Albert Einstein may have made the discoveries that led to nuclear and solar power, lasers and even a physical description of space and time, but Sir Isaac Newton had a greater impact on science and mankind, according to a poll published Wednesday.
Posted on 11/23/2005 6:04:12 PM PST by PatrickHenry
Newton, the 17th-century English scientist most famous for describing the laws of gravity and motion, beat Einstein in two polls conducted by eminent London-based scientific academy, the Royal Society.
More than 1,300 members of the public and 345 Royal Society scientists were asked separately which famous scientist made a bigger overall contribution to science, given the state of knowledge during his time, and which made a bigger positive contribution to humankind.
Newton was the winner on all counts, though he beat the German-born Einstein by only 0.2 of a percentage point (50.1 percent to 49.9 percent) in the public poll on who made the bigger contribution to mankind.
The margin was greater among scientists: 60.9 percent for Newton and 39.1 percent for Einstein.
The results were announced ahead of the "Einstein vs. Newton" debate, a public lecture at the Royal Society on Wednesday evening.
"Many people would say that comparing Newton and Einstein is like comparing apples and oranges, but what really matters is that people are appreciating the huge amount that both these physicists achieved, and that their impact on the world stretched far beyond the laboratory and the equation," said Royal Society president Lord Peter May.
Pro-Newton scientists argue he led the transition from an era of superstition and dogma to the modern scientific method.
His greatest work, the "Principia Mathematica", showed that gravity was a universal force that applied to all objects in the universe, finally ruling out the belief that the laws of motion were different for objects on Earth and in the heavens.
Einstein's supporters point out that his celebrated theory of relativity disproved Newton's beliefs on space and time and led to theories about the creation of the universe, black holes and parallel universes.
He also proved mathematically that atoms exist and that light is made of particles called photons, setting the theoretical foundations for nuclear bombs and solar power.
Dennis, Science should be non-partisan, don't you think?
The apple still falls straight down from the tree, but hopefully it will fall right.
Good point.
PS: The great irony is that Phoenician language completely vanished from existance over 1500 years ago.
>>>More than 1,300 members of the public and 345 Royal Society scientists were asked separately which famous scientist made a bigger overall contribution to science, given the state of knowledge during his time, and which made a bigger positive contribution to humankind<<<
Leonardo da Vinci, if all things are considered, should at least rank in the top 20?
TT
If it weren't for St Paul, the marginal Jewish sect of Christus followers would've been all but extinguished during the Judaean Revolt of 65-70 CE. Whatever remnants survived would have vanished with the rise of rabbinic Judaism. We would likely never have even heard of Jesus Christ, since there would be no writings to preserve his memory (you do recall that Paul's epistles were written before the Gospels, right?)
If it weren't for the triumph of Christianity in the Greco-Roman world, Muhammad would've never come up with his obviously borrowed creed. Even assuming that he had become a figure of any significance, it's highly implausible that he would've encountered a world as conducive to his conquest.
And if it weren't for Christendom, Europe would've never held itself together as a coherent 'Western civilization' through the Medieval Era, and even if it had Newton would've never been inspired to try to work out the "divine order" of nature, even assuming that science had progressed that far, which is unlikely in a world of ubiquitous slave labor (which is probably why Roman science stagnated). If Newton's genius had prevailed nonetheless to make its mark on history, it very likely his publications would've been on a much reduced level than what they were, considering the probable disarray of European civilization.
And that's assuming Gutenberg had found something else inspiring enough to merit a printing press, since there'd be no bibles..
St Paul should be first.
Assuming arguendo you are correct, and I stipulated that without St. Paul there would be no Christianity (whether something else would have come along that filled the cultural demand (you do think religions tend to emerge to fit the prevailing ethos rather than the reverse don't you?), or Arab resurgence, one can only speculate), you are an actual cause guy, and Hart I think was more a proximate cause guy. As a law school graduate, you know the difference.
In fact, I would be inclined to argue that Paul could've selected any one of a number of itinerant Jewish 'messiahs' wandering around in the first century to the same ultimate effect, all else being equal.
St. Paul rewrote Jesus eh? Putting that aside, would St. Paul have found someone, someplace, somewhere to market in a his repackaged form of his own vision, to do that, without Jesus, or would he have remained a fisherman? Would someone not crucified in a rather dramatic way have been marketable, in a repackaged form or otherwise?
Oh, and the thing about Muhammad and his impact on the course of history is that his mobilization of the Arabs had to happen right when it happened in order to have the profound subsequent effects that it did. It was right when he enflamed them with the sword of Islam that the Byzantine and Sassanid empires were at their lowest ebb, thereby permitting the Muslim conquest. Even twenty years later would've almost certainly been too late, and almost certainly having been contained at the start, the upstart creed would've turned inwards to become an almost purely ethnic Arab cult.
Yes, I think that generally speaking religions evolve to match the prevailing ethos, but there are certainly in my view events in history that are extraordinary departures from the otherwise course of human affairs. Islam was not merely a religious phenomenon, as Hart points out, but just as much a political phenomenon, and in order for the political phenomenon to play itself out it had to be right then and there.
Why would 20 years later have been too late in your view?
Without a doubt. It would be more accurate to call the religion Paulism than it is to call it Christianity.
Putting that aside, would St. Paul have found someone, someplace, somewhere to market in a his repackaged form of his own vision, to do that, without Jesus, or would he have remained a fisherman?
Paul was most certainly not a fisherman! He was an educated Roman citizen and some kind of Pharisee official. His trade on his missionary travels, fwiw, was tentmaking.
Would someone not crucified in a rather dramatic way have been marketable, in a repackaged form or otherwise?
Not really. Thousands of people were crucified in dramatic ways back then, and many of them were self-proclaimed magicians or prophets of some kind or other. Like I said, all else being equal. If Paul had selected some other prospective martyr and depicted in the exact same way that he had fulfilled the Jewish law and that the path to salvation for both Jews and Gentiles alike was through him, then we'd be talking about Simeonism or whatever.
St. Paul I thought was a fisherman on the Sea of Galilee. But I am in the bottom decile on this forum when it comes to biblical knowledge, so I am not going to argue with you.
Because when the Muslims attacked Syria and Egypt pretty much all the local Greek militiamen had been killed fighting the Persians, as had much of the Imperial legions. Twenty years later the next generation would be all grown up and prepared to defend the Empire just as they had against far grander threats than the Muslim invasion. Moreover, Heraclius' thema system (that was barely introduced when the Muslims actually did come along) would've been in full effect and halted the Muslims just as the more rudimentary system did in Anatolia.
Similar circumstances should apply for the Persian Sassanids as well.
No, St Peter was the fisherman. St Paul was a tentmaker when he went on the missionary travels (and he never met Jesus, BTW, contrary to popular belief).
what about van Leeuwehoek
Thanks for making that all perfectly clear. LOL. I thought you meant Hercules for a moment, and at that point, I was really confused. :)
Why do you waste your time with the sans culotte? :)
Oh. Ya, I conflate the two.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.