious position (I dislike and distrust organised religion). Even, those at After the Bar Closes have tried to attach a religious label on me and failed.
You and I have disagreed on what is required for a hypothesis to be considered ID, but, as I demonstrated, even that isn't an insurmountable problem. What I propose does not exclude the existence of God. In fact, it can be reformulated with a presumption that God exists, it just isn't a requirement.
So, is ID about proving the existence of God or about following scientific evidence WHEREVER it leads?
I am presenting Telic Thoughts with the unique opportunity to demonstrate the answer to this question through actions instead of only words.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 23, 2008 @ 4:46 pm
August 23rd, 2008 at 5:08 pm
FWIW, their are no moderators here per say. Each blogger is in charge of the blogs they personally write but have no say in the others. (as I understand it)
In what way are the bloggers here affiliated with the DI and/or Uncommon Descent? I've been reading here for a while now and I haven't noticed it. In fact, the exact opposite could be argued, no?
Your ideas have been given guest-posting privileges on several occasions. Also, in what way have the bloggers here demonstrated their unwillingness to consider these 'ID alternatives'?
All due respect, you'd not be the ideal candidate for such, imo. I'd vote for Zachriel if we're puttin' names in the hat though. Oh, and put me down
oncetwice for Rock, too!What does your being anti-religious have to do with anything? Of course Jesus was too, so you're in good company.
As I understand it, the presumption isn't necessary for the current design inference either.
Tamato/tomato if you ask me. Which you, and everyone else didn't, of course. But, I've got time on my hands.
You have had plenty of opportunity to present your ideas here. Why do you feel that that's been inadequate, and how is that a short-coming of TT?
Comment by Rob R. — August 23, 2008 @ 5:08 pm
August 23rd, 2008 at 5:12 pm
raevmo:
Tesla, more of an engineer than a scientist? Is that true? Never heard that one before. Odd. . . of course I'm neither so what do I know.
Comment by Rob R. — August 23, 2008 @ 5:12 pm
August 23rd, 2008 at 5:19 pm
TP, do you have any evidence that Telic Thoughts is not independent of the DI and UD? It would come as a surprise to me.
Comment by Bradford — August 23, 2008 @ 5:19 pm
August 23rd, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Rob R:
That's pretty much the case although I would hasten to add that nothing precludes a TTer from delegating moderating responsibilities. I have low tolerance for personal verbal assaults and sock puppetry aimed at circumventing blog policies. Any TTer is welcome to take care of those problems in a thread of mine if I'm not around.
Comment by Bradford — August 23, 2008 @ 5:25 pm
August 23rd, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Hi Rob and Bradford,
I had not anticipated Pez bringing up my moderator petition today. I have other plans this evening so I won't be able to respond in full until tomorrow.
But quickly…
Let me make it clear that in no way was I, or am I, complaining with how I have been treated.
In fact, I have good reason to believe Mike Gene would have supported my petition had I but asked earlier. I did not ask because I didn't see the need to rock the boat.
Please excuse me, but I have got to go, I will respond in length later.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 23, 2008 @ 5:48 pm
August 23rd, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Hi TP,
I'm sorry to throw a monkey-wrench into your plans.
I guess when you derail enjoyable little threads with your own political and religious agenda things can get a little unpredictable.
Comment by Pez — August 23, 2008 @ 5:53 pm
August 23rd, 2008 at 6:19 pm
What is it with angryoldfatman? He likes scientists whose experiments are spectacular failures.
Ironically (maybe even tragically) some scientists’ spectacular failures are far more memorable than so many more scientists more modest successes. Science is not just a process of adding to our knowledge, its also a process of self-correction, of attempting to systematically eliminate what we thought we knew. Success and failure both play a role.
Not one without the other.
Science isn’t just about getting it right. Its also about getting it wrong, and, critically, realizing your wrong. Science is not just addition its subtraction. Elimination.
Sometimes a spectacular failure is far more important to the advance of science than all the modest gains combined.
That's why we remember such spectacular failures. Btw, Michelson and Morely were otherwise quite successful scientists and known so in their generation. Its only in retropsect, and in one particular experiment they performed that we remember them as "faiulres."
Comment by Rock — August 23, 2008 @ 6:19 pm
August 23rd, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Indeed Rock, what scientist has not been a failure when all is said and done?
If science is all that it is claimed to be, then it is inevitable all true scientists are failures, isn't it? Their work will be shown to have holes and flaws that need correcting by another generation of scientists, who will in turn need their own work corrected by subsequent generations, et cetera, ad infinitum.
Scientists who do science that is claimed to be complete and infallible are not true scientists; they are more akin to saints and clergy - which makes their science a religion.
That being the case, organic chemistry and the entire basis for the petrochemical industry (which, if you haven't noticed, has a fairly significant role in our current level of technology) was founded by what TP would call a failure. If that's failure, then don't get success anywhere near me.
That being the case, Einstein was free to think and formulate how the universe works without being inhibited by theories of luminiferous aether - an absence discovered by what TP would call a failure. If that's failure, then shoot success into the sun and don't let it ever come back.
(Tangential note: Wilhelm Reich was a 20th Century kook, not a 19th Century one, so his UFO Sex Gun based on Freud's "penis, all the penis, and nothing but the penis" theories is disqualified for this contest. Sorry Rock. :sad:)
Comment by angryoldfatman — August 23, 2008 @ 7:01 pm
August 23rd, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Damn! "UFO sex gun" sounds like an even better theory!
(Not to mention, a good name for a rock band.)
Why didn't I think of it?!
All the good theories have already been thought of–Why the hell did I ever become a scientist!
Comment by Rock — August 23, 2008 @ 7:32 pm
August 23rd, 2008 at 10:42 pm
LOL!!
I wish I had the imagination to think of it. Reich takes the prize for being the coolest nutzoid ever. You read all of the stuff out there about various religious people being wackjobs but really, they couldn't hold a candle to Reich.
You can't make this stuff up.
For reals. (start at 3:35 to skip boring stuff on this one)
Comment by angryoldfatman — August 23, 2008 @ 10:42 pm
August 24th, 2008 at 12:17 am
Maxwell was certainly a great theorist, no doubt the greatest of the 19th century, but in my opinion theorists are over rated. The real scientists are the ones who wear the lab coats– the experimentalists. So Faraday gets my vote. After all, it was his experiments and discoveries that gave Maxwell that empirical data that could be spun into his spider web of equations and theory. Without Faraday, Maxwell would have amounted to nothing.
The only other 19th century experimentalist of note was Victor Frankenstein. Indeed, in the opinion of most scholars Frankenstein actually exceeded the accomplishments Faraday. Nobody has ever put lightening to better use.
However, there are a couple of problems with Frankenstein. First, nobody has been able to duplicate his experiments. (Which goes to show how far this man was ahead of his time.) Second, it is now claimed by some that he was a fictional character made up by his biographer Mary Shelley. Yeah right. These are the same people who think that Phileas Fogg and Sherlock Holmes were fictional characters.
PS This for Todd
(So he’ll know that I am joking.)
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — August 24, 2008 @ 12:17 am
August 24th, 2008 at 11:45 am
TP says:
At least TP is on topic. He thinks he is the Greatest.
Comment by RogerRabbitt — August 24, 2008 @ 11:45 am
August 24th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Hi Rob R. and Bradford,
You both questioned why I implied Telic Thoughts isn't independent of Uncommon Descent and Discovery Institute.
It is my opinion Telic Thoughts IS independent. If it wasn't, I would be wasting my time with a petition. It is TT's independence that makes it attractive to me and others. I would like to do my part to help keep it that way.
Furthermore, I would also like to help TT's reputation by encouraging perceptions to conform with reality.
Rob R. wrote…
I would agree Zachriel is more knowledgeable than I on many subjects. Having Zachriel as a TT moderator would be… entertaining… as well as informative.
However, there is a significant difference between poking holes in proposals verses presenting them.
Whether with Mike Gene's The Design Matrix or my The Third Choice (actually Penrose/Hameroff Orch OR) I tend to be on the affirmative side of debates. I offer explanations and hypotheses while supporting them with links to scientific papers. There are already plenty of people ready and willing to take the negative side of debates (defending the status quo).
Trying to provoke thought tends to be harder than defending established dogma. I suggest ID is (or at least should be) mostly about provoking a new way of thinking. This is why I support the scientific principles behind ID. This is why I suggest I would make for a positive addition to the Telic Thoughts moderator staff.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 24, 2008 @ 1:13 pm
August 24th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Hi Pez,
You wrote…
Quite the contrary, I appreciate the opportunity to revisit discussions surrounding my petition. I'm can be patient and will continue to be, but it doesn't hurt to bring up the subject every once in a while to remind people it is still on the table.
I also appreciate Bradford's indulgence in having this off-topic distraction occur in his thread.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 24, 2008 @ 1:22 pm
August 24th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Hi Roger,
You wrote…
It's always nice to hear from someone who has been involved in the ID discussions from the time Telic Thoughts split off from ARN.
I doubt I would be in the running for anyone's "Greatest" even my own. Heck, I'm just an engineer who doesn't have a single PhD, much less multiple.
Since you joined the discussion, I would be curious as to your reaction to Ron nominating Zachriel. For that matter, I would even be interested in your thoughts about Rock.
Regardless, I'm pleased you felt compelled to offer an opinion on my interest in becoming a TT moderator.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 24, 2008 @ 1:37 pm
August 24th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Hi angryfatman,
Just in case…
I hope you realize my bit about "spectacular failures" was in keeping with the "lighthearted blog entry". I probably should have added a
You made a good catch on the absence of Wöhler's name, but I agree with Rock and you on the UFO sex gun. Thanks for the links and the laugh.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 24, 2008 @ 1:47 pm
August 24th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Oh no doubt, just like your out-of-left-field tangent about religion. "No no, I was just kidding, see? Can't you take a joke?" Same here, just kidding, ha ha, lighthearted wheeee fun.
Comment by angryoldfatman — August 24, 2008 @ 5:22 pm