Walter Rudin Principles wrote:
That poster walked right into it - quite sad. Hawking's work pales in contrast to prior generations, and he often wanders off into non-scientific/pseudoscientific realms of discussion, where he can range anywhere from outlandish to uninformed.
Almost sounds like you are talking about Al Gore and his phony Global Warming crap.
SAlly V wrote:
All the current crop may be wonderful but they are not doing anything transformational.
Let's look at a Who's Who of scientists in the game-changing sphere:
Isaac Newton
Galileo
Marie Curie
Charles Darwin
Einstein (perhaps the most recent game-changer)
Copernicus
Neils Bohr
Archimedes
Copernicus
Crick
Graham Bell
Max Plank
Da Vinci
Faraday
Edison
Rutherford
Boyle
Kepler
Fermi
Mendeleev
Rontgen
Pauling
Where the heck are scientists of recent history who might joint that elite group? We have nothing since Albert Einstein almost. And that has been almost a 100 years. We certainly have Nobel Prize winners but they aint on Madame Curies. What has happened to science where nothing groundbreaking is occurring today?
Because science is a cult based on fake news force fed to us by the lame stream media. We don't need science we just need our gut and intuition. Plus, with the interweb anyone can just google a scientific topic like "globull warming is a hoax" and be smarter then any expert by reading through the search results for an hour or two.
everything's been discovered wrote:
All the low-hanging fruit has already been discovered. Any discoveries now are either incremental, or in fields like quantum physics that very few people can understand in even a general sense.
And Edison wasn't really a scientist, he mostly used trial and error. The fact that he was able to come up with so many life-changing inventions in this way tells you that there was still a lot to be discovered back then.
This.
Ultradude wrote:
everything's been discovered wrote:All the low-hanging fruit has already been discovered. Any discoveries now are either incremental, or in fields like quantum physics that very few people can understand in even a general sense.
And Edison wasn't really a scientist, he mostly used trial and error. The fact that he was able to come up with so many life-changing inventions in this way tells you that there was still a lot to be discovered back then.
This.
So the wheel, the nail, the compass, moveable type, penicillin, internal combustion engine, the telephone, and the light bulb so no more game-changing inventions are coming?
everything's been discovered wrote:
Any discoveries now are either incremental, or in fields like quantum physics that very few people can understand in even a general sense.
There is still a ton to be discovered in medicine. Our knowledge of the brain is still quite limited. Some day we will be growing organs instead of pulling plugs.
Have to agree with the poster who brought up Al Gore. Remember, he invented the Internet which absolutely changed the world.
Hugh Jass wrote:
Have to agree with the poster who brought up Al Gore. Remember, he invented the Internet which absolutely changed the world.
Changed the world .... for the worse?
DiscoGary wrote:
random6 wrote:I could see historian in the future putting Jobs and Gates on that list.
Jobs and Gates are world class inventors/engineers. I think the OP is looking for scientific discoveries. In the case of computers that honor would go to Bardeen, Brattain, and Shockley who discovered/invented the transistor. They belong on the list of scientists who changed the world.
Steve Jobs didn't invent anything.
anti morna wrote:
they were both thieves and poor engineers
woz is a world class engineer
gates and jobs, scrubs with the code
Actually, Gates was a really good programmer.
apple guy wrote:
DiscoGary wrote:Jobs and Gates are world class inventors/engineers. I think the OP is looking for scientific discoveries. In the case of computers that honor would go to Bardeen, Brattain, and Shockley who discovered/invented the transistor. They belong on the list of scientists who changed the world.
Steve Jobs didn't invent anything.
From Wikipedia:
[Steve Jobs] is listed as either primary inventor or co-inventor in 346 United States patents or patent applications related to a range of technologies from actual computer and portable devices to user interfaces (including touch-based), speakers, keyboards, power adapters, staircases, clasps, sleeves, lanyards and packages. Jobs's contributions to most of his patents were to "the look and feel of the product." His industrial design chief Jonathan Ive had his name along with him for 200 of the patents.[189] Most of these are design patents (specific product designs; for example, Jobs listed as primary inventor in patents for both original and lamp-style iMacs, as well as PowerBook G4 Titanium) as opposed to utility patents (inventions).[190][191] He has 43 issued US patents on inventions.[190]
What about Linda Clark, inventor of the Simply Fit Board.
In 100 years Andre Geim and Konstantin Novoselov will be on that list.
Look how they treated James Watson and you see why we don't have larger-than-life scientists anymore. Can you imagine what would happen to a great scientist who expressed doubt about client change? Today's culture demands conformity with the consensus, and if you challenge any form of liberal mass stupidity you'll be ostracized, fired, or never hired.
donut man wrote:
Look how they treated James Watson and you see why we don't have larger-than-life scientists anymore. Can you imagine what would happen to a great scientist who expressed doubt about client change? Today's culture demands conformity with the consensus, and if you challenge any form of liberal mass stupidity you'll be ostracized, fired, or never hired.
Still waiting for some great scientist to express doubt about "client" change.
But seriously, the reason no great scientist has expressed doubt about climate change is because no great scientist would doubt the overwhelming preponderance of evidence supporting it - including peer reviewed models.
blerbled wrote:
Robert Edwards received a Nobel Prize in 2010 for work regarding In Vitro Fertilization that he did a few decades ago. As someone who is a recent beneficiary of his work, I'd say that's pretty groundbreaking.
Regarding Einstein - something that iconoclastic coming around nowadays would probably be thoroughly stifled by the current peer review system.
Einstein was not alone in coming up with relativity -there were others on the same path - but he got there first. And he had his work thoroughly peer reviewed. I believe he said something like, "A million experiments can not prove me right, but one can prove me wrong". You talk like peer review can actually stifle a correct theory in the long run, when the exact opposite is true.
Clienteller wrote:
donut man wrote:Look how they treated James Watson and you see why we don't have larger-than-life scientists anymore. Can you imagine what would happen to a great scientist who expressed doubt about client change? Today's culture demands conformity with the consensus, and if you challenge any form of liberal mass stupidity you'll be ostracized, fired, or never hired.
Still waiting for some great scientist to express doubt about "client" change.
But seriously, the reason no great scientist has expressed doubt about climate change is because no great scientist would doubt the overwhelming preponderance of evidence supporting it - including peer reviewed models.
Part of science is challenging a theory with "...overwhelming preponderance of evidence supporting it." It is how you reinforce whatever that theory might be. Global Warming, for existence. Global Warmists talk about the "consensus" and that all the evidence supports it. But Global Warmists are cultists, as someone previously said. No one can challenge it. The Earth's temperature pretty much has remained steady since 1998. One would think that climate scientists would find that this challenges everything about Global Warming. But no one is able to challenge it, lest they incur the wrath of the science community and academia. You ARE ostracized, fired or never hired. You are a pariah in the science community. No one can ever challenge Global Warming with impunity. Quite a shame. If Global Warming is actually happening (which it is not) then believers should welcome having others try to shoot it down.
Polly Plumper wrote:
Clienteller wrote:Still waiting for some great scientist to express doubt about "client" change.
But seriously, the reason no great scientist has expressed doubt about climate change is because no great scientist would doubt the overwhelming preponderance of evidence supporting it - including peer reviewed models.
Part of science is challenging a theory with "...overwhelming preponderance of evidence supporting it." It is how you reinforce whatever that theory might be. Global Warming, for existence. Global Warmists talk about the "consensus" and that all the evidence supports it. But Global Warmists are cultists, as someone previously said. No one can challenge it. The Earth's temperature pretty much has remained steady since 1998. One would think that climate scientists would find that this challenges everything about Global Warming. But no one is able to challenge it, lest they incur the wrath of the science community and academia. You ARE ostracized, fired or never hired. You are a pariah in the science community. No one can ever challenge Global Warming with impunity. Quite a shame. If Global Warming is actually happening (which it is not) then believers should welcome having others try to shoot it down.
Wow! What an AMAZING thorough analysis. Why can't the lame stream media and all the globull warming religious zealots understand this? I mean it must have taken you at least 3 hours of googling totally unbiased phrases like "climate change hoax", "no rise in global temperatures", "global warming fraud" to come up with the above erudite post and you're already clearly wwweaaaayyyyyy smarter than people who have PhDs and have done multiple post-docs.
Dr. Google, BS MS MBA MFA MD wrote:
Polly Plumper wrote:Part of science is challenging a theory with "...overwhelming preponderance of evidence supporting it." It is how you reinforce whatever that theory might be. Global Warming, for existence. Global Warmists talk about the "consensus" and that all the evidence supports it. But Global Warmists are cultists, as someone previously said. No one can challenge it. The Earth's temperature pretty much has remained steady since 1998. One would think that climate scientists would find that this challenges everything about Global Warming. But no one is able to challenge it, lest they incur the wrath of the science community and academia. You ARE ostracized, fired or never hired. You are a pariah in the science community. No one can ever challenge Global Warming with impunity. Quite a shame. If Global Warming is actually happening (which it is not) then believers should welcome having others try to shoot it down.
Wow! What an AMAZING thorough analysis. Why can't the lame stream media and all the globull warming religious zealots understand this? I mean it must have taken you at least 3 hours of googling totally unbiased phrases like "climate change hoax", "no rise in global temperatures", "global warming fraud" to come up with the above erudite post and you're already clearly wwweaaaayyyyyy smarter than people who have PhDs and have done multiple post-docs.
You actually spent time writing that gibberish?
Polly Plumper wrote:
Dr. Google, BS MS MBA MFA MD wrote:Wow! What an AMAZING thorough analysis. Why can't the lame stream media and all the globull warming religious zealots understand this? I mean it must have taken you at least 3 hours of googling totally unbiased phrases like "climate change hoax", "no rise in global temperatures", "global warming fraud" to come up with the above erudite post and you're already clearly wwweaaaayyyyyy smarter than people who have PhDs and have done multiple post-docs.
You actually spent time writing that gibberish?
Yeah and you spent time reading it. Though you clearly like reading and believing gibberish based on your understanding of this issue.
Richard Dawkins.