Would you rather be an influential mathematician/physicist or politican?

[Constantinos]

I think a politician can contribute much more to science than a scientist can. There is so much a genius scientist can do, but a politician can get the money to flow in science, and then there will be opportunity for many geniuses to flourish and develop their ideas.

Besides, the most pressing problems the world faces today are political in nature, not scientific. If for example one managed to wipe out poverty from India, then millions of people would have the potential to pursue their dreams and contribute positively to the world, and many of them would contribute to science.

I'd still not want to be a politician because I'd never enjoy it.

Knowledge of the natural sciences, mathematics and philosophy is much more valueable to me because it is useful, doesn't become easily obsolete, its closer to certainty and it is about a much greater part of the world than human affairs and of course it affects even them. It also helps to filter out junk political opinions, like not teaching Evolution to schools, or the superiority of X race to Y race.

Knowledge of politics is MUCH more useful, but becomes easily obsolete, is not at all certain (political ideologies for example) and is only about a much smaller part of the world.

 

[gaussianblur]

TO the last poster:

Philosophy is pseudoscience.

FACT. You can't BACT up philosophy with evidence, studies, etc.

I might get a lot of flack-flakes for this, but it's almost as bad as string theory!

 

[Constantinos]

Philosophy is not a science, as well as mathematics (in my view) and I'm not claiming that in my post.

Also if we take this definition for pseudoscience:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience" [Broken]

then I don't see how it's a pseudoscience either. As far as I know, mainstream philosophers don't claim to be doing science.

And philosophy isn't all that "bad". The scientific method comes from philosophy! Or the fact that we accept that the world is knowable and it can be known through experience (empiricism). How could a physicist proceed to do physics if he/she believed that we can't know anything of the world that exists outside our senses?

 

[Galron]

Philosophy is not a science, as well as mathematics (in my view) and I'm not claiming that in my post.

Also if we take this definition for pseudoscience:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience" [Broken]

then I don't see how it's a pseudoscience either. As far as I know, mainstream philosophers don't claim to be doing science.

And philosophy isn't all that "bad". The scientific method comes from philosophy! Or the fact that we accept that the world is knowable and it can be known through experience (empiricism). How could a physicist proceed to do physics if he believed that we can't know anything of the world that exists outside our senses?

Dude we're only messing about it's a harmless jappery. Maths is not science philosophy is not science, you will win no Nobel prize for either. It's cool.

Philosophy has always shaped our ability to reason about reasons: it is perhaps pivotal, sadly most Scientists never realise that logic and the way we think about thought matters little to thought. Way it is.

It's no accident that before the 19th century most scientists were also philosophers.

Standing on the shoulders of great men means about as much as standing to most people. Again it's the way it is and no one cares that all the great physicists, scientists, and educated men drew much on all the great Philosophers. It's not a race. It's a team effort.

 

[Astronuc]

Like would you rather be someone like einstein, witten, newton or gauss or be a politician like Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, Obama, etc.

I prefer to do both anonymously. I don't care for celebrity.

 

[flyingpig]

If you are a physicist/mathematician and you are influential, chances are you will have something named after you. Money can't buy that right? Right...?