-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Are there any scientists who are overrated or get too much credit?
- Thread starter CrazyDude
- Start date
- Status
SocksAndShoes
Banned
He's more of an inventor than a scientist and it's pretty well known by now, but Edison was a giant overrated asshole.
80s Bad Guy
Banned
I've heard Aristotle was a bitch.
ugaboga232
Member
KARL DEISSEROTH (jk karl but really why in gods name did you need 5 papers to actually detail how to do clarity).
He is probably gonna win a nobel for optogenetics aka virus based mind control of mice/rats for SCIENCE.
He is probably gonna win a nobel for optogenetics aka virus based mind control of mice/rats for SCIENCE.
Mr. Poolman
Member
Tomas Edison.
The man was not the legend they paint you when you are a kid.
The man was not the legend they paint you when you are a kid.
Princess Viola
Member
I heard Michio Kaku is basically an idiot outside of everything BUT his field of expertise.
Vital Tundra
Member
I laughed.
Gray Matter
Member
He can help you get your taxes done, there's that.
LyleLanley
Banned
I have no idea what Neil deGrasse Tyson does but the internet has made him out to be a god.
He is very much overrated, unlike Laurence Krauss who works hard to be a science educator and continues research output
1.21Gigawatts
Banned
There are a few scientists who did great things but when they got older they pretty much went nuts. Nikola Tesla is an example. He did nothing worth mentioning the last 30 years of his life, only a bunch of stuff thats popular on conspiracy and pseudoscience websites today.
I just saw a video of him talking about free will the other day.
For quite some time people rejected the concept of free will because of determinism.
They we found truly random events in quantum mechanics and Kaku said that means free will exists.
I don't see how random events make free will possible. These events introduce randomness into the system. Randomness ≠ Freedom.
There a lots of intelligent arguments to be made about free will. But this isn't one of them and I never heard it before.
Also, Bill Nye had a series on Big Think recently where he answers questions and I'm usually quite disappointed by the answers. There were even a few where it seemed like he didn't even understand the questions properly and his answers basically failed to address the question.
I just saw a video of him talking about free will the other day.
For quite some time people rejected the concept of free will because of determinism.
They we found truly random events in quantum mechanics and Kaku said that means free will exists.
I don't see how random events make free will possible. These events introduce randomness into the system. Randomness ≠ Freedom.
There a lots of intelligent arguments to be made about free will. But this isn't one of them and I never heard it before.
Also, Bill Nye had a series on Big Think recently where he answers questions and I'm usually quite disappointed by the answers. There were even a few where it seemed like he didn't even understand the questions properly and his answers basically failed to address the question.
He's barely even a scientist.
I mean yeah, it's good that his contribution to commercial electricity is not mostly forgotten anymore, but the pendulum has shifted waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much the other way in recent years.
Like I see people list him as one of the greatest scientists ever and shit and sorry, but just nope, he was a pretty decent inventor but that's mostly it.
And his field of expertise is string theory...
Reverend Funk
Comfy Penetration
What did carl sagan do?
ugaboga232
Member
I've noticed only two scientists who are still alive were posted other than me.
WHERE IS SCIENCE-GAF?
WHERE IS SCIENCE-GAF?
Poodlestrike
Banned
That's most highly specialized people, though.
Most people think of Edison as a scientific genius, I'd call that out.
Inflammable Slinky
Member
Edison was a genius at using the patent office to his advantage for sure, though ^^
To be fair getting screwed out of everything you've ever worked on for your adult life can have odd consequences.
To be fair getting screwed out of everything you've ever worked on for your adult life can have odd consequences.
Princess Viola
Member
smoked weed and said billions funny
Reverend Funk
Comfy Penetration
Nvm not overrated then.
Edison was a shitty dude but he still invented a lot of important stuff, regardless. Internet Tesla memetown....
bobbychalkers
Member
You got me, I'll watch this fucking show.
StalkerUKCG
Banned
Telsa, Internet loves to hold him up as some kind of out of time hero.
http://www.edisontechcenter.org/tesladebunked.html
http://www.edisontechcenter.org/tesladebunked.html
He does get people excited about science that otherwise might not be. I don't know if he's overrated because I don't know what else he's done. I've never really seen people heaping praise on him for any scientific accomplishments.
He was an important inventor/businessman no doubt, but his contribution to science was minimal at best.
I mean he had no idea about the scientific principles of how a light bulb work. To be fair, no one did at the time, but the point that he was a tinkerer and inventor (and a manager of other people who invented stuff) much more than a scientist.
Principate
Saint Titanfall
Probably the majority, If your not the first name on a paper, you contribution, typically ain't considered shit.
ugaboga232
Member
Pls dont say that. my 5th and 6th author pubs are all I have.
Sounds like a PI nowadays (jk but only 50%)
If you are talking from the point of view of the layman, then I don't really know how to answer that question - of the scientists that are popular with the general public, their fans most likely can't name a single contribution that scientist has made to his or her field.
Among the sicentific community, the answer is yes: There are some scientists who themselves don't really contribute but end up being catered to. But, the bigger issue is that a scientist - who has made significant contributions to the field - will be tend to be treated with reverence in his or her field, so much so that their conjectures get treated as basically proven theories. As an example, there was a Scientific Myths that just wont die article (posted on Science i believe) that talked about how the anti-oxidant craze is due to a renowned chemists making a guess, which many in the scientific community refuse to let go despite numerous contradictions by experiment.
Among the sicentific community, the answer is yes: There are some scientists who themselves don't really contribute but end up being catered to. But, the bigger issue is that a scientist - who has made significant contributions to the field - will be tend to be treated with reverence in his or her field, so much so that their conjectures get treated as basically proven theories. As an example, there was a Scientific Myths that just wont die article (posted on Science i believe) that talked about how the anti-oxidant craze is due to a renowned chemists making a guess, which many in the scientific community refuse to let go despite numerous contradictions by experiment.
nelsonroyale
Member
Hmm, generally the work of many famous scientists might be said to be 'overrated' based on the fact that they are building on the innovations and insights of many other scientists who are not widely known. The signifiance of individuals of particular skill is usually overemphasized in the public realm, while science is very much a collaborative effort.
Dawkins kind of comes to mind. Although that is based more on the fact that he hasn't actually done much basic research for several decades as far as I know.
Dawkins kind of comes to mind. Although that is based more on the fact that he hasn't actually done much basic research for several decades as far as I know.
You can probably say that for every scientist who became part of popular culture for one reason or the other. It would probably not even be very wrong to say that of Einstein, despite his revolutionary contributions, given how much he has become the prototype of the one-in-thousand-years genius.
However, I think the impact of good science popularizers and lobbyists like Carl Sagan or Neil DeGrasse Tyson is also oftentimes under-appreciated. If one could measure the total number of scientists or founding that happened directly or indirectly because of the work of these popularizers and lobbyist, the result would anything but trivial.
However, I think the impact of good science popularizers and lobbyists like Carl Sagan or Neil DeGrasse Tyson is also oftentimes under-appreciated. If one could measure the total number of scientists or founding that happened directly or indirectly because of the work of these popularizers and lobbyist, the result would anything but trivial.
Reverend Funk
Comfy Penetration
Bernoulli that rat fuck
Ryouji Gunblade
Member
I would say the entire History Channel, but they don't count as scientists.
Indrid Cold1
Member
Crick and Watson. Rosalind Franklin was as integral to discovering DNA as they were, but got none of the credit.
lastplayed
Member
Reverend Funk
Comfy Penetration
Also I got a bone to pick with cramer.
More Fun To Compute
Member
Jeff Goldblum.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Yeah, Tesla's contributions are important, but his modern reimagination as steampunk wunderkind is kind of annoying.
On the flipside Gauss is tremendously underappreciated
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
What do you mean by overrated?
Some people named Carl Sagan and Neil deGrasse Tyson because they haven't made huge discoveries or something. So what? Not every good scientist will make huge breakthroughs, but educating people into science and vulgarizing/bringing it to mainstream attention is very important too. Plus both appear to be legitimately awesome cool people. So I would say Carl Sagan and NdgT are both great and not overrated at all.
To me an overrated scientist would be more of, say, an overrated inventor, or someone getting credit for a discovery or invention that they weren't really responsible for. I can't think of any example right now but I'm sure some exist. Perhaps Edison and/or Tesla, depending on who you talk to, lol.
Some people named Carl Sagan and Neil deGrasse Tyson because they haven't made huge discoveries or something. So what? Not every good scientist will make huge breakthroughs, but educating people into science and vulgarizing/bringing it to mainstream attention is very important too. Plus both appear to be legitimately awesome cool people. So I would say Carl Sagan and NdgT are both great and not overrated at all.
To me an overrated scientist would be more of, say, an overrated inventor, or someone getting credit for a discovery or invention that they weren't really responsible for. I can't think of any example right now but I'm sure some exist. Perhaps Edison and/or Tesla, depending on who you talk to, lol.
- Status