Who is/was the world's greatest scientist?

[Derren]

Da Vinci.

Comparing inventions is pointless, as every scientist could only build upon the knowledge of his time and thus the importance of what he was able to discover to us is hardly a good indication of his "greatness". Would Einstein still be a great inventor when born in the 18th century? What if Archimedes were alive today?

From all the inventors listed, Da Vinci was the most versatile, not only creating some of the most valued pieces of art but also doing many (sadly often theoretical) studies on many topics from anatomy to mechanics.

 

[Janx]

What did Da Vinci actually discover or invent that was used by anybody else?

Yes he made some nice art and drew some interesting diagrams of machines that we later invented in the future.

But he didn't invent algebra or calculus. he didn't invent a flying machine or submarine. He didn't create the foundation for medicine, genetics, chemistry or physics.

He didn't do science. he didn't contribute to science in a way that changed anything. he was at best, the renaissance version of Gene Roddenbery.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Da Vinci.
From all the inventors listed, Da Vinci was the most versatile, not only creating some of the most valued pieces of art but also doing many (sadly often theoretical) studies on many topics from anatomy to mechanics.

Ben Franklin was just as versatile and his inventions were humanitarian.

 

[Tonguez]

Newton is interesting as he was a celibate religious man who belived that all minerals arose through the interaction of ether, molecules and divine breath and that Genesis was a symbolic alchemical text. His contribution to science is undeniable but he himself was an alchemist and natural philosopher not a true scientist...

 

[Morrus]

Newton is interesting as he was a celibate religious man who belived that all minerals arose through the interaction of ether, molecules and divine breath and that Genesis was a symbolic alchemical text. His contribution to science is undeniable but he himself was an alchemist and natural philosopher not a true scientist...

He was deeply religious.

 

[Derren]

He didn't do science. he didn't contribute to science in a way that changed anything. he was at best, the renaissance version of Gene Roddenbery.

Except that De Vincis machines actually worked with a little tinkering.
Would be nice if the Star Trek tech manual would contain the blueprints of an actual, working warp drive.

 

[Umbran]

Newton is interesting as he was a celibate religious man who belived that all minerals arose through the interaction of ether, molecules and divine breath and that Genesis was a symbolic alchemical text. His contribution to science is undeniable but he himself was an alchemist and natural philosopher not a true scientist...

You seem to mistake "has 21st century understanding" with "being a scientist".

It is perhaps best to say that Newton was among the first of what today we would call "scientists". So, he was laden with a whole lot of stuff that wasn't true - they'll say the same about us n a few hundred years. Newton had a bunch of incorrect theories. But so do we today.

Scientist isn't about what you know or believe today. Scientist is about trying to figure out. That, Newton did.

 

[Morrus]

You seem to mistake "has 21st century understanding" with "being a scientist".

It is perhaps best to say that Newton was among the first of what today we would call "scientists". So, he was laden with a whole lot of stuff that wasn't true - they'll say the same about us n a few hundred years. Newton had a bunch of incorrect theories. But so do we today.

Scientist isn't about what you know or believe today. Scientist is about trying to figure out. That, Newton did.

That very topic came up in The Infinite Monkey Cage this week. They asked the panel to define science.

As they all agreed, science isn't the topic. Science isn't even being right. Science is the method.

 

[Umbran]

What did Da Vinci actually discover or invent that was used by anybody else?

...

He didn't create the foundation for medicine, genetics, chemistry or physics.

Da Vinci was an observational master. His power was not in creating theoretical models, but in clear observation and description of physical reality. What he handed down to posterity was the idea that in order to understand the universe, you must clearly observe it first, and record and report what you saw. That's pretty much a foundation principle right there.

 

[Hand of Evil]

I am thinking the reason we all can't find common ground on this topic is that these guys are our heroes.