Friendly Reminder

Shus, we were talking bout the retard on a wheelchair, not the space negro.

What if i don't give a fuck about any of these men, and instead care about the fuckin' science and its concepts.

You mean Leibniz?

This thread is about scientists, I don't think it has anything to do with cancer.

Of course. And Rosalind Franklin.

I know names not faces, but I know that hawking and dawkins made real contributions to their respective fields.

I know it's a bait thread

Where would people like Donald Johanson and Tim White go on that chart?

...

>Hawking
>pseudo-intellectual
ok, you triggered me

>all the "pseudo-intellectuals" are still living

>all the "actual scientists" are now dead

Surely there are actual scientists in the 21st century?

Hawkings Degrasse and Kaku are all scientists, educated and with published papers. No amount of shitposting will change that

so is Krauss

not so sure about Kaku

Sure, I guess we can pretend that Dawkins didn't propose ideas that revolutionized the way scientists view evolution because he's an elitist douchebag. That's how science works, right? Right???

These are the scientists we need but don't deserve.

>Also I don't see what Hawking is doing in that list
isn't he a theoretical physicalist?
doesn't actually do any science just thinks about abstract concepts and created a theory upon it.

>Gödel
>Scientist

Gerdle was a mathematician, therefore a scientist.

>doesn't actually do any science just thinks about abstract concepts and created a theory upon it.
Well no fucking shit. You can't do much else when you're paralyzed and wheelchair bound.

Dawkins as well. It's true for Harris and for Nye who is "only" a science teacher.

Should I quit science if I have no favorite scientist?

You are not your own favorite scientist?

That's how I feel about myself, to be honest. I don't know anybody who's smarter than me.

One of my Physics profs went to Uni where kaku was working; he claimed that Kaku was a good, serious physicist at the time

The fuck are you talking about, Stephen Hawking discovered the process in which black holes decay.

>just thinks about abstract concepts and created a theory upon it.
What the fuck do you think half the people in the second list did to earn their positions there?
>Higgs
>Feynman
>Einstein
>Bohr
>Schrodinger
Theoretical physicists.

The fuck do you think "doing science" is? Lab monkey work?

Mathematicians are not scientists

...

>Gerdle
kys

This is AUTISM. Vaccines ruining our kids. Sad!

Yeah, just look at Hawking's face. That's a case of extreme autism if I've ever seen one.

Is he drooling? LOL! Wake up people. Vaccines!

This is about right but idk about le black science man's actual achievements.

...

He did some research but hey it turns out you can't publish that much when you're busy doing public education.
Nothing wrong with that, we need people to turn candidates to science. I wouldn't want a world in which every youngster competent in math decides to be an actuary or a quantitative analyse.

Cock-oo *

Musk is more of a business man

Fixed

He did some relevant work in string theory and wrote a few textbooks. His book on strings, CFTs and topology is pretty comfy.

lol

Musk isn't a scientist, he's a businessman.
Beyond that, you seem to have a problem with modern scientists who publish.

Guess what retard, all the scientists in the past that you find acceptable, also published and had you been around in their time you'd have thrown a fucking fit that they had upset your fucking applecart too, just like millions of similar morons did.

This same timid mentality racks the USA at this point. Fuck the brave and free. The US is consumed by the fear of the unknown that change brings, and lazily looks to the past with absurdly romantic rose-colored glasses.

The day you actually read the works of half the "actual scientists" you list, you're going to feel fucking dippy as shit when you see what passed for rigorous testing, evidence & reasoning in the past.

It represents the view of science put forward until about 1992.

Before the entire journals of many scientists started getting published, and everyone started noticing a trend of chicks dreaming up & doing the science behind closed doors while their husbands and bosses went out and worked on selling it.

More and more keep getting discovered.

>only aware of Dawkins pop-theology books

kek
you goofed

>idolizing people instead of ideas

You are not a "pseudo-intellectual" for liking someone.

Just report these bait threads.

>This same timid mentality racks the USA at this point. Fuck the brave and free. The US is consumed by the fear of the unknown that change brings, and lazily looks to the past with absurdly romantic rose-colored glasses.

Huh? This is about half of the U.S. The other half orgasm when they think about "muh change" and "muh progress," as if change is somehow inherently good. There's no middle ground here.

Brian Cox is a sitting Manchester Prof who is still publishing. Really don't understand OP

>Pseudo-intellectual "scientists"

Mfw they're the only people helping with funding actual science by getting people interested.

OP thinks of the modern scientists publishing, as authors, not scientists.

...he doesn't realize that the useful results that makes those "real" scientists noteworthy, also published, and each in their day was also an author, and each also published a hell of a lot of rubbish, because the overall wealth of knowledge available was not great, and even what was solid was not pervasive. Few had Newtons resources, and those that didn't had plenty of stupid and just plain wrong ideas about every manner of thing.

user just knows Einstein published Relativity and it was a hit, and Sam Harris told Christfags and Muslims to chill the fuck out and apply their reasoning to their faith, and it didn't sound like science to him, so... fuck all these new guys talking about ideas and shit yaknow? yaknow???

>The other half orgasm when they think about "muh change" and "muh progress,"

>...as if change is somehow inherently good.

Change is good though. Without change you have stagnation and you don't get evolution. What part of change and progress is bad?

>There's no middle ground here.

Of course there's no middle ground. You either change/progress or you have no change/progress. You can't have half change, half no change.

Nice memes you've got there

inspirehep.net/author/profile/M.Kaku.1
inspirehep.net/author/profile/L.M.Krauss.1
inspirehep.net/author/profile/S.W.Hawking.1
inspirehep.net/author/profile/B.E.Cox.1

Though I'll admit Krauss does have his retard moments and that Kaku has lost his way.

He doesn't have any. He failed out of a PhD program at a state university because 'muh racism' and then was promptly accepted into an Ivy League PhD program. Since getting his PhD he's basically published nothing.

>[Citations needed]

>Change is good though. Without change you have stagnation and you don't get evolution. What part of change and progress is bad?
I offer a counterexample.

The rise of Hitler and Nazi Germany was a big change for Germany.

You claim that this change is great, because hey, at least Germany isn't sitting there doing nothing!

This is dumb for obvious reasons.

>Of course there's no middle ground. You either change/progress or you have no change/progress. You can't have half change, half no change.
I'm referring to the ideological mindsets of Americans. Most Americans seem to be on the extremes: either very conservative and looking at the past through "rose-colored glasses" or very progressive, looking to the future with misguided optimism. Very few people seem to be reasonable, realizing the pros and cons of both sides, and many people will claim their side is more reasonable than the other.

He does have some publications en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson#Research_publications

He just focused on being a science communicator, which is good for getting science projects funded.

why do all of these eggheads have receding hairlines?

>Its a /pol/ gets triggered the national academy of science is over 90% atheist in a 3% atheist country so they dig out scientists from the time we didn't even understand how brains worked episode
Ayyyy

Still waiting.

>I offer a counterexample.
>The rise of Hitler and Nazi Germany was a big change for Germany.
>You claim that this change is great,

It was a great change for Germany early on. It's just about the guidance.

>because hey, at least Germany isn't sitting there doing nothing!

Because that was working so well for them against the French in the wake of WW1.

>I'm referring to the ideological mindsets of Americans. Most Americans seem to be on the extremes: either very conservative and looking at the past through "rose-colored glasses" or very progressive, looking to the future with misguided optimism. Very few people seem to be reasonable, realizing the pros and cons of both sides, and many people will claim their side is more reasonable than the other.

Not just Americans. Happens here too. Left vs. Right politics are ridiculous.

Musk will look cute as a trap tbqh

Dawkins didnt revolutionize anything. He popularized gene-selection theory and defended it against other alternatives, he didnt invent or discover anything. His chair is "public understanding of science"
If you want someone revolutionary in the same field see motoo kimura, lynn margulis or leigh van valen

Dawkins was always a joke

Pants on head retarded

R8 8/8, gr8 b8 m8.

>phyiscalist
lol

Leave, lol

>biology
>a hard science

Dawkins was a pretty legit biologist from the 70s to mid 90s.

ebinly mene'd lad

Please explain how biology is a hard science.

how is it not you stupid faggot?

>hurr durr only my field is TRUE le science!
You people are the cancer of academia

Didn't Kaku play a role in furthering string theory?
Hawking did important work on black holes and GR?
And even Dawkins did important work in evolutionary biology?

Also, why do Pseuds hate science popularization so much?
If it is done properly like in the Selfish Gene it is a great thing. After all a little knowledge is far better than nothing at all.

But mathematics IS the only true science. This is an objective fact. You can spout memes at me all you want, but that's not going to change the fact that everything proven in mathematics is 100% true and not subject to subjective interpretation. "Biology is a real science because my feelings said so" is not an argument.

>Also, why do Pseuds hate science popularization so much?
They obviously don't, otherwise OP wouldn't have Feynman in the "actual scientists" section.

see
Dawkins never did any scientific work, he only popularized one theory on where selection occurs

Harris may be a lightweight in terms of published and peer-reviewed science, but his various talking points are always well-reasoned and not beholden to religious, ideological or partisan identity. He makes good arguments and is willing to concede if proven wrong. Definitely counts as a proper intellectual in my book.

>not beholden to religious, ideological or partisan identity.

LOL

Actually, the argument seems to be that biology isn't a real science because your feelings say so.

Though, honestly, who cares.

Great argument, friend.

In all seriousness, Dawkins mememetics is shit and I read he got the selfish gene thing absolutely wrong. See Yaneer Bar Yam and others.

This

prove it then.

based Gregor mendel.

What is "doing science"?

It's, like, pouring chemicals in beakers and watching stuff explode! :^)

haha totally :)

>no Stephen Wolfram

Where the hell are Turing and Ramanujan reee

Inb4 searching on wolframalpha

>unironically falling for the tesla cult memes

Dawkins only debates religion. A real scientist wouldn't waste their time with that shit. When was the last scientific publication he has made? 2004?

>Who is noether

You fucking idiots