I like Brian Cox who's a particle physicist from Manchester Uni and a presenter and is the one guy who managed to, with some other guy, after I tried to learn for years, sort of explain relativity to me in a book. And Japanese American guy Michio Kaku who presents interesting stuff like about the future and time travel and so on.
I was going to say Brian Cox! You stole my scientist! I also like Neil DeGrasse Tyson. He and Cox, along with a handful of others, are prominent scientists on TV and internet. - - - Updated - - - I was going to say Brian Cox! You stole my scientist! I also like Neil DeGrasse Tyson. He and Cox, along with a handful of others, are prominent scientists on TV and internet.
I think I'm going to have to go with Stephen Hawkins. He's a bit public for my taste in general, but I think it's fine if you ignore his media presence and just read "A Brief History Of Time". He's very good at saying things so that people understand them. I would have chosen Feynman for the same reason, but he's dead.
Professor Alice May Roberts BSc, MB BCh, PhD is an English anatomist, osteoarchaeologist, anthropologist, paleopathologist, television presenter, and author. Wikipedia She's the blonde one with the white sweater... She did a series about "wild" swimming in lakes and rivers, including skinnydipping, but that's a coincidence. Her hair was crimson when she appeared on Time Team as a post-grad digger. [video=youtube;f0vlrTVC2tQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0vlrTVC2tQ[/video]
Do you know what.. I'll give him to you.. As long as you let me resurrect the Crocodile Hunter Steve Irwin because he's still at least in recent living memory. And loving memory. - - - Updated - - - His greatest accomplishment was when he sucked the Gocompare opera guy into a black hole that he made!
Dawkins is on my list for sure, and also Michael Shermer if he counts as a scientist. I'd guess he does if he's got a master's in experimental psychology And... Sam Harris and Lawrence Krauss. Shoot, is there a limit on how any favourites I can have? I like all of these outspoken atheists with a strong scientific background. They're practically heroes to me.
So who are your favourite scientists is dependent on their religious affiliations? Seriously? Personally I couldnt care less whether somebody believes in God or not, which Church, Mosque, Temple scientists go or dont go to, as long as they discover something amazing or invent something useful. So Id probably name Harald zur Hausen (cancer research) or Peter Grünberg (thanks to whom our computers are faster) without having the slightest clue what these guys' religious viewpoints may be.
Yepp, some of these BBC Horizon documentaries are mindblowingly amazing. My favourite is the one on "Infinity". If any of my math teachers had been more like some of the crazy guys portrayed in this program, I may have found math more interesting in school.
They're my favourites for the things they say. I don't know of many other scientists anyway. Of course, anyone working to beat cancer (and extend the lifespan in other ways) is fantastic in my book as well.
Well, but the OPs question was for your favourite living scientists, not for your favourite popular atheists. Sadly you are not alone in knowing very few scientists. Most leading scientists are little known outside the small circle of those who have the same field of expertise as they do. They are only ever mentioned in the mainstream news (and quickly forgotten again) if they happen to win a Nobel Price. Theres definitely not as much glory in dissecting frogs, coming up with mathematical formulas or pondering about a και or the lack thereof in ancient scrolls as there should be in our society. Which is probably why Dawkins hasnt spent much time in a laboratory for the past couple of years.
I'm not sure I can pick one but Brian Green is one that immediately comes to mind. If you like atheist scientists, how about Jack Szostack? [video=youtube;U6QYDdgP9eg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg[/video]
Dawkings is an aggressive, malicious and abrasive atheist. He has probably done more to harm the opinion of atheism (maybe a good thing?) than that truly mean hearted atheist woman that was pres of AA (american atheists) did before she was murdered by another atheist. With due respect (to you not Dawking), Dawking is a moderate to good biologist, a better author (in artistic skill) but IMO an ugly unpleasant human being. In fact, I feel John Barrow was right when Dawkings challenged* Barrow at the Templeton-Cambridge Journalism Fellowship lectures and Barrow replied; "You have a problem with these ideas, Richard, because you’re not really a scientist. You’re a biologist! ”.... Priceless. * From the net; Selfish Gene author and biologis Richard Dawkins challenged physicist John Barrow on his formulation of the constants of nature" (from the net). That is what drew Barrows accurate but scathing review and assessment of Dawkins profession. (comment by reva) From the net; “For Barrow, biology is little more than a branch of natural history. “Biologists have a limited, intuitive understanding of complexity. They’re stuck with an inherited conflict from the 19th century, and are only interested in outcomes, in what wins out over others,” he adds. “But outcomes tell you almost nothing about the laws that govern the universe.” For physicists it is the laws of nature themselves that capture and structure the universe–and put brakes on it as well." So my favorite scientists are Hugh Ross, Barrow Robert Penrose Hawking, Hugh Ross, Don Page...all non atheists even hawking. I have a couple of atheist and otherwise secular scientists favs but all but one of my #1's are devout believers in the Christian God, hawking is a near agnostic with God leanings. reva
Note to forum; I double pasted my favorite scientists names (from the word processor). The paragraph should have read; my favorite scientists are; ‘Hugh Ross, John Barrow, Robert Penrose, S. Hawking, Don Page...all are non atheists even hawking. Its not that I am so biased against the beliefs or world veiws of non-theists and atheists, rather I prefer theists and non-secular scientists because my world view (paradigm) is deistic/theistic. So all but one of my #1's are devout believers in the Christian God, sans Penrose who is a weird theist/deist. Also, Hawking who is a near agnostic with God leanings. reva
I agree with you in part about Dawkins. I think he's a smart man, but it's his presentation that turns people off. He's abrasive. I personally feel he is right(I know we don't agree on that), but he is abrasive and mean about it. There was a time when I enjoyed watching and hearing people be abrasive to religious people, but as I get older I realize it's pointless. It's just cheerleading. It make me question whether those people are actually in it to change minds or just to get attention. So in my book, Dawkins gets an A for substance and an F for presentation.
As for the question what Dawkins is in it for: call, me a cynic, but Id suspect its both attention and money. You dont write bestsellers being overly polite. Unfortunately books with substance that present balanced arguments also rarely make it onto the bestselling lists. So Id give Dawkins an F for both presentation and substance. His lack of the latter just recently showed again when he discussed the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams. While both Williams and Dawkins were rather polite, Dawkins had to admit he couldnt follow the discussion any more as soon as the moderator, agnostic philosopher Anthony Kenny, started using philosophical termini. Which is rather pathetic seeing that the question whether God exists or not is mainly a philosophical one. That Dawkins does not even know what epistemic means, is just one more indicator that he should have stuck to biology rather than writing about religion, a subject he quite obviously isnt even willing to get a proper clue about. Whats especially sad is that Dawkins disdain for religion also seems to have affected his approach to biology. His meme-theory is pseudo-scientific and ironically is just as unverifiable via empirical examination as religious claims are. All in all Dawkins may have done a good job when presenting the findings of his colleagues in The Selfish Gene, but I cant quite see what he himself has contributed to biology. So no, he wouldnt be my favourite scientist by a long stretch.
Well who doesn't love Neil degrasse Tyson? As a marine science major, I would probably have to say Bob Ballard. I love the exploration work he has done. And definitely Edith Widder, her ejelly is (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)in and not to mention genius.
I will always have a soft spot in my heart for David Attenborough. As a natural scientist populist his is incomparable. Neil Degrasse Tyson is a great populist, science philosopher and a darn good astrophysicist, and the perfect fellow pass Sagan's Cosmos torch to.
I'm going to take my first Physics class in a few months, which is apart of a series of Physics classes I have to take. I enjoy listening to Dr. Michio Kaku. I would have to say my favorite scientists, for now, are Michael from V-sauce, the guy from minutephysics, and various other scientists who have youtube channels. http://www.youtube.com/user/Vsauce/videos
Peter W. Glynn, coral reef researcher at the University of Miami. He was one of my professors there. He is a truly nice man, as well as an extremely knowledgeable one.
