Is the Nobel Prize Truly the Pinnacle of Achievement?

[catdogking]

what is your opinion on the noble prize...

i've always thought... that the best of the best... the best chemists in the world, the best physicist, the best economist etc... are awarded noble prizes...

so in essence.. a noble laureate, is one of the best in that field in the world...

but is that true??

i mean I am sure there are many brilliant physicist and chemist out there that never won a noble prize...

i mean,when you look at it... it is peer-chosen...

im sure there could be political reasons for choosing

im not a expert on the noble prize...

but people i guess see it as what every scientist strives for, which I am sure is true

but... just what is your opinion on it

 

[turbo]

First off, it's the Nobel prize. People in each field pick the winners in their own specialties. You might want to Google it and find the Wiki.

 

[catdogking]

First off, it's the Nobel prize. People in each field pick the winners in their own specialties. You might want to Google it and find the Wiki.

i know that... its just...

are nobel prize winners really the best of the best in that field

 

[AmritpalS]

i know that... its just...

are nobel prize winners really the best of the best in that field

The Nobel prize doesn't necessarily recognize the "best" in a particular field. It gives recognition to a particular scientist that has accomplished something of a high magnitude which deserves recognition.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

The awarding of the Nobel Prize needs to be a televised event.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The prize is for the science, not for the scientist.

 

[Drakkith]

Per wiki on the prize:

Alfred Nobel left his fortune to finance annual prizes to be awarded "to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind." He stated that the Nobel Prizes in Physics should be given "to the person who shall have made the most important 'discovery' or 'invention' within the field of physics."

Notice that this has nothing about which person is the better scientist, but about which ones made the most important contributions to society. It is up to you to decide if this makes someone better than someone else.

 

[Topher925]

The bottom line is that politics has a lot to do with some of the prizes; as in all things, you need to decided for yourself which prizes are deserved and which are merely political or philosophical statements.

This is why I always ignore that prizes that are outside the fields that are outside of the sciences. The Nobel prize for physics and chemistry have always seemed for the most part just to me. Although I have mixed feelings about the prize for Graphene as it hasn't really shown all that much usefulness yet.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

Fun fact about Alfred Nobel: He create dynamite, and nearing his death, he came to the realization that people knew and recognized him for creating a newer and safer explosive, but he knew that he wanted to be remembered for his passions of science, literature, economics, medicine, etc, so in his will he left the statement that a large sum of his money would be devoted to awarding those who were beneficial to society in the aforementioned categories.

I've also seen several websites claim that, when his brother died, his local newspaper botched the obituary and instead had written a short blurb about Alfred Nobel instead of his brother, and he was ashamed to see that they had only mentioned how he invented dynamite, and didn't touch the subjects of his intellectual passions throughout life, which fueled his idea to give away virtually all of his fortune for that cause.

I don't know how credible that last story is though.

 

[micromass]

The OP is gone, so this thread can be locked.