![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mandragoraWho would any of you say is the most famous scientist - after Einstein - of all time. If you were to say that someone is so brilliant that they could be the next Einstein or [ ]. Who would the 'or' be?
For me the name that immediately springs to mind is Newton. But is that because I'm British? What if you're American? Or Canadian? Or any other nationality, come to that. (Yes, it is for a story). I mean, Newton is much venerated in Britain, but that could be partly because he was one hell of a self-publicist.
The other name I think of is Hawking. But, again, he's a Brit and he has the whole crippled genius thing going on, which makes him much more visible to the public's eye than your usual scientific type. I mean, to produce anything at all, let alone a best-selling book, when fighting against a recalcitrant body is amazing in and of itself and I don't know whether the calibre of his work is *that* well received by those who can actually critique it. Which most definitely doesn't include me (there's a reason I'm a lawyer and not involved in any type of work where scientific know-how is usually required).
Anyhow, all comments very welcome.
ETA And... we have a winner. That's four for four. Newton it is. Thank you all for your comments - very much appreciated.
For me the name that immediately springs to mind is Newton. But is that because I'm British? What if you're American? Or Canadian? Or any other nationality, come to that. (Yes, it is for a story). I mean, Newton is much venerated in Britain, but that could be partly because he was one hell of a self-publicist.
The other name I think of is Hawking. But, again, he's a Brit and he has the whole crippled genius thing going on, which makes him much more visible to the public's eye than your usual scientific type. I mean, to produce anything at all, let alone a best-selling book, when fighting against a recalcitrant body is amazing in and of itself and I don't know whether the calibre of his work is *that* well received by those who can actually critique it. Which most definitely doesn't include me (there's a reason I'm a lawyer and not involved in any type of work where scientific know-how is usually required).
Anyhow, all comments very welcome.
ETA And... we have a winner. That's four for four. Newton it is. Thank you all for your comments - very much appreciated.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 1 June 2005 19:28 (UTC)So, I don't think he'd think of her even though I did.
Very sorry to hear about your mobile phone woes. Has it turned up as yet? It's really horrible losing it, as I know all too well.
no subject
Date: 2 June 2005 14:41 (UTC)Rosalind Franklin (another physical chemist) was the woman who did the X-ray crystallography that Watson and Crick used to propose the structure of DNA.
no subject
Date: 7 June 2005 05:35 (UTC)#1. Advances in medicine have made a DAMN big difference in our quality of life, and our very life expectancy. Marginalizing medical research as 'soft' science strikes me as soft-headed.
#2. Marie Curie was a chemist, not a medical doctor. Yes, her (and her husband's) experiments with radioactive substances led to medical treatments, but they also paved the way for the atomic bomb. I can't think of a more macho kind of science than nuclear physics and blowing shit up.
Incidentally, yes, I found my phone! Thank you for asking, and the two days it was gone were acutely terrible.