Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

The Map of Critical Thinking and Modern Science 150

Jamie noticed an interesting map of critical thinking and science done in a sort of subway style. You can track Newton and Einstein and Tesla and so on. It's actually pretty interesting to navigate.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Map of Critical Thinking and Modern Science

Comments Filter:
  • Great Bear (Score:5, Informative)

    by DIplomatic ( 1759914 ) on Tuesday August 31, 2010 @11:47AM (#33425986) Journal
    Very similar to "The Great Bear" [] by Simon Patterson
  • Re:Omissions? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Coryoth ( 254751 ) on Tuesday August 31, 2010 @12:03PM (#33426192) Homepage Journal

    It kind of raises my hackles a bit when a document claims to list prominent personalities in the history of critical thought and leaves off such basic people as, I don't know, Plato and Aristotle.

    If you actually scan the map you'll see that it is only since the 15th century and anyone prior to that is left off. If you want to talk about omissions then try scanning along the "mathematics and computing" line, which is far more sparse than it should be. Where is Bertrand Russell, who ought to be straddling a couple of lines at least? Where are many of the mid to late 20th century mathematicians (are Grothendieck, Conway, and Wiles really all you can manage? How about Deligne, Mac Lane, Quillen, Tate, Perelman, thew list goes on...).

  • by 0xdeadbeef ( 28836 ) on Tuesday August 31, 2010 @12:26PM (#33426540) Homepage Journal

    Yeah, I noticed that. And yet it is missing Gerard Kuiper. How many belts does Phil have named after him?

  • by ultranova ( 717540 ) on Tuesday August 31, 2010 @12:47PM (#33426802)

    This map at first glance appears to be decidedly western individuals only.

    Well, perhaps you might list some important non-Western scientists from the last 500 years which the map covers who are missing from it, so that they might be added in?

    Besides, as a quick test, at least Jagadish Chandra Bose [], Andrey Kolmogorov [] and Min Chueh Chang [] seem to have made it in.

  • by 0xdeadbeef ( 28836 ) on Tuesday August 31, 2010 @01:01PM (#33427002) Homepage Journal

    You think you're being clever and insightful

    He is simply stating the facts.

    might be able to provide quite a fine list.

    No, they won't.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 31, 2010 @01:10PM (#33427106)

    Well, what about the one considered the "first scientist", founder of scientific method? Or the founder of robotics and modern engineering? Or the father of algebra and algorithms? Here is a good read for you, this list contains more than the 120 "just" from the Islamic golden age, more known to you by the dark ages:
    Here are some that I knew and I copied from that list:

    *Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen), father of optics, pioneer of scientific method and experimental physics, considered the "first scientist", founder of experimental psychology, psychophysics, phenomenology and visual perception
    *Ab Rayhn al-Brn, father of geodesy, considered the first geologist and "first anthropologist"
    *Avicenna, father of modern medicine, pioneer of experimental medicine, evidence-based medicine, pharmaceutical sciences, clinical pharmacology, aromatherapy, pulsology and sphygmology, and also a philosopher
    *Averroes, pioneer of Parkinson's disease among other stuff
    *Muhammad ibn Ms al-Khwrizm (Algorismi) - father of algebra and algorithms
    *Ali ibn Abbas al-Majusi (Haly Abbas), pioneer of neuroanatomy, neurobiology and neurophysiology
    *Ishaq bin Ali al-Rahwi (854–931), pioneer of peer review and medical peer review
    *Ab al-Hasan ibn Al al-Qalasd (1412–1482), pioneer of symbolic algebra
    *Al-Jazari, 13th century civil engineer, father of robotics, father of modern engineering

  • by ScentCone ( 795499 ) on Tuesday August 31, 2010 @01:56PM (#33427712)
    What issues of actual substance has Glen Beck ever raised?

    Let's see ... profligate spending on enormous debt-fueled entitlement programs? Colossal bailout programs that have done none of the things promised, but which have piled onto the deficits and debt? The huge and growing intrusion of government into more and more aspects of personal life, small business, and the rest? The rather spectacular waffling by politicians of every stripe on fundamental stuff that should be crystal clear, and plainly spoken about (like, say, what our actual goals are in dealing with illegal immigration, or in energy policy, or in trade deficits).

    He's WAY too religious for my taste. But does that make harping on the fact that everyone's grandkids are going to be wearing the debt from just this year's deficits somehow insubstantial?
  • by ElectricTurtle ( 1171201 ) on Tuesday August 31, 2010 @02:18PM (#33427962)
    And you don't suppose there is a reason why a site created by Americans for which most contributors are Americans written in a language most native speakers of which are American might have a bias toward American figures?

    In contrast, the Chinese language version of Wikipedia lists 120 [] Chinese physicists alone. I didn't add up all the categories but a rough look through I could honestly estimate about 500 for China too in the Chinese language wikipedia.

    I would suggest you educate yourself more about the contributions made to science outside of the West. It does not diminish the value of the Western contributions to know they that didn't happen in a vacuum.
  • by ppanon ( 16583 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2010 @02:59AM (#33433002) Homepage Journal
    RMS is rational. He just has a very different set of priorities from most of the rest of the world.

"For a male and female to live continuously together is... biologically speaking, an extremely unnatural condition." -- Robert Briffault