HOME | DD
esreveRYourThinking — Science
Published: 2005-12-08 02:23:49 +0000 UTC; Views: 49631; Favourites: 1187; Downloads: 1088
Redirect to original
Description
From left to right: Galileo Galilei, Marie Curie, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, Thomas Edison, Aristoteles, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Richard Dawkins und Charles Darwin.Related content
Comments: 304
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 3 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Great idea! Love it!
I just couldn't find Tesla 
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
Edison is the trator, this is the major tribute to Tesla
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
Nice list but did you forget Linus Pauling, G.N. Lewis, Michael Faraday, Rosalind Franklin, Francis Crick, James Watson, Maurice Wilkins, Lise Meitner, Alexander Fleming, Howard Florey, Elie Metchnikoff and Gregor Mendel. To name a few more. The simple fact is, that in our short time here there have been many enlightened among us to advance our knowledge on a host of issues. Hate to leave anyone out. Perhaps if you got a bigger table.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
And the star of the star of the show is still a pacifist Jew! ;DD
^Wwwwwwwww^
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
^WWWwwwwwwwwww^
This makes me happy ^W^
..Also I love how Richard Dawkins is like instagramming Einstein Jesus XDDD
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I don't like this picture, it offends me! >:C
Where's Bill Nye?
(As a Roman Catholic, I really like this parody)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Lord Elthibar is a troll.
He refused to provide evidence for his claims and blocked me when I kept demanding evidence.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Dawkins isn't a scientist. He's a propagandist.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
He is a scientist actually.
Just because you disagree with his philosophies (or his being an atheist) doesn't mean he's not a scientist.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
He has earned all the required degrees to be considered a scientist. An evolutionary biologist to be exact.
Just because you disagree with his philosophies (or his being an atheist) doesn't mean he's not a scientist.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
He never emphasizes science but propoghdanda.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Prove it.
All you've done is make unfounded assertions.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
I don't need to prove it. Just one look at what he preaches and you know he's a jerk.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
All you've done is make assertions and then refuse to back them up.
Richard Dawkins is a scientist. Fact.
My evidence for this is that he has the met the requirements:
"A person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences."
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
Name-caller.
Provide evidence.
Otherwise I would be right in calling you a troll, since you have no goal besides getting a reaction.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
While Dr Dawkins has degrees in scientific fields, I don't know of one major contribution he has made in any of them. The point of making any list of singular status in sciences is first to omit those that have contributed little to it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Major contributions have nothing to do with being a scientist.
By that reasoning the people working in a random lab aren't scientists because they haven't made any major contributions even though they follow the scientific method and are doing experiments.
Scientist: "a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences."
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Quite true, the vast majority of scientist haven't made any significant earth shaking elucidations. For the most part they simply go into their lab everyday and poke at the unknown. Sometimes with some illumination into the obscure mysteries that plague us but most of the time not. However, the name of this artistic endeavor is "SCIENCES", so a reasonable person just may conclude that the people at the table would be scientist. If not then why not title the work as, men of influence, or a group of really smart people, or perhaps just men and women who like wearing white coats most of the day. Also, of the people at the table, most are scientist that have made noteworthy discoveries in their fields. Except for Dr Dawkins who is a biologist, has written a few books and helped on one British TV show. Mr Edison wasn't even publically educated. Not a big thing in the 1800s but he likely knew less about science than your average ten year old does today. He certainly had a gift of insight that was quite unique and his harnessing of electricity almost surely put the candle making industry out of business. Dr's Sagan and Tyson are astronomers, cosmologist and astrophysicists that had their own TV shows. Carl's was somewhat more popular than Neil's was. But in their fields Edwin Hubble would eclipse (pun) both. All others at the table certainly are behemoth names in their respective fields.
I would add to your concise definition about what a scientist is. That he or she uses a systemic method in unraveling the natural world. A seeker of truth, a traveler of the unknown paths and an inquirer of the concealed mysteries of the universe. A term coined in the early part of the 1800s by William Whewell that was an effort to define those who were natural philosophers and pretty much investigated about anything that they were inquisitive of. But today we have become way more constrained to specific areas of exploration.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Why did you bring Edison into this? He stole most of his ideas and engaged in smear campaigns. Getting to the patent office with another person's invention does not make you a scientist.
And Dawkins is a scientist by the definition of the word. If he's actually done something may be up for debate, but you can't change the term because it fits someone you don't like.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Edison is clearly in the picture. As for being a theft, history obviously notes him as being one of the first to harness electrical current. Problem for him, his was direct while Nikola Tesla's was the most useful alternating. Also, if you go back and read what I said, I distinctly said he wasn't a scientist. As for Dr Dawkins I also said that he was a biologist and a biologist is a scientist. But like the most of us, he hasn't really done much to advance our knowledge about living organisms. Thus, I'm not changing anything. As for his lack of accomplishments being debatable. Actually, it's not and he hasn't.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Interesting concept but like most things in the social sciences are a little on substance. Put it in there with 'social reproduction' and 'interactionism'. Theories are fine, a framework that we can pattern our investigations. But between social theories and natural theories, the latter is far more quantifiable. Thus, procures more prosecutable results. Would talk more but my movie has started.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Einstein in the center and Edison??? pfff
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I'm sorry, but I just can't look at this without crying my eyes out. If you wanted to do a work for science, you failed. This is just silly!
You missed so manny important scientists.Archimedes, Kurt Godel, Leibniz, Plato, Tesla, Copernicus, Kepler,Vernandskij, Lev Landau and I could just go on for an hour. You will probably object that some of those are philosophers, but they still achieved manny things in amthematical or scientific field, just as Aristotle who was also a philosopher. Also, you included Neil deGrasse Tyson, but not a f*cking Archimedes or Leonardo Da Vinci? Sure, Neil is a cool, intelligent guy, but he is about as scientist as pope Francis....
I know I sound like an ass, but it's just how I feel. Though, now that I think about it. Wouldn't you like to do more of these? In style of this picture, you could do, for example "Renessance Science", "Modern Science" Ancient Science" etc. in order to include more important scientis.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This needs some Tesla love, nice picture thought.
Good to see Marie Curie in there.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Also, f*** Edison. He was not an inventor, he was a businessman.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hello, great artwork! 
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
| Next =>