Do you think Newton is a bit overrated?

[jackson6612]

I admire Newton's work and agree that he was a great scientist. He came up with many new original ideas. But there are many other scientists who are equally or perhaps more great who are not held as high as Newton. Some of the names which I could think of off hand are: Archimedes, Leibniz. My argument is simply that there are many other names as important as Newton, then why is he only held as high as sky in scientific field?

Please let me hear your opinions on this. Thanks a lot.

 

[Pythagorean]

Who's that? Look, Newton tortured people; he had his own rack.

Helmholtz, Boltzman, Bose.

 

[jackson6612]

Who's that? Look, Newton tortured people; he had his own rack.

Helmholtz, Boltzman, Bose.

Hi Pyth

I didn't know that. How? Who were his victims and why?

 

[JaredJames]

I don't think Newton is overrated, but it's more a case that he's best known.

You learn about gravity when you're fairly young and are told about Newton then, it is something you're brought up with. But when it comes to other scientists you don't really hear about them until much later on in life, so they don't seem as prominent.

Newton and Einstein are probably two of the most well known, but it's because of what you're taught and when. As per Pythagorean's examples above, you don't meet those names until much, much later in education.

 

[dkotschessaa]

If I've got this right, revolutions in physics often come less out of completely original ideas and more out of tidying up or unifying already existing ideas. But it often takes some kind of imaginative leap to do so. Seems to be the case with Einstein as well as Newton - who admitted in his "shoulders of giants" quote that his work was only possible because of what others had done.

 

[G037H3]

Newton is underrated. Maxwell is underrated. Gauss is underrated.

Einstein is super overrated. Hawking is pretty overrated.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I can't speak for others, but for myself, I would say that I tend to overrate Newton. I give him a 9.7 or 9.8 on most days, but I might go to 9.9 on days when I am feeling especially generous. However, objectively, I know that 9.6 is as high as you can really go for someone like him.

 

[AlephZero]

First read (and understand!) the whole of "Principia". Then you are entitled to have an opinion whether or not Newton is over or under rated, IMHO.

Most of what people learned as "Newtonian mechanics" has the benefit of a few hundred years of hindsight, which somewhat dilutes the original "wow factor" - and Principia covers WAY more material than just the laws of motion, the universal law of gravity, and some applications to astronomy.

 

[FlexGunship]

Einstein is super overrated.

I know, right?

 

[lisab]

First read (and understand!) the whole of "Principia". Then you are entitled to have an opinion whether or not Newton is over or under rated, IMHO.

Most of what people learned as "Newtonian mechanics" has the benefit of a few hundred years of hindsight, which somewhat dilutes the original "wow factor" - and Principia covers WAY more material than just the laws of motion, the universal law of gravity, and some applications to astronomy.

True. When 'rating' historical figures, you must place them in the context of their time. Look where science was before Newton, then look at his contributions. He had extraordinary insight.

 

[dav2008]

 

[i_wish_i_was_smart]

Classic!

 

[Ghan-Furi]

I admire Newton's work and agree that he was a great scientist. He came up with many new original ideas. But there are many other scientists who are equally or perhaps more great who are not held as high as Newton. Some of the names which I could think of off hand are: Archimedes, Leibniz. My argument is simply that there are many other names as important as Newton, then why is he only held as high as sky in scientific field?

Please let me hear your opinions on this. Thanks a lot.

I don't think he is. The only thing you learn of his work is his 3 laws nothing else.
I think he deserve more credit.
Ghan-Furi

 

[discrete*]

I don't think he is. The only thing you learn of his work is his 3 laws nothing else.

Well this is just plain false.

 

[renz]

How is Einstein overrated?
If we are only considering Einstein in scientific community, really how is he overrated?
I never understand why people said that.

 

[discrete*]

Newton is underrated. Maxwell is underrated. Gauss is underrated.

Einstein is super overrated. Hawking is pretty overrated.

I agree with you, for the most part. Except there's a simple explanation as to why Einstein and Hawking seem overrated: because they're major figures in our culture. Einstein's face is recognized the world over, but many people cannot tell you what he actually did. Hawking is popular right now, because he's prolific and the media seems to focus on him a bit more than any other scientist.

Gauss and Maxwell are grossly underrated, to say the least.

 

[FlexGunship]

Well this is just plain false.

I know, right?

[PLAIN]http://stores.adayatthemarket.com/catalog/Fig%20Newton.jpg

 

[FlexGunship]

Gauss and Maxwell are grossly underrated, to say the least.

Meh, Gauss has a rifle in Halo, and Maxwell has his coffee.

 

[Gokul43201]

Newton is underrated. Maxwell is underrated. Gauss is underrated.

Einstein is super overrated. Hawking is pretty overrated.

I take it you have a pretty solid understanding of the contributions of these people.

I don't, so I defer to the judgments of people that do. e.g.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lev_Landau#Landau.27s_List

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I can't speak for others, but for myself, I would say that I tend to overrate Newton. I give him a 9.7 or 9.8 on most days, but I might go to 9.9 on days when I am feeling especially generous. However, objectively, I know that 9.6 is as high as you can really go for someone like him.

Oh come on! 9.65 at least.

 

[lisab]

I can't speak for others, but for myself, I would say that I tend to overrate Newton. I give him a 9.7 or 9.8 on most days, but I might go to 9.9 on days when I am feeling especially generous. However, objectively, I know that 9.6 is as high as you can really go for someone like him.

Meh, the East German judge would give an 8.6.

 

[G037H3]

I agree with you, for the most part. Except there's a simple explanation as to why Einstein and Hawking seem overrated: because they're major figures in our culture. Einstein's face is recognized the world over, but many people cannot tell you what he actually did. Hawking is popular right now, because he's prolific and the media seems to focus on him a bit more than any other scientist.

Gauss and Maxwell are grossly underrated, to say the least.

Poincare contributed more to physics than Einstein.

 

[Gokul43201]

Poincare contributed more to physics than Einstein.

So you can tell us what Einstein contributed to Physics?

 

[G037H3]

Photoelectric effect, building on Planck.

Theory of relativity, stolen from Poincare.

 

[Gokul43201]

Photoelectric effect, building on Planck.

Theory of relativity, stolen from Poincare.

Is that all?

 

[Hepth]

Is that all?

Yeah his career pretty much ended after 1906. Then he just went back to patent work. Just check out his wiki : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein

 

[Pythagorean]

Hi Pyth

I didn't know that. How? Who were his victims and why?

It's not known for sure what his methods really were (i.e. I was half-joking) but he was Warden of the Mint and he prosecuted counterfeiters and had them executed. He had the interrogation notes destroyed, so nobody knows for sure his interrogation methods, but I've also heard that Newton had a rack (maybe it's only supposed to be used for intimidation, not actual harm at the era? Or maybe Newton didn't even have a rack. Not sure.) But wouldn't a rack be a nice way to torture somebody without leaving obvious marks on their body?

I've heard speculations that he interrogated them about science and if they were ignorant (didn't agree with his view) he'd torture them or have them executed.

But really, I have no idea, I've never personally studied Newton's life, just heard stuff on the street.

Here's a book with some details about it: Newton and the Counterfeiter
http://www.minnesotareads.com/2009/06/Newton-and-the-counterfeiter/

A review of the book:

Levenson’s analysis of Isaac Newtown was no romanticized account of either Newton himself or life in England during the late 1600s and early 1700s. There were many graphic descriptions of the rough and filthy conditions persistent in London at that time: excrement in the streets, piles of both garbage & dead typhus victims, and detailed accounts of both hangings and torture by the rack are common are just a few. Newton himself, while rightly portrayed as a brilliant mind, was also fairly treated through Levenson’s examinations of his alchemist attempts to create gold, his strong emotional relationship with fellow mathematician Nicholas Fatio de Duillier, and his borderline torturous (albeit legal) prosecution of Chaloner.

 

[Loremaster]

I don't think Tesla is given enough credit for his contributions, especially because he is often overshadowed by Edison. Sure, Edison may have produced a larger volume of work in his lifetime, but pound for pound I think Tesla beats Edison in this regard.

While less of scientists in the strictest sense and more of engineers/inventors, I thought the inclusion of these two historical figures was appropriate nonetheless.

From personal experience, I don't think Gauss is underrated, he isn't called the Prince of Mathematics for nothing. I have seen his name pop up quite frequently.

 

[G037H3]

I don't think Tesla is given enough credit for his contributions, especially because he is often overshadowed by Edison. Sure, Edison may have produced a larger volume of work in his lifetime, but pound for pound I think Tesla beats Edison in this regard.

While less of scientists in the strictest sense and more of engineers/inventors, I think the inclusion of these two historical figures was appropriate nonetheless.

From personal experience, I don't think Gauss is underrated, he isn't called the Prince of Mathematics for nothing. I have seen his name pop up quite frequently.

Tesla was a genius. Edison was a lesser figure.

The reason I said that Gauss was underrated, as that I feel that not enough people recognize him as the greatest mathematician ever. :)

 

[dkotschessaa]

This discussion is making mathematics sound like american idol. I think itd be better to ask what we can contribute rather to the field rather then rate others.

 

[chaoseverlasting]

I can't speak for others, but for myself, I would say that I tend to overrate Newton. I give him a 9.7 or 9.8 on most days, but I might go to 9.9 on days when I am feeling especially generous. However, objectively, I know that 9.6 is as high as you can really go for someone like him.

How do you objectively come up with these ratings?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Photoelectric effect, building on Planck.

Theory of relativity, stolen from Poincare.

Poincare and Planck both built on Newton who built on Galileo who built on Aristotle. The scientific revolution wasn't such of a much. The scholastics were right after all, you could read Aristotle and do as well.

 

[Gokul43201]

Planck was among the first people to say Einstein was just plain wrong when he (Einstein) came up with the energy quantization explanation for the Photoelectric Effect. The two of them disagreed fundamentally (until Planck had to later change his position) on the utility of the quantum description of the excitations of a field. In a similar vein, Poincare' and Einstein differed fundamentally on the value of having an ether to measure real time and distance in.

Nevertheless, that's not the point I wanted to make with my probing. I was hoping to point out the sheer absurdity of passing judgment on the life contributions of other people without a strong understanding of most of their significant contributions.

If you pooh-pooh Einstein, I assume you are well-versed in special and general relativity, GR based cosmology, thermodynamics and statistical mechanics (especially things like diffusion and Bose-Einstein statistics), quantum mechanics, solid state physics and "little" things like the laser equations.

You talk about Gauss, I assume you've at least completed Disquisitiones.

To put down Edison, I expect one to have read the details of at least the most significant of his 1000-odd patents.

And so on...

If not, you are at best expressing someone else's opinion, without acknowledging it.

 

[humanino]

I was hoping to point out the sheer absurdity of passing judgment on the life contributions of other people without a strong understanding of most of their significant contributions.

+1

Some PF members too often overrate themselves.

 

[ThomasT]

I can't speak for others, but for myself, I would say that I tend to overrate Newton. I give him a 9.7 or 9.8 on most days, but I might go to 9.9 on days when I am feeling especially generous. However, objectively, I know that 9.6 is as high as you can really go for someone like him.

Well, yeah, on that scale.