No one has anything positive to say?
-
chemguy — 21 years ago(February 22, 2005 08:18 AM)
I don't want to sound petty but invariably I will be. Stephan Hawking is just not that important to science. Sure, he made a few astrophysics theories, but we all claim to admire him so much because he's disabled. That's the only real reason he's distinguished himself.
His feats compared to Men like Newton, Maxwell, Schrodinger, Heisenburg, Bohr, Fisher are not all that great. He has only expanded our knowledge of a limited area of astrophysics.
Let the ad hominem attacks against me begin, I guess!
"Screws just fall out. The world is an imperfect place." Bender. "Breakfast Club" -
chemguy — 21 years ago(March 25, 2005 07:44 AM)
I just mean to say comparatively.
Which do we benefit more from know stereochemistry from the work of Fischer (e.g. the existence of chiral molecules) or his theories on black holes? Which has more implications for everyday human life? -
bhbonds — 20 years ago(May 13, 2005 05:54 PM)
I think the guy was joking.
It's hard to compare modern scientist to their ancestors. The scope of knowledge has widened to the point that any modern discoveries seem insignificant due to their complexity and degree of specialization. -
patrickthegreat1 — 20 years ago(May 15, 2005 07:29 AM)
I agree, Hawking is a genius, not only that it's awesome that he's been a guest star on some freakin cool TV shows, you don't see that many famous scientists who are that fun loving. Anyway these days I'd say that he's the closest guy to Einstein that we know of.