Do you agree with these rankings?

Hasn't Mochizuki been exposed as a hack fraud now

Why are bohr and planck so low? Are quantum mechanics a meme?

b-b-bu-but muh Einstein!

>trained circus-monkey Mozart but not god-among-men Fourier

Those who can't do, teach. And those who can't teach, make "tier" threads.

Newton should be higher, if not top. Leibniz probably nearly under. Darwin was a well respected, and extremely influential naturalist. Turing should certainly be higher.

Why is Oiclid this low?

Do people not care about Eratosthenes? He was pretty good but I guess a little unnoticed because of being contemporary with Archie

Bill Nye should not even be considered

Poincare the last polymath is “good”. Godel and cantor need spots on the list as well.

>Feynman and Dostoevsky in the same tier

What is this even supposed to be a list of? I can't draw even a single similarity between those two people.

What did Darwin do to deserve subpar-tier

Newton and Darwin literally developed entire fields. Everyone else is just expanding on their work.

Newton and Darwin above all. Freud too. (fuck off elitist "psych isnt science" dumbfucks). Those 3 are without a doubt the most influential and greatest scientists of all time. No contest.

Nietsche is a hack. Replace him with schopenhauer

Tesla is a meme whos gone too far. belongs in subpar or good tier.

maxwell is too high. great tier.

move einstein up one or two. the photoelectric effect and the equivalence of energy with mass are two enormous developments, the impacts of which have not been fully realized yet

>no mention of Cantor
>no mention of Tarski
>no mention of Tao
shit list

I don't know what to say other than that you're completely wrong about everyone except Newton.

>Yuler not at the top
Lol hahaha

Euclid should be higher. He wrote the first ever perfect mathematical book.

Evolution is the most powerful explanatory tool of all time. It is a consideration in every area of biology from nano to macro. Not only is it powerful within biology, it is a major piece of empirical evidence for philosophers and anyone who wants to understand life. Religion dominated the globe for thousands of years. Absolutely dominated it. Evolution was thefirst major evidence that religion is wrong. The entirety of society was and is undergoing a shift to secularism and evidence thanks to evolution clearing the path.

The only way someone can deny Darwin's impact is if they don't understand it.

Nietsche had a huge ego and was only good at tearing things down. He never came up with solutions, never built a philosophy. All he did was critique others. He was a nag. An articulate nag.

Tesla was a wackjob. He wanted to fuck a pidgeon and denied basic scientific evidence. His obsession with perpetual energy was anti-scientific. He had good intentions, to improve society, but as far as science goes he was shitty. Conservation of energy, confirmed over and over through millions of experiments...Tesla ignored that to chase unicorns.

Einsteins early work that I mentioned are some of the most consequential in all of physics. Much of our technology comes back to his work. The quantized energy and mass-energy equivalency are another powerful explanatory tool that some of our best theories and technologies utilize

This is such a meme list.

I'd put Euler at the top of mine. I don't know why you have philosophers mixed in. They belong in a different category. I would have to put Kant at the top of that, but I disagree with most of what he says. Also, if you are going to have philosophers, you should have included Wittgenstein in the based tier.

Where the fuck is Terence Tao?

Where would Rutherford rank?

>Edison on the list at all.

May as well put Steve jobs up there with him

That is cute. Edison was a legitmate thinker. He was a rare inventor/scientist/businessman. People who hate on Edison are almost always losers. And yes, you can respect both Edison and Tesla.

Edison was basically Jobs and Woz combined in abilities. That is rare as fuck.

Nobody mentioned Curie yet? I assume that is a troll.

Tesla was a dreamer, he could touch stuff made of dreams but he also lived in the dream.

As for your criticism of Nietzsche
>what is the Ubermesch

90% OK need improvements.

Psych *may* be science but psychanalysis is not, you literally picked that shittiest psychologist possible bar maybe Lacan

Interesting. I guess I'll have to read up on him and his merits, all I ever heard was that he was an excellent businessman.

Composer ranks are cringe inducing. Not even including Pythagoras, Fux and Rameau s m h t b h f a m. OP just listed the three composers that show up the most on his Pandora® Classical Music Radio™ and ranked by personal taste. He didn't even bother looking into the development of music theory and aesthetics. tsk tsk.

Move up Nietzsche and replace him with max stirner

this is a Christian board

When did this happen?

Why is Einstein so low? His miraculous year is one of the greatest scientific feats of all time.

Darwin is literally the proto-Einstein of the biology. They have to be much higher

I agree but poor Darwin.

Were da kangz n shiet?
Dey shu be da orinals, cracker science jus took everytang from da true science niggas.

This but unironically

von Neumann is in the right spot, Feynman and Einstein should be higher on the list.

What the fuck is Nietzsche, Bill Nye and Neil DeGrasse Tyson doing in there? They are not scientists. One was a philosopher, the other two are communicators.
>but they have majored in STEM
Which makes them as scientists as Edward Witten is a historian.
You did that so just you could hate on popsci, didn't you?

The idea of the unsconscious mind itself is enough to put him in a high spot among scientists, even if he was mistaken about how it works. Freud would probably deeply reject today's psychoanalysis, as he strived to make it as scientific as possible.

Unconscious/conscious theory and ego theory are again, two of the most powerful explanations ever. Theyre so powerful that they are etched into the background of everyones intuition. Most people already operate under the understanding of consciousness theory, they just dont realize it. Thats how great it is.

Also, conscious theory is important in biology and artificial intelligence. Its the accepted framework.

Science is not a collection of fields, its a framework of thought. Observe, gather information, connect it together, test its explanatory power, consider conflicting evidence/theories and revise when necessary. This is precisely what Freud did with the human psyche.

Thats kind of what I said. Tesla was a dreamer. Dreams arent science. He did some good things, developed useful inventions but he didnt do it in a scientific manner. Thus he is overrated

At best ubermensch is a weird critique of religion. Which I gave him credit for. He was a critic.

The whole nihilism thing is unscientific, egoist nonsense. There is tangible proof that feelings do matter (which nietsche admits). The part he ignores is that other people, with similar biological and psychological function to yours, also have meaningful theories. He ignored that and arbitrarily decided it didnt matter.

A scientist wouldve took that truth and worked it into a scientific framework. Which had already been done by better philosophers. See utilitarianism

where is george washington carver?

>Darwin that low
Plato pls

galoisrepresentations.wordpress.com/2017/12/17/the-abc-conjecture-has-still-not-been-proved/

The comments are also relevant

>Darwin is literally the proto-Einstein of the biology.
No he is not.

OP include Mendel, he was a fucking genius.

"Much of our technology comes back to his work"
>muh theoretical foundations

Fixed it

Tesla can drop two, Riemann and Euclid should be gods, wtf is Beethoven and Mozart doing here there not scientists... OP reshape this ranking. The great tiers should be higher up. They've done a whole lot. Shakespeare? Wtf gtfo

No Godel? He should be in god tier
Dr Broglie and Dirac also deserves a place in like the third tier

What criterion are you using? One might expect your list to be about people who have contributed to STEM, yet your list is interspersed with musicians and writers. It's also odd to me that you would place Dawkins and Dennett on the same plane as Nye and Tyson. The former do produce work outside of their atheism proselytizing, while the latter don't. In essence, your list is shit. Start over. And get rid of Friedrich "3 edgy 5 me" Nietzsche.

>Terrence 'exploding water' Tao
LMAO

>Darwin literally developed entire fields.

THANK YOU see I am shocked that Darwin is not recognized at its true value. He has completely changed our view of what the living being is, its origins, its present and its future.

It's really the Einstein of biology. So obviously, there are no beautiful equations (it's biology) but there is a world before and after Darwin, as there is a world before and after Einstein.

>Evolution is the most powerful explanatory tool of all time. It is a consideration in every area of biology from nano to macro. Not only is it powerful within biology, it is a major piece of empirical evidence for philosophers and anyone who wants to understand life. Religion dominated the globe for thousands of years. Absolutely dominated it. Evolution was thefirst major evidence that religion is wrong. The entirety of society was and is undergoing a shift to secularism and evidence thanks to evolution clearing the path.
>The only way someone can deny Darwin's impact is if they don't understand it.

Truly beautiful. This is Darwin.

not to mention quantum darwinism

>no Wegener

>maxwell is too high

YOU!... You burn in hell for saying that.
Maxwell is correctly placed.

lesswrong.com/lw/kr/an_alien_god/

adam smith, Léon Walras, or alfred marshall instead of karl marx.

remove marx add hegel

Turing should be at the top

Serious question why does the general public not know more about Von Neumann?

He converted to Catholicism. Same reason you hear about Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity and not Einstein, Poincare, Lorenz, Lorentz, and Maxwell's Theory of Special Relativity.

Modern theories of evolution are mathematical theories of population genetics. The math is very similar to statistical physics.

See Joseph Felsenstein's Theoretical Evolutionary Genetics:
evolution.gs.washington.edu/pgbook/pgbook.pdf

thank you for the pdf

Sagan?

>t. someone who does not understand nietzsche or philosophy

God is already defined as "the one above all" I don't get your chart.

I've studied philosophy and Nietzsche. Nietzsche is just an edgelord novelist larping as a philosopher.

No, because you are mixing scientists with philosophers, inventors, and science spokesmen.

Mozart > Bach > Beethoven
I'd put them into demi-god, great, and good, respectively.

>Mozart>Bach
Bach is the absolute pinnacle of music. Everything post-Bach is just a slow decline. Stop falling for the Mozart memes. Amadeus is just a fucking movie.

>Stop falling for the Mozart memes
I should be saying that to you

the official ranking

Dawkins must be brainlet tier, why are these two in the blacklist

You can tell this list was made by an alt right brainlet with Einstein not in god tier and Dawkins in shit tier.

Einstein is amazing. His research papers are the highest grade.

Ramanujan's research papers are shit tier. He didn't use his talent in the right direction.

>Freud would probably deeply reject today's psychoanalysis, as he strived to make it as scientific as possible.
which is why he didn't give a shit about empirical evidence I guess

Complete shit
He had no education tho

It isn't clear what any of the criteria any of the posters here use for juding these individuals. What is the measure?

Difficulty of the work they did? Scientific impact? Philosophical impact? Social and cultural impact? Number of times they're mentioned in google-searches? Their political and economic views?

In terms of cultural and scientific, cultural and philosophical impacts, Darwin should top them all. No single person has so thoroughly revolutionized humanity's view of itself. Even if you are a creationist moron who hates Darwin, you can't deny his legacy.

I think you'll find that is the widely accepted classification, brainlet.

less than 50% acceptance of any one of the many interpretations of quantum theory says yes.

did some work with radiation I guess.

Alvin Weinberg should be on the list, if anyone from the nuclear field.

is this random ?

It's probably because a lot of people had similarish ideas at around the same time, and Darwin was only really right about heredity among offspring and natural selection driving evolution. He had no idea about genetic information and so forth but he was on the right track compared to Lamarck for example.

The two greatest things Darwin accomplished were the Origin of Species book and that joint project he helped start to build an artificial cloud forest on Ascension Island, which not only worked but is actually expanding on its own. Origin of species led to a massive overhaul of how people did biology, and Ascension island stands to prove that ecosystems can self assemble even with a hodgepodge of species selected from all over the world.

dont hit me too hard, you have a chance to enlighten someone new, but who is at the top of this list? i do not recognize his face.

>natural selection
>only
get off this board

You're thinking of John Nash

It hasn't happened, just opinions so far and rants about the readability of the papers. No one has actually disproved IUT and found flaws yet so is lying, that is just a article and thread of opinions on why his papers suck and not that IUT is inconsistent.

desu I hate Krauss for his opinions on manned space travel.
I get that he thinks going to space should be about nothing more than gathering scientific data, but realistically we only study things to gain an understanding so that we can make use of whatever we're studying. Yeah yeah, the guy in the lab does it because he wants to 'further the knowledge of mankind', but the lab is being funded because the guys with money want a leg up on the competition when it comes to making products that are better than anyone else's.
Chemistry was funded because Kangs wanted gold and everyone thought alchemy was possible.
Physics was funded because governments wanted to exploit both the energy potential and the weapons potential of unstable atoms.
Rockets were developed as a means of delivering nuclear warheads tens of thousands of kilometers away, and the manned space race occurred as essentially a technological dick waving contest showcasing how reliable and accurate our missile guidance technology was. Etc.

Space exploration for scientific gain has been putting along using probes, but it's easy to think someone could come along and pull the plug simply because it doesn't really matter if we use gravometric data to study the interior of Europa or not. The biggest benefit of the space science missions to any administration right now is the administration's ability to say 'we discovered this this and this during our term'.

If Krauss wants to see real scientific data from Mars, he should be advocating that we set up a colony that likes to build everything out of steel, which has mining equipment and furnaces of their own, and send as many people as we can, because the amount of geologic surveying they'd do in a day simply looking for good sources of iron ore would reduce all rover science done to date to a blip. Same goes for every other object in the solar system.

>alt-right
Putting a LITERAL poo in loo high up in the list.
NOT putting Werner "Heil Hitler" Heisenberg first.