The Most Extraordinary ______ that Humanity has ever produced

[Swammerdami]

I like Lists. What are the Five Greatest Movies? Who are the Six Sexiest Actresses? The Eight Greatest Athletes? The Twelve Greatest Mathematicians? What People had the greatest effect on the course of history?

is Rolling Stone magazine correct when it ranks Aretha Franklin, Whitney Houston, and Sam Cooke as respectively the #1, #2, and #3 greatest singers of all time? (Does Taylor Swift really belong way down in the #103 slot? Elton John at #100?)

Please post your own categories and nominations. Fill in the blank: The Most Extraordinary ______ that Humanity has ever produced.

Yesterday I clicked on a video where Neil Degrasse Tyson answered the question "Who is the most extraordinary scientific mind that humanity has produced?"
I like Lists, and even a List of just One is better than no list at all!
Tyson answered "There is no contest. Isaac Newton. Nobody [else] comes close."
But I'm afraid I'd rank Newton as low as #3. (I'll name my own choices for #1 and #2 if the thread gets active.)

So I left a blank in the thread title instead of writing "scientific mind" because ... I Like Lists! The more "Most Extraordinaries" we come up with the better!

For example, What is the 3rd Greatest Movie of All Time? No point in discussing #1 and #2, which would be Casablanca and Godfather. (No rational critic could place any film but Casablanca in the #1 slot, but are there serious alternatives for the #2 slot?)

Help wanted, please.

 

[bilby]

I would rank Galileo above Newton in a list of extraordinary scientific minds; Certainly even Neil Degrasse Tyson would have to admit that he "comes close", even if he were to relegate him to a lower slot on his list.

IMO, special consideration in such a lost has to go to people for whom science was a secondary career choice; To make a scientific breakthrough of any kind while holding down a non-scientific day job is truly extraordinary. I would nominate Hedy Lamarr in that division - no Galileo or Newton in terms of her fundamental contribution to science, but what might she have achieved if she had been focused solely on scientific ideas and with Newton's level of access to Cambridge University, and to other great Enlightenment minds, at the very dawn of modern science?

A great mind is not enough to achieve great things. One must also have the opportunities and circumstances, and of course, one must also be first. A toddler today who independently derived Newton's laws of motion would be remarkable, but would not be changing the world by that success.

 

[Politesse]

If you ask me The Godfather is deeply overrated by The Godfather fans? I'm not much for lists of this kind, though. Ultimately, a person may have favorite films, but nothing is going to be equally loved by everyone, you know? I love the ever loving heck out of all the Star Wars movies, but I would never assume that they were going to be a universal cup of tea for all viewers. I wouldn't even bother to claim that the original was some sort of cinematographic accomplishment in the way that, say, Wizard of Oz or Citizen Kane were. But it's what I would first choose to watch on a rainy night in, you know? What should count more: love, admiration, or popularity?

And then, big movies like that don't exist in isolation either. Casablanca is pure brilliance and easily my favorite film, but it didn't just appear in a vaccuum; it was the ultimate culmination of an entire genre of films somewhat similar to it, benefiting greatly from the existing reputations and talents of its principals and the coincidence of its contemporaneous production and topical relevance to the most consequential historical events of its century.

With scientific minds you've got even more of an issue, because the greatest scientific minds tend not to be attached to glory hounds, you know? Edison was brilliant, but he was as much if not more businessman more than a scientitst or inventor, and his name was quite intentionally part of his brand while he was alive. The best scientists I've known in real life aren't for the most part CEOs or celebrities, but rather workaday students of the universe who understand the value of collaboration. Even those who have enjoyed some degree of literary or commercial success. Of those who I have known personally, I might advance Neil Shubin, David Love, Roy Rappaport, or Bambi Schieffelin as especially brilliant scientific minds. But in all cases, I happened to meet them because their fields intersected with mine, not because they would top anyone's list of most famous scientists, nor would any of them be interested in being put on such a list I think! Well, maybe Neil would, heh.

 

[Jarhyn]

How about "fancy sticks" or "cool tools" or "near processes"?

It's not just people that humanity produces!

 

[bilby]

How about "fancy sticks" or "cool tools" or "near processes"?

It's not just people that humanity produces!

Who said it was?

What about the most extraordinary space exploration devices?

IMO the Voyagers have to be right up there, still going after leaving the Solar System, and still sending data back, and getting software updates, and hardware reconfigurations, despite being a light-day away from base.

Or maybe Sprit, the Mars rover that lasted 2,210 Sols before it stopped sending data back to Earth, having been designed for a 90 Sol mission.

Special mention goes to the Soviet Venera 14 lander, which survived the hellish descent to the surface of Venus, and successfully deployed a robot arm to measure the compressibility of the Venusian surface, only to send back data on the compressibility of a Venera lander's camera lens cap, which had landed in exactly the wrong spot.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

With these kinds of lists, some things are highly subjective and others less subjective. For instance, regarding top singers I would imagine that the top three would all be opera singers, but aside from that I think that one would have to classify by different musical categories, such as best blues singer, best heavy metal singer, and so on. Then of course there is personal preference. For instance, Frank Sinatra is highly praised as a singer, but personally I think his acting is better than his singing (which of course is still very good).
I also love lists, and have done some for my favourite interest, science fiction, one of which is on this site.
Newton is certainly extraordinary and so is Leonardo da Vinci, the ultimate renaissance man.

 

[Swammerdami]

I would rank Galileo above Newton in a list of extraordinary scientific minds; Certainly even Neil Degrasse Tyson would have to admit that he "comes close", even if he were to relegate him to a lower slot on his list.

IMO, special consideration in such a lost has to go to people for whom science was a secondary career choice; To make a scientific breakthrough of any kind while holding down a non-scientific day job is truly extraordinary. I would nominate Hedy Lamarr in that division - no Galileo or Newton in terms of her fundamental contribution to science, but what might she have achieved if she had been focused solely on scientific ideas and with Newton's level of access to Cambridge University, and to other great Enlightenment minds, at the very dawn of modern science?

I understand the modified meaning of "extraordinary" and applaud this. I'd guess one could find a thousand engineers as talented as Miss Lamaar, but none, of course, were the gorgeous and talented actress that she was. Extraordinary indeed! I incorporated the term "most extarordinary" rather than simply "greatest" mainly just for compatibility with a cited YouTube, and even otherwise would not consider Lamarr to approach a Newton or Galileo.

But -- and please do not take this personally Mr. Bilby -- I would not accede to your promotion of Galileo over Newton. I WILL agree that Galileo was very important historically, but
* Contemporaries like Kepler and Stevin made stronger scientific advances than Galileo
* Not long after Galileo, we find Descartes, Fermat and Huygens going far beyond the teachings of Galileo. Cavalieri went far beyond the first gleamings of calculus that Galileo (Cavalieri's teacher) derived. And even as a scientist, Galileo fabricated some of his experimental results.
* Galilean thought had precedents. The Parabolic Law of Falling Bodies had been presented before. Giordano Bruno had introduced philosophies for which Galileo later became famous.
* Galileo produced few, if any, novel theorems; made mistakes; and was soon surpassed by Stevin, Huygens, etc.
* Part of Galileo's talent was simply his lens-making skill! Even here, his great successor genius Christian Huygens surpassed him.
* Whatever objections might be raised for Newton -- and I demote him all the way to #3 -- we must agree that the Third Law of Motion (or the Three Laws more generally), the Universal Law of Gravitation, the invention of calculus to solve the equations of motion, and several Laws of Optics were ALL wholly ORIGINAL, exceeding the output (in importance) of almost every other possible candidate.

No, I'm afraid I must label your promotion of Galileo over Newton to be incorrect. I agree that Galileo's recasting of natural science and cosmology into scientific terms was hugely important. But I do not see his specific contributions as having singular importance. The laws of motion were developed independently by several thinkers but the grand codification was Newton's Laws of Motion.

HOWEVER, when I mount an impassioned defense of my choice (name not yet revealed!) for the #2 slot, the person of Galileo will play a ROLE. (Take THAT for an obscure hint !!! ! ! ! !!!)

One reason I posted at all is that my candidate for #2 Greatest Scientist did something so clever that Galileo was needed to explain it! Yes, this supports the case for giving particular greatness to Galileo!!)

A great mind is not enough to achieve great things. One must also have the opportunities and circumstances, and of course, one must also be first. A toddler today who independently derived Newton's laws of motion would be remarkable, but would not be changing the world by that success.

Yes. As one example, we must applaud the genius of Charles Darwin, who argued persuasively for his doctrine of Natural Selection.
However the reviving of this ancient doctrine would have happened (though more slowly and precariously) without Darwin's eloquence. Some scientists contemporary to Darwin were already embracing conclusions similar to Darwin's.

(And similarly, just when England's Newton was exploring mathematical analysis, Scotland's James Gregory and Germany's Leibniz were making similar discoveries.)

But note that

 

[pood]

But note that

Note that what?

Anyway, I agree with Newton, followed by Darwin and then Einstein. There is no objective fact of the matter about any of this, of course.

 

[bilby]

But note that

Noted.

 

[Swammerdami]

And then, big movies like that don't exist in isolation either. Casablanca is pure brilliance and easily my favorite film, but it didn't just appear in a vaccuum; it was the ultimate culmination of an entire genre of films somewhat similar to it, benefiting greatly from the existing reputations and talents of its principals and the coincidence of its contemporaneous production and topical relevance to the most consequential historical events of its century.

I'm glad to see your support for Casablanca. It is also the most under-rated of all movies, with an IMDB score of just 8.5 on the 1 to 10 scale, while it deserves at least 11.9 or more.

Perhaps we should award SPECIAL credits if one identifies a category where the number #1 is SO FAR ahead of whoever #2 is, that that gap is EXTRAORDINARY. Casablanca certainly qualifies for this; Whether we agree with Godfather for the specific #2 or not, whatever #2 is, it ranks FAR behind Casablanca.

If you ask me The Godfather is deeply overrated by The Godfather fans? I'm not much for lists of this kind, though. Ultimately, a person may have favorite films, but nothing is going to be equally loved by everyone, you know? I love the ever loving heck out of all the Star Wars movies, but I would never assume that they were going to be a universal cup of tea for all viewers. I wouldn't even bother to claim that the original was some sort of cinematographic accomplishment in the way that, say, Wizard of Oz or Citizen Kane were.

Criteria will of course vary. BUT if you reject Godfather for the #2 slot, you are morally obligated to nominate a replacement! It needn't be a "universal" answer -- I encourage participants to divulge their own personal tastes.

If I were to nominate a Star Wars film for a list, I'd pick the original, the low-tech "Episode IV."

Frankly: CGI? Sci-Fi? Razzle-dazzle? Just count me out.

But it's what I would first choose to watch on a rainy night in, you know? What should count more: love, admiration, or popularity?

 

[bilby]

Darwin is a long way down my list. He popularised an important idea, but neither originated it nor resolved a mechanism. That would need to wait for Rosalind Franklin's groundbreaking X-Ray crystalography of the DNA molecule.

 

[gmbteach]

So can we discuss holiday destinations, foods, etc…provided the poster has provided evidence to support their claim?

 

[bilby]

Leonardo Da Vinci has to be a long way up the list of scientists, or rather, of scientific minds, (like Hedy Lamarr) not least because science was secondary to art in his life.

 

[gmbteach]

If we are looking at movies, I suggest a kids category.

For me, the best movie for kids would be Inside Out. I don’t own a copy but will try and download one. Kids love it because they can relate to the characters….feelings….and how they work together and affect our mood and actions.

I haven’t seen Inside Out 2 yet, but would love to.

 

[Swammerdami]

Darwin is a long way down my list. He popularised an important idea, but neither originated it nor resolved a mechanism. That would need to wait for Rosalind Franklin's groundbreaking X-Ray crystalography of the DNA molecule.

I think it was Mendel's Laws that were key, though Miss Rosalind was needed to begin understanding of the biochemical details.

Mendel knew nothing of DNA but found experimentally that, e.g. an individual with a 10-point IQ jump would NOT produce homogeneous offspring with a 5-point jump, but rather (typically) a 50-50 mix of 0-point and 10-point jumpers. Sadly, Darwin never glimpsed this solution -- despite that he was alive when Mendel published -- and despondently reverted to Lamarckism in his later years.

 

[pood]

Darwin is a long way down my list. He popularised an important idea, but neither originated it nor resolved a mechanism. That would need to wait for Rosalind Franklin's groundbreaking X-Ray crystalography of the DNA molecule.

Well, he did broadly supply a mechanism, natural selection, that no one had ever thought of before, even though ideas of evolution went back to antiquity. What you mention above is simply something Darwin could not have done. Similarly, modern evolutionary theory has gone far beyond Darwin, but what we know now are things Darwin could not possibly know. Tellingly, Darwin also predicted that natural selection would not be the whole story, and of course that proved to be true.

 

[Swammerdami]

Darwin is a long way down my list. He popularised an important idea, but neither originated it nor resolved a mechanism. That would need to wait for Rosalind Franklin's groundbreaking X-Ray crystalography of the DNA molecule.

Well, he did broadly supply a mechanism, natural selection, that no one had ever thought of before, even though ideas of evolution went back to antiquity. What you mention above is simply something Darwin could not have done. Similarly, modern evolutionary theory has gone far beyond Darwin, but what we know now are things Darwin could not possibly know. Tellingly, Darwin also predicted that natural selection would not be the whole story, and of course that proved to be true.

It seems that you are defending Darwin; I have no problem with that. Where do you place him on the Ten Greatest Scientists List?
Daarwin's points had been known for centuries, though never combined properly ... until a weird paper on trees for ship-building.
Darwin even acknowledged this predecessor, though grudgingly since that antecedent -- I'll Google for his name if noone else does --
was obnoxious.

I'm ambivalent about Darwin. Others had similar ideas. But Darwin's eloquence sped up the acceptance of evolution by at least a decade or two.

 

[pood]

Darwin is a long way down my list. He popularised an important idea, but neither originated it nor resolved a mechanism. That would need to wait for Rosalind Franklin's groundbreaking X-Ray crystalography of the DNA molecule.

Well, he did broadly supply a mechanism, natural selection, that no one had ever thought of before, even though ideas of evolution went back to antiquity. What you mention above is simply something Darwin could not have done. Similarly, modern evolutionary theory has gone far beyond Darwin, but what we know now are things Darwin could not possibly know. Tellingly, Darwin also predicted that natural selection would not be the whole story, and of course that proved to be true.

It seems that you are defending Darwin; I have no problem with that. Where do you place him on the Ten Greatest Scientists List?
Daarwin's points had been known for centuries, though never combined properly ... until a weird paper on trees for ship-building.
Darwin even acknowledged this predecessor, though grudgingly since that antecedent -- I'll Google for his name if noone else does --
was obnoxious.

I'm ambivalent about Darwin. Others had similar ideas. But Darwin's eloquence sped up the acceptance of evolution by at least a decade or two.

As noted, I’d rank the top three as Newton, Darwin, and Einstein, though I might go for Newton, Einstein and Darwin. Not sure about the top ten, and I’m open to being persuaded otherwise, though I doubt any argument could dislodge Newton as No. 1 for me.

 

[Swammerdami]

Having rejected Galileo and Darwin for the Three Greatest Scientists List, I have an obligation to propose a candidate of my own. While I happily agree that Leonardo da Vinci was one of the greatest geniuses ever, my choice for the Top Three List of Greatest Scientists is Archimedes of Syracuse.

Archimedes has many accomplishments but I will rely on one single feat, to wit the well-known incident wherein Mr. Archimedes ran naked through the streets of Syracuse shouting "Eureka! Eureka!"

As a prelude to my claim that Archimedes is a candidate for the Three Greatest Scientists List, I solicit all Infidels for assistance:
Please state the method by which Archimedes of Syracuse proved that the king had been cheated on his new gold crown.

Hint: I herewith allege that a popular Google result for this query is INCORRECT.

 

[Elixir]

Archimedes proved the king had been cheated by using water displacement to measure the crown’s volume without damaging it. He compared the water displaced by the crown to that displaced by a lump of pure gold of equal weight. The crown displaced more water, indicating a larger volume and lower density, proving it was mixed with a less dense metal like silver. This discovery utilized the principle that an object’s volume can be determined by the water it displaces, and led to Archimedes’ famous exclamation, “Eureka!”.

This is what Perplexity returned, citing a University, Brittanica and someone I don’t recall … but the story is as I recall. What did Google say?