Why are the scientist of today so shitty compared to 90-100 years ago...

everything got more complex
a long time ago scientists revolutionised the world with pretty simple concepts even (you) could've come up with.
also: world war 2, global capitalism

I don't need to prove you wrong. You may well be right.
But in my opinion, and I have no data or facts to back it up, it's hard to simply assume that's the case.
Scientific breakthroughs aren't exactly easy to achieve, and perhaps because of the expansion in different fields of science, it's hard to get more scientists working on a specific area, which would increase probability for a new breakthrough.
Considering the growth of general consumption, also, many great minds with access to information end up "wasting" their talents in different, more commercial fields of technology.
I mean, it's just as plausible as your assumptions.

Lol what a bullshit argument. If you look at the physics community towards the end of the 19th century, many scientists were saying that all physics had been discovered. Classical physics was the end all, be all, and that the remainder of physics would simply be better measurements. For fucks sake, even Lord Kelvin was quoted as saying: "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement."
Then a couple years after his death Einstein had his miracle year and sparked the quantum revolution in the field of physics. To think that things are just getting harder to discover since everything has “already been found” rather than pointing to the clear lack of quality science as the culprit is a naive and baseless assertion. There is so much we don’t know in science & we still know far less than we do know.

Good ol' Auguste Picard. This man had the balls of steel to challenge the idea of the round earth. He built a capsule and went miles above the earth and said that it looked like a flat plain with upturned edges. Auguste Picard was the epitome of the Chad scientist whereas most of today's scientists are soyboy faggots.

Science was easy. You can literally revolutionize (whatever) science with a stick and a glass of water back in time.

What kind of shoes did you wear to make that leap?

Also doesn't DARPA merely outsource things to the private sector?

>mfw browsing Veeky Forums for the first time and I find someone that actually believes that socialism works

my fucking sides! I left /g/ to and still found autism here.

Tell me, what was your major? Had to have been some soyboy shit like Anthropology or Sociology.

Because you don't actually have a clue about what real science is. This men revolutionized their fields, people today still do. What's different? The Zeitgeist, popular culture doesn't value intelligence as much as it did back when some of these were household names, sure, the majority couldn't explain their contributions (not much has changed in that regard), but at least they valued intelligence enough to know their names. Whereas nowadays, popular culture values entertainment more than skill, so whilst there are groundbreaking scientists, just as intelligent as any of these men, they are not central to our cultural Overton window.

>his men revolutionized their fields, people today still do. What's different?

Wrong. The era of this picture is unique in the History. They revolutionized physics. They literally invented a new branch of physics. They literally changed our view of what is the light, what is matter, what is energy, what is space, what is time. It's truly unique.

This is not the case now.

>Leftist Socialist
Social leftist, and didn't Tyson work for George W. Bush for a number of years? Why would Soros fund a guy like that?

"Ive got a great idea, lets homogonise people, make everyone the same and make university degrees the equivelant of extra years of high school to produce products for industry not unique inspred individuals, that way people will be easier to control."

AWFUL LOT OF WHITE PEOPLE IN THAT PICTURE

>Jewish
>White

>Einstein
>White

All the low hanging fruit has been plucked. Science today requires massive amounts of funding, cutting edge equipment, and large collaborative teams. When a revolutionary discovery is made by a group of 50 scientists, each contributing major parts, who gets the Nobel? Its shared by the leaders and the oldest guys who are about to die.

Oh, and another clueless fool.
Who were the Babylonians?
Who were the Greeks?
Who were the Chinese?
Who were...
And then you've got the various primitive scientists, philosophers and mathematicians of the Middle Ages then Age of Enlightenment thinkers who did the same for their age.
And so on...
Just like in ours we've got things like CRISPR, or perhaps the whole subject of computer science, or even people like Perelman.
You literally have no idea what you're going on about.

>You literally have no idea what you're going on about.
It's like dunning kreuger and poe's law had an developmental challenged baby.

What're you even going on about?
The Babylonians did revolutionize mathematics and astronomy.
As did the Greeks.
As did the Chinese.
The Romans advanced philosophy massively; who is Aurelius?
Sure, the Middle Ages was mostly philosophy, but mathematics was kept alive.
Then you've got people like Kepler and Copernicus, both revolutionized the way we view our world.
Then, the most low hanging fruit, people like Isaac Newton, invented an entirely different form of mathematics.
Or Descartes' coordinate system, that revolutionized geometry.
You're the fucking Dunning-Kreuger here, buddy, you can only measure revolutionization in relation to prior knowledge, why does that only apply to the era of Einstein and Bohr? Why doesn't it apply to people like Newton?
Explain why, don't just throw out basal ad hom, you whelp.
Incidentally, you might want to watch this:
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Story_of_Maths
It's hopefully in an easy enough format for you to follow.

Not him but I can immediately tell you don't have a fucking clue about all the shit going on in science right now.

Protip a lot of the new breakthroughs are micro/ nano in scale and I'm not just talking about computing. The reason they're not being promoted hard in the media is because they aren't "show pieces" like nuclear fission and astrophysics. They are also being drowned out by meme shit like climate change and Trump.

Oh and I almost forgot the Persians, Indians or even Arabs.
All of their ideas were not only fundamental to our current development, but were revolutionary at their time.

There are plenty of great scientists today. The reason you've never heard of them is because history books haven't been written about them yet.

In a hundred years people will ask "Why are there no great scientists today? Look at all these spectacular scientists that were around just a hundred years ago. What happened?"

The world lags.

Your inventions wont be used till youre dead.

Thanks life.

soros is the boogeyman for poltards

You're a moron, at least present a counter-argument. The irony of you bringing up the Dunning Kruger effect...

neil degrasse tyson isn't a great scientist and he doesn't pretend to be. he's a spokesman for science, he's following in the tradition of carl sagan. you only think he's an important scientist because you're a layperson and instead of reading research articles you watch TV.

I don't think its right to thank socialism or capitalism either for that matter but he is right that the government did play a huge role in the advancement of our society. I think its safe to say the government played a bigger role in the development of science and technology then the free market did. Government funded research is technically socialist in nature.

Dirac and Heisenberg were special but I don't know about the rest. Certainly fine scientists like Einstein.

Name some. We would all find it interesting.

Being stupid wasn't glorified.

We have reached the peak of human capacity for knowledge and creativity. Without AI there will be no great discoveries anymore.

ITT: born in le wrong generation DDDX

The real science begins now.

Chemistry (Organic chemistry, Amedeo Avogadro, John Dalton, Dmitri Mendeleïev, etc.) is born in the 19th.

Physics (basically OP picture) is born at the beginning of the 20th.

Biology was the last but now, with molecular biology, computer science and advances in visualization tools, biology is revealing its true potential.

>The Internet was a government (DARPA) project, so it can be attributed to the success of socialism, and not capitalism.
The reason internet had a success is cooperation of dozens of thousands of private companies. It would never grow this much without all of them interacting with each other without state interfere. The idea or protocol might be attributed to socialism, but the internet as we know it is a product of capitalism.

So they did a good job. If modern sciencetists did the same they would render their works pointless.

>it would never grow this much without all of them interacting with each other without state interfere

Another win for Anarchism!

>Why are the scientist of today so shitty compared to 90-100 years ago?
LOL this is what retards actually believe. Science is always evolving towards HIGHER COMPLEXITY, and this is partly why laymen simply don't know about the great breakthroughs of today more than of 100 years ago: le epick special relativity is easier to explain than AdS/CFT.

Just because they interacted with each other on their own, doesn't mean they don't need state for anything. We don't even know if they could exists without state taking care of some critical stuff.

Minimal state > no state at all

>tap water drinking nupol faggots only know the scientists on TV

>he thinks a socialist system is 100% incapable of ever producing anything of value, ever
you guys are like religious fanatics, people can't even say "socialism" without you exploding into a screeching tizzy
>doesn't DARPA merely outsource things to the private sector?
they have their own research projects and they also fund research from academia

AHEM

lol i made this but deleted it already hanks for saving

The scope of modern science is unbelievably larger than it was 100 years ago, no single man can as easily revolutionise his field today.

If we go by physics only then the problem is that most of history we operated at classical level where an experiment could be performed using a medium size ball. Now as we reached relativistic and quantum scales experiments now require 2 super massive balls going at relativistic speeds and incredibly precise equipment just to confirm what Einstein predicted some time ago. Or we need to observe really really small balls on top of manipulating them. None of this is cheap or easily doable.

>require 2 super massive balls going at relativistic speeds
Astronomy?

Why NASA is taking so long for sending James Webb telescope into Space to get our high res space porn pics?

Sorry, but Witten is way smarter than any early 20th century scientist.

There are more scientists and mathematicians employed per capita than ever before in human history. Especially in the US which receives the most scientific funding in human history.

Because feninism and atheism lol

Except you're a filthy undergrad nigger who watchers too much TBT.

Fields get revolutionized every 3-5 years. Most of what the earliest "revolutionary scientists" turned out to be wrong or useless.