Top 10 Scientists of the 20th Century?

[Nautilidae]

I often have trouble listing the top scientists of the 20th century. There were so many excellent scientists during the 20th century that were influential. It is difficult to label them with numbers, but some are able to do that.

Post your list of top 10 scientists of the 20th century [that includes the scientists that made their contributions during the 20th century but are currently alive]. List why you chose each person for each number

Happy posting!

[Randydeluxe]

For no reason in particular, the first three names that popped into my mine were Leo Baekeland, Jonas Salk and Albert Einstein.

[maiforpeace]

Stephen Schuster and Webb Miller.

[hotshoe]

Edward O Wilson - for his sociobiology (ants, mostly) but also for his secularism, Pulitzer-prize writings, and advocacy for environmentalism

[locutus7]

Einstein,Feynman, Watson & crick, Hubble.

[Fact-Man]

Carl Sagan ...

[Fact-Man]

I often have trouble listing the top scientists of the 20th century. There were so many excellent scientists during the 20th century that were influential. It is difficult to label them with numbers, but some are able to do that.

Post your list of top 10 scientists of the 20th century [that includes the scientists that made their contributions during the 20th century but are currently alive]. List why you chose each person for each number

Happy posting!

The 20th century is brightly laden with scientists because nearly all persons we would ever identify or know as a scientist were born after 1880.

Most of human knowledge has come into being only since 1900.

[Boadacia!]

I'd say Carl Sagan & Richard Dawkins, but I might be beaten to death with a heavy scientific instrument now!

[hotshoe]

Well, I don't think Dawkins was ever in the company of the truly best scientists. What did he discover or elucidate that changed the progress of science the way, say, Watson and Crick's DNA discovery did ?

I suppose he's at the level of my suggestion, E O Wilson, if you want to consider the concept of memes he introduced as significant. But I don't

For reasons having nothing to do with the current debacle.

[Boadacia!]

Well, I don't think Dawkins was ever in the company of the truly best scientists. What did he discover or elucidate that changed the progress of science the way, say, Watson and Crick's DNA discovery did ?

I suppose he's at the level of my suggestion, E O Wilson, if you want to consider the concept of memes he introduced as significant. But I don't

For reasons having nothing to do with the current debacle.

I was thinking more along the lines of critical thinking and explaining evolutionary principles that possibly no one before had so much success doing, with maybe the exception of Darwin's unbelievable amounts of work. Therefore changing the way many people might think about the crucial questions of the beginnings to present day evolution. So, I think he's played a significant part for science, even if not making any discoveries.

[hotshoe]

Well, there are certainly people who say that one of Dawkins' books was the first time they understood the broad principle of evolution.

There's a reason he was the "Professor for Public Understanding of Science" at Oxford. He has been a great communicator.

[Sisifo]

Best? Like in polymath, in scientific method, in achievements or in influence?

Some were born and developped studies in the XIX, but consolidated in XXth.

Marie Curie
Einstein
Watson&Crick
Bohr
Hubble
John M. Keynes
Jonas Salk
Turing
Freud
And as polymath, Feynman.

[Mr.Samsa]

To add a behavioral science spin on the suggestions already mentioned:

Nikolaas Tinbergen
B. F. Skinner
Richard Herrnstein (specifically excluding his racist pseudoscience that he delved into later in his career)
William Baum

..Freud...

I certainly would not include that name in this thread! If taken for 'influence' alone then possibly, but if we're discussing scientific contributions then I'm sure I can find one of my neighbours that has added more to science than he has!

[Sisifo]

To add a behavioral science spin on the suggestions already mentioned:

Nikolaas Tinbergen
B. F. Skinner
Richard Herrnstein (specifically excluding his racist pseudoscience that he delved into later in his career)
William Baum

..Freud...

I certainly would not include that name in this thread! If taken for 'influence' alone then possibly, but if we're discussing scientific contributions then I'm sure I can find one of my neighbours that has added more to science than he has!

Do you think so? As wrong as he might have been, he offered a scientific method and solution to things that were dealt by superstition and religion, if any. He is the base where everyone makes statement about why someone has done what. Including many we make here about the psychological reasons for religion. His science is fundamental in the studies of economics, history, sociology, sexuality... Under my point of view, as a pioneer of a science, he is as influencial if not more, as Darwin.

[Mr.Samsa]

Do you think so? As wrong as he might have been, he offered a scientific method and solution to things that were dealt by superstition and religion, if any. He is the base where everyone makes statement about why someone has done what. Including many we make here about the psychological reasons for religion. His science is fundamental in the studies of economics, history, sociology, sexuality... Under my point of view, as a pioneer of a science, he is as influencial if not more, as Darwin.

Without trying to derail the thread too much, Freud was the antithesis of science. Instead of experimentation he simply made up the conclusions he thought sounded plausible, and to support these conclusions he made up case studies. As a philosopher some of his thoughts are quite interesting, especially on the topic of religion, but philosophy is obviously not what this thread is about. One thing that Freud could be credited for, however, was his claim that what was labelled "hysteria" back then was the cause of childhood trauma (which has been found to have some scientific basis) - unfortunately, a few years after making this mostly correct claim, he retracted it and claimed the hysteria was the result of "false memories" leading to a plunge back into the medieval days for most of psychology over the next 50-odd years.

The horrifying thing is that psychology was actually turning into a very mature field during the time of Freud with the likes of Ivan Pavlov, Wilhelm Wundt, William James, and for the later part, John Watson. However, Freud and the psychoanalysts basically resisted this flow of scientific enterprise and set back the field of psychology to a huge degree - the influence of which is still being felt today with some practitioners still trying to use his "techniques" despite having no evidential basis.

The problem was that Freud was an idiot who was very wrong about a lot of things - but he was vocal and said a lot of things that were vague enough and plausible enough for people to take him seriously. The mistake most people make, I think, is that they view psychology of Freud's time to being very primitive and unscientific, when this simply wasn't the case. The reason we view psychology of that time to be unscientific and sounding a little loopy, is precisely because of Freud. Psychology has made huge leaps forward in scientific advances not because of Freud, but despite him.