View Single Post
  #157 (permalink)  
Old 17-March-2005, 06:33 PM
Sam5 Sam5 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,481
Default Re: Was Newton a real scientist?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Argos
Quote:
Originally Posted by R.A.F.
It seems important to you (for some reason) to say that Newton was not a real scientist...I can't imagine why...
I know I´m bad at english, but I´m focusing, as I tried to say earlier, in the historiographic (is there such word in English?) aspects. I trying to deconstruct (fancy word) his romantic aura of a typical scientist. I´m discussing the conveniency (or lack of) of classifying (I´m a classification maniac) him as a scientist. Just a chit-chat. An exercize. Nothing important.
Well, as long as it’s not important, then I guess we can all relax. It’s not like this is a “test question” on a university exam, so we don’t have to get all frustrated over it.

I think we can classify different “kinds” of “scientists”. Like Edison and the Wright Brothers were “inventors”. So were they also “scientists”? I would say “yes”, they were “inventor-scientists”, but others might disagree.

I’ve been studying Doppler lately. He was basically a high school teacher, who worked on an “idea”, and then he published his idea a year or so after he became a technical institute professor. So was he a “scientist”? I don’t know. I guess so. I find it interesting that he, above all other “scientists”, has his name mentioned the most by the American media today. More than Newton, Edison, and Einstein. Because today we have “Doppler radar,” and, thus, the American media mentions Doppler’s name several times every day.
Reply With Quote