Why aren't there famous chemists/mathematicians in the public?

  • Thread starter Thread starter member 392791
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Stephen hawking
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the visibility and recognition of chemists and mathematicians in public compared to physicists, particularly focusing on why figures like Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking are more widely known. Participants explore the implications of public interest in various scientific fields, the marketing of scientists, and the historical context of famous figures in chemistry and mathematics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that physics may be more interesting to the public due to its grand themes, while others argue that chemistry and mathematics also have notable figures.
  • One participant points out that many famous chemists and mathematicians exist, but they may not be recognized by the general public.
  • There is a discussion about the historical significance of figures like Avogadro, Boyle, and Curie, with some questioning how well-known they are among the public.
  • Some argue that chemistry does not lend itself well to popular science communication compared to physics, which often features more dramatic concepts like cosmic explosions.
  • Participants note that while names like Pasteur and Curie may be known, the public's understanding of their contributions may be limited.
  • There is a debate on whether the average person can identify what Einstein is famous for, with some suggesting that misconceptions exist about his contributions.
  • Some participants express that contemporary mathematicians do not seem to seek public recognition as much as physicists do, citing figures like Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Brian Greene as examples of public-facing scientists.
  • Concerns are raised about the difficulty of communicating complex mathematical ideas to a lay audience without oversimplifying them.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the reasons for the disparity in public recognition between physicists and other scientists. Multiple competing views remain regarding the factors influencing public interest and recognition.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight the limitations of public science education and the influence of media on public perception of science. There is also a recognition that historical context plays a role in how figures are remembered and recognized today.

  • #31
Evo said:
Uhm, Marne, you know I like you and think you're a great person, father, pet owner, etc... Have you been living under a rock? :cry:

Some of those names sound familiar.
 
Chemistry news on Phys.org
  • #32
Drakkith said:
Some of those names sound familiar.
Et tu, Drakkith?
 
  • #33
I was at a school yesterday and asked the kids if they knew who einstein was and what he ways famous for ... one kid said he invented the single use mug, and another said he had the uncanny ability to predict whether it was half full or half empty.
 
  • #34
Out of those you mentioned, Pavarotti and Wright were the only ones I knew xD.
 
  • #35
Chronos said:
I was at a school yesterday and asked the kids if they knew who einstein was and what he ways famous for ... one kid said he invented the single use mug, and another said he had the uncanny ability to predict whether it was half full or half empty.
Worse than I expected. At least the non-science friends I polled knew he was a famous scientist, they just weren't sure why. :cry:
 
  • #36
WannabeNewton said:
Out of those you mentioned, Pavarotti and Wright were the only ones I knew xD.
Where is that fainting smiley from chat?
 
  • #37
Evo said:
Where is that fainting smiley from chat?
It has died my dear Evo. Tis' gone with the wind. But in all reality I have no idea what you mean lol.
 
  • #38
Evo said:
Et tu, Drakkith?

Alas, me as well Evo. But have no fear, my lack of knowledge on potent potables is just as bad.
 
  • #39
Oh dear. Ok, this is a science forum, not a culture forum. Now can people understand how average Americans don't know what Einstein did?

But ask them about Kim Kardashian, Justin Bieber, and I don't even know who else is supposed to be famous.
 
  • #40
Evo said:
Uhm, Marne, you know I like you and think you're a great person, father, pet owner, etc... Have you been living under a rock? :cry:

I like my rock! I recently painted a smile face on it and everything! But seriously though, I never had an interest in paintings or musical theater. I balance out a little bit by knowing many writers, and composers, but I can look at art and just go "uhh...it's pretty? Maybe, I don't know, help me!"

I went to the Nutcracker once with an ex girlfriend, and I got so bored that I left for a 2 hour smoking break and just told her I couldn't get back in once I left. She figured out I was lying when I did the same thing with Cats.
 
  • #41
Einstein is famous also because he is considered as the most intelligent human ever lived on earth.
 
  • #42
jobyts said:
Einstein is famous also because he is considered as the most intelligent human ever lived on earth.
That is quite subjective. I could just as easily and justifiably say either Gauss or Newton was the most intelligent human to have ever lived.
 
  • #43
WannabeNewton said:
That is quite subjective. I could just as easily and justifiably say either Gauss or Newton was the most intelligent human to have ever lived.

True. But non-science people are usually going to say Einstein or Hawking. I don't think many people even know who Gauss is :frown:
 
  • #44
jobyts said:
Einstein is famous also because he is considered as the most intelligent human ever lived on earth.

I bet it's the other way around. :-p
 
  • #45
I have no idea who Neils deTysse Gryson is, but I am sure the reciprocal is true, and I'm counting on all of you not to tell him.
 
  • #46
zoobyshoe said:
I have no idea who Neils deTysse Gryson is, but I am sure the reciprocal is true, and I'm counting on all of you not to tell him.
<snork> Neils deTysse Gryson. I love you zoob, you made me laugh and forget the pigs for a moment.
 
  • #47
Evo said:
<snork> Neils deTysse Gryson. I love you zoob, you made me laugh and forget the pigs for a moment.
Don't worry about the pigs. Neils deTysse Gryson will solve the pig problem with physics, I bet.
 
  • #48
zoobyshoe said:
Don't worry about the pigs. Neils deTysse Gryson will solve the pig problem with physics, I bet.

Absolutely. And he will begin with the general solution, a spherical pig of uniform density.
 
  • #49
lisab said:
...a spherical pig of uniform density.
I'll believe that when pigs have wings.
 
  • #50
Too bad wings on a pig doesn't guarantee its flight capability
 
  • #51
Evo said:
We are on a science website, so I would hope that people here know about Einstein. The average American on the street knows the name from jokes and media, and perhaps even know E = mc2 but I would wager that most have no clue what that means or what his main accomplishments were.

When I say that I don't think of Einstein first, it doesn't mean that I don't know of Einstein's role in the creation of the bomb. Trust me, I know it well. He laid the theoretical groundwork, and he even encouraged FDR to build the bomb. But he never actively participated in the nuts and bolts of it. He also wanted it used against the Germans (whom he felt were getting close to a nuclear breakthrough themselves). In the end, after the two bombs were unleashed on Japan, he condemned their use.

Oppenheimer was, in contrast, directly involved in the Manhattan project. He was in favour of the bombs being used in Japan (at least until they were actually deployed, and he realized the horror of what he'd wrought). He is known as the "Father of the Atom Bomb" with good reason.

That's why I think of J. R. Oppenheimer when I think of the atom bomb. Not because I don't know who Einstein was, or his role in the whole thing.
 
  • #52
I've never really thought about what the public thinks of Einstein. When I hear "Einstein", I think "photoelectric effect". Probably because I can't count how many profs have explained that he won his Nobel for it, not relativity, as many believe.

I am a product of my education, I guess. :biggrin:
 
  • #53
lisab said:
he won his Nobel for it (photoelectric effect), not relativity

Nobel Prize Committee said:
The Nobel Prize in Physics 1921 was awarded to Albert Einstein "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect"

Nobel Prize website

In order to say that he didn't receive the prize for relativity, you would have to read that as "for his services (and by the way, we don't mean relativity) to Theoretical Physics". I don't read it that way.
 
  • #54
PhizKid said:
Too bad wings on a pig doesn't guarantee its flight capability
Why? Do you really want pigs flying around?
 
  • #55
zoobyshoe said:
Why? Do you really want pigs flying around?
What other way would a spherical pig with wings fly?
 
  • #56
Jimmy Snyder said:
What other way would a spherical pig with wings fly?
Not the point, is it? The point is pig bombs.
 

Similar threads

March 14 coming (Einstein, Hawking, Pi-Day)
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K
Stephen Hawking: Hero Worship or Humility?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Physics Career outlook for a 38 y/o starting physics undergrad?
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
High School Question about the Entropy of a Black Hole Singularity
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
MHB Why are the most famous scientists physicists and not mathematicians?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
Graduate Were Hawking Radiation & Singularity Theorem Controversial in 1965?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Undergrad Do famous physicists (Kaku and Hawking) pass off asumptions as fact?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Graduate Almost uncontrollable fascination with astro/quantum physics
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Graduate Why Stephen Hawking says universe can create itself from nothing?
  • · Replies 81 ·
3
Replies
81
Views
17K
Any recommendtions for self-studying physics?
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
7K