The greatest genius who ever lived?

P.A.M. Dirac?
Albert Einstein?
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe?
Steven Hawking?
Ludwig Van Beethoven?
Leonardo DaVinci?
Michaelangelo Buonarotti?

Rich wrote:

P.A.M. Dirac?
Albert Einstein?
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe?
Steven Hawking?
Ludwig Van Beethoven?
Leonardo DaVinci?
Michaelangelo Buonarotti?

Cell no. 373635363B363534373839-FHV-585743632427838
x10E14

"Rich" wrote in message
...
| P.A.M. Dirac?
| Albert Einstein?
| Johann Wolfgang von Goethe?
| Steven Hawking?
| Ludwig Van Beethoven?
| Leonardo DaVinci?
| Michaelangelo Buonarotti?
|
Einstein and Hawking were/are failed mathematicians.
Obviously you should include "Rich" in your list, he's
another genius too ****in' stupid to know **** from shinola.
It's "Stephen" Hawking, btw, not "Steven".

"Androcles" wrote:
"Rich" wrote in message
...
| P.A.M. Dirac?
| Albert Einstein?
| Johann Wolfgang von Goethe?
| Steven Hawking?
| Ludwig Van Beethoven?
| Leonardo DaVinci?
| Michaelangelo Buonarotti?
|
Einstein and Hawking were/are failed mathematicians.
Obviously you should include "Rich" in your list, he's
another genius too ****in' stupid to know **** from shinola.
It's "Stephen" Hawking, btw, not "Steven".

It's a pity Androcles won't see this since he's killfiled me but I think
the choice is between Newton Einstein and Pasteur for the beneficial
effects on the modern world.

On Oct 7, 2:24*pm, Mike Collins wrote:

It's a pity Androcles won't see this since he's killfiled me but I think
the choice is between Newton Einstein and Pasteur for the beneficial
effects on the modern world.

Don't ever kill-file Andrex in return. His "Hardy" to Oriel's "Laurel"
is a comedy duo worthy of comparison with the originals. Slapstick at
its best. A laugh a minute. I can never keep a straight face while
these two are falling on their faces. Like the true clowns they were
born to be. Ironic that they should both end up playing together in
this circus. Starring in their own surreal, freak side-show. Totally
removed from reality. Pompous to a fault. As irrelevant as dumb
waiters.

On Oct 6, 7:04*pm, Rich wrote:
P.A.M. Dirac?
Albert Einstein?
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe?
Steven Hawking?
Ludwig Van Beethoven?
Leonardo DaVinci?
Michaelangelo Buonarotti?

Interesting list. You omitted Shakespeare and many lesser knowns.
However, my vote would go to either DaVinci or Newton, in that order.
(Or may Matt Damon in "Good Will Hunting")

http://www.richardfisher.com

"Helpful person" wrote in message
...
On Oct 6, 7:04 pm, Rich wrote:
P.A.M. Dirac?
Albert Einstein?
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe?
Steven Hawking?
Ludwig Van Beethoven?
Leonardo DaVinci?
Michaelangelo Buonarotti?

Interesting list. You omitted Shakespeare and many lesser knowns.
However, my vote would go to either DaVinci or Newton, in that order.
(Or may Matt Damon in "Good Will Hunting")

http://www.richardfisher.com
=============================================
da Vinci wasn't a mathematician and his helicopter had nothing to prevent
the boat turning. I go with Noah, anyone that can moor a ship on a mountain
will take some beating.

Rich:
P.A.M. Dirac?
Albert Einstein?
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe?
Steven Hawking?
Ludwig Van Beethoven?
Leonardo DaVinci?
Michaelangelo Buonarotti?

Helpful person:
Interesting list. You omitted Shakespeare and many lesser knowns.
However, my vote would go to either DaVinci or Newton, in that order.
(Or may Matt Damon in "Good Will Hunting")

What a futile exercise. More than 100,000 years of the extent of Homo
sapiens is in prehistory. It is entirely possible that the greatest
genius who ever lived (by whose metric!?) was born in 83,214 B.C.E. and
died a few hours after her birth. That fact demonstrates that will
never be possible to know who "the greatest genius" is or was.
Constraining the time period to recorded history won't help in the
least.

This is the 300th anniversary year of David Hume, whom Wikipedia says
"...was a Scottish philosopher, historian, economist, and essayist,
known especially for his philosophical empiricism and skepticism. He is
regarded as one of the most important figures in the history of Western
philosophy and the Scottish Enlightenment."

Hume is the author of "A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to
the evidence’" which has been modified over the past 300 years and is
the direct ancestor to the oft-quoted (especially in this forum)
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Turning again to Wikipedia, we find "Carl Sagan popularized this as
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". However, this is
a rewording of a quote by Laplace which goes, "The weight of evidence
for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness."
This, in turn, may have been based on the statement "A wise man,
therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence" by David Hume."

The latter assertion is almost certainly true; Laplace read Hume, and
must have known that tenet of Hume's.

As nearly as I can determine, the UK has planned no events, at least no
large ones, to mark Hume's tricentennial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume.

The point of this off-road excursion is that we could never agree on
the criteria to define the greatest genius, and if we could, we would
only be able to apply the criteria to a vanishingly small percentage of
the humans who have inhabited the Earth over the past 100,000 years.

Better, I think, to vote for the wisest person whose history is known,
even as the BBC conducted a world-wide poll on the world's greatest
known philosopher a few years back. The winner by a huge margin: Karl
Marx. If you refuse to even consider the possibility that Marx is the
right choice, chances are you haven't read his works.

Davoud

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

"Davoud" wrote in message
...
Rich:
P.A.M. Dirac?
Albert Einstein?
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe?
Steven Hawking?
Ludwig Van Beethoven?
Leonardo DaVinci?
Michaelangelo Buonarotti?

Helpful person:
Interesting list. You omitted Shakespeare and many lesser knowns.
However, my vote would go to either DaVinci or Newton, in that order.
(Or may Matt Damon in "Good Will Hunting")

What a futile exercise. More than 100,000 years of the extent of Homo
sapiens is in prehistory. It is entirely possible that the greatest
genius who ever lived (by whose metric!?) was born in 83,214 B.C.E. and
died a few hours after her birth. That fact demonstrates that will
never be possible to know who "the greatest genius" is or was.
Constraining the time period to recorded history won't help in the
least.

This is the 300th anniversary year of David Hume, whom Wikipedia says
"...was a Scottish philosopher, historian, economist, and essayist,
known especially for his philosophical empiricism and skepticism. He is
regarded as one of the most important figures in the history of Western
philosophy and the Scottish Enlightenment."

Hume is the author of "A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to
the evidence'" which has been modified over the past 300 years and is
the direct ancestor to the oft-quoted (especially in this forum)
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Turning again to Wikipedia, we find "Carl Sagan popularized this as
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". However, this is
a rewording of a quote by Laplace which goes, "The weight of evidence
for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness."
This, in turn, may have been based on the statement "A wise man,
therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence" by David Hume."

The latter assertion is almost certainly true; Laplace read Hume, and
must have known that tenet of Hume's.

As nearly as I can determine, the UK has planned no events, at least no
large ones, to mark Hume's tricentennial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume.

The point of this off-road excursion is that we could never agree on
the criteria to define the greatest genius, and if we could, we would
only be able to apply the criteria to a vanishingly small percentage of
the humans who have inhabited the Earth over the past 100,000 years.


I would imagine that 99% of the humans who have ever inhabitted the earth
have done so in the past 100,000 years.

99% is not a "vanishingly small percentage".


Better, I think, to vote for the wisest person whose history is known,
even as the BBC conducted a world-wide poll on the world's greatest
known philosopher a few years back. The winner by a huge margin: Karl
Marx. If you refuse to even consider the possibility that Marx is the
right choice, chances are you haven't read his works.

Compared to Darwin, for example?

Marx's theories were basically wrong, led to dysfunctional societies, and
eventually has been discarded by almost every country on the planet.

Modern market economies are based on very Darwinian concepts of competition
for scarce resources and survival of the fittest. The impact of Darwin on
political theory has been as large as Communism's impact, and Darwin has
applicability well beyond politics and economics.

My vote would be:

(1) Newton, because of many things - laws of motion, gravity, calculus,
reflector telescopes, etc

(2) Einstein, also because of many things (SR, GR, photoelectric effect,
statistical mechanics, QM etc).

These were not new discoveries at the edges of science; both pushed science
into whole new areas and opened up territory still being explored a 100
years later.

Marx is a historical footnote in comparison; the inventor of an economic
system that didn't work.


Davoud

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything
that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

Peter Webb:
Modern market economies are based on very Darwinian concepts of competition
for scarce resources and survival of the fittest.

I think that Darwin was talking about species rather than individuals.
He struggled to understand altruism in the context of his theory, and
evolutionists have yet to adequately understand altruism.

It cannot be denied, however, that unbridled greed, the foundation of
the capitalist system, is an exceedingly powerful motivator.

Marx is a historical footnote in comparison; the inventor of an economic
system that didn't work.

That's one opinion. Others would opine that Marx was the proponent of
an economic system that has never been implemented, so it is impossible
to say whether it would work or not.

Recall that I did not say that Marx was the greatest philosopher known
to have lived, but I indicated that his philosophy is estimable and
worthy of consideration along with that of other great philosophers.

Davoud

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm