The Suck Zone - Need a science forum

[Commander Dutch]

Newton despised Leibniz and probably worked behind the scenes to tarnish his reputation!

I think Mendeleev gets short-shrifted on reputation; the periodic table might be the most iconic symbol of the high school science classroom.

Selective breeding of livestock and plants was certainly considered by Darwin, but evolution by natural selection was a novel concept, and it took the early 20th century synthesis with genetics for people to understand how natural selection would lead to evolution.

While it's good to have heroes and figures to emulate, putting them too high on the pedestal is often an error. Newton and Leibniz are one example.

In my life I've personally seen people who were applauded more than they deserved and people who were never properly recognized for their contributions. Most don't care.

One reason many recipients of medals of valor or other accolades are humble is that they know that there are a lot of others who deserved to be recognized and weren't.

Another example is Captain Chesley Sullenberger. Great guy and very humble. The media made him out to be a hero, and he was, but he also fucked up and got a lot more recognition than his crew; FO Jeffrey Skiles and FA's Doreen Welsh, Donna Dent, and Sheila Dail. Such is life.

 

[Commander Dutch]

You put on an air, too. I hope you realize this. Your facade is one of the "calm operator" who sees the flaws of everyone else....

What else do you see? Or is that it?

BTW, thanks for all the support for Into the Night. It's interesting.

 

[Cypress]

Newton AND LEIBNIZ invented Calculus.

The notation we use for calculus today is Leibniz's.

Newton and Leibniz were corresponding by letter and Newton claims Leibniz stole the idea of the calculus from him, but the consensus of experts seems to be Leibniz invented it independently

 

[Commander Dutch]

So do psychopaths and toddlers.

LOL Agreed.

Why do you think it's wrong to speak your mind, Perry? What are you hiding? Or do you fear recriminations for speaking your mind?

 

[Commander Dutch]

The notation we use for calculus today is Leibniz's.

Newton and Leibniz were corresponding by letter and Newton claims Leibniz stole the idea of the calculus from him, but the consensus of experts seems to be Leibniz invented it independently

Agreed. Point being that if most HS and college students are asked "Who invented calculus" they won't say "Leibniz".

 

[Saint Guinefort]

LOL Agreed.

Why do you think it's wrong to speak your mind, Perry? What are you hiding? Or do you fear recriminations for speaking your mind?

Speaking one's mind usually is best done when there is something worth speaking. Otherwise it is indistinguishable from vomit.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Agreed. Point being that if most HS and college students are asked "Who invented calculus" they won't say "Leibniz".

Really?

 

[Saint Guinefort]

The notation we use for calculus today is Leibniz's.

Newton and Leibniz were corresponding by letter and Newton claims Leibniz stole the idea of the calculus from him, but the consensus of experts seems to be Leibniz invented it independently

Agreed. And of course Newton would claim it was "stolen". He had a problem with getting along with others. Leibniz was not his only feud. Historical accounts make him sound rather unpleasant.

 

[Cypress]

Agreed. Point being that if most HS and college students are asked "Who invented calculus" they won't say "Leibniz".

That's true, but the calculus textbooks I had in college were diligent in pointing out both men get credit.

I think because we are former British colonies and inherited the Anglophile tradition, we tend to privilege British intellectuals over continental experts. James Hutton is given pride of place in our earth science textbooks, but on the continent he was not considered to be very significant.

 

[Commander Dutch]

Speaking one's mind usually is best done when there is something worth speaking. Otherwise it is indistinguishable from vomit.

^^^
Deliberately avoids the point this is a discussion forum.

It's your anger that interests me most, Perry. You're overly defensive, which results in the anger. There's something going on with you and I'm curious what it is.

What's even more interesting is that you keep seeking to interact with me. If you were a nutjob like Sybil, you'd babble something and move on to babble about others, but you don't. You can be very coherent when you choose to be, even if you tend to have a chip on your shoulder. That behavior, too, piques my curiosity.

You're free to call my inquisitive nature a "schtick", but I enjoy all of our little interactions since we can each learn from one another.

 

[Commander Dutch]

That's true, but the calculus textbooks I had in college were diligent in pointing out both men get credit.

I think because we are former British colonies and inherited the Anglophile tradition, we tend to privilege British intellectuals over continental experts. James Hutton is given pride of place in our earth science textbooks, but on the continent he was not considered to be very significant.

I dropped out of calculus. It doesn't surprise me that experts in a field would know more about. It's the laymen who don't as we discussed with the names Einstein and Darwin.

Despite a major disagreement in 1776 and, later, in 1812, America's ties with England are very strong...and with a much longer history than our own nation.

As for Hutton, I don't know. I'd expect those in the sciences would know the history of their field.

 

[Cypress]

I dropped out of calculus. It doesn't surprise me that experts in a field would know more about. It's the laymen who don't as we discussed with the names Einstein and Darwin.

Despite a major disagreement in 1776 and, later, in 1812, America's ties with England are very strong...and with a much longer history than our own nation.

As for Hutton, I don't know. I'd expect those in the sciences would know the history of their field.

Your average person on the street probably couldn't name more than five scientists.

Carl Sagan is only known because of a TV program. Same with Jacque Cousteau and Niel de grasse Tyson.

Newton and Einstein just became cultural icons, as you noted

 

[Commander Dutch]

Your average person on the street probably couldn't name more than five scientists.

Carl Sagan is only known because of a TV program. Same with Jacque Cousteau and Niel de grasse Tyson.

Newton and Einstein just became cultural icons, as you noted

Agreed. Sad, isn't it?

I wonder if many Japanese or Chinese kids could name more scientists than TV icons. LOL

 

[Saint Guinefort]

^^^
Deliberately avoids the point this is a discussion forum.

Incorrect.

It's your anger

What "anger", oh most gifted psychic?

that interests me most, Perry. You're overly defensive, which results in the anger. There's something going on with you and I'm curious what it is.

I guess it all makes sense. You were SO BAD in undergrad at your "psych" degree that you couldn't hack a graduate level degree. Now you fancy yourself some sort of "human screener".

The funniest part is: I can see what you are doing. You think you are being so clever but I see what you do. You needle and then act like you are surprised someone responds even slightly negatively toward you.

Are you sure you are mentally OK?

What's even more interesting is that you keep seeking to interact with me.

That is a LIE. YOU started off by, once again, accusing me of something. I only responded to you and you assume that means I am angry and want to talk to you.

Your "insights" in anything are exactly valueless to me, so honestly I don't want to interact with you. You actually DO kind of annoy me. Not "anger" per your suggestion, but mild annoyance.

I find stupid people who fancy themselves smarter than they demonstrably are to be annoying.

You're free to call my inquisitive nature a "schtick", but I enjoy all of our little interactions since we can each learn from one another.

Inquisitive nature? LOL. You are playing a schtick. You know it, I know it. Maybe you can convince someone else you aren't.

I can learn nothing from you because you aren't worth anything to me. Sorry.

If you can't take criticism then perhaps you are not as sharp as you think you are.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

I dropped out of calculus.

Actually doesn't sound like you could stick with anything. You got an undergrad degree in psych then went on to what, "international relations" or some such fake degree? And you were a flash ace pilot, too? Yeah, you don't sound like you could stick with much.

It doesn't surprise me that experts in a field would know more about.

Yeah, like the entire field of psychology which you CLAIM you got a bachelors in but you never actually use legitimate psych terms. You go for the kind of "diagnoses" an uninformed layman would rely on. EVERYONE has a vicious psychosis in your world.

LOL. You are a layman even in your own field!

As for Hutton, I don't know. I'd expect those in the sciences would know the history of their field.

Yes most of us do. ESPECIALLY those of us who could make it all the way through grad school in a field.

You wouldn't understand.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

James Hutton is given pride of place in our earth science textbooks, but on the continent he was not considered to be very significant.

Hmmm, I hadn't heard that. Hutton is obviously EXTREMELY well known in geologic circles. What was the view of the Europeans at the time of him?

 

[Cypress]

Hmmm, I hadn't heard that. Hutton is obviously EXTREMELY well known in geologic circles. What was the view of the Europeans at the time of him?

I took a history of science course, and I remember the professor saying that on the continent Hutton was just one out of many Europeans looking at stratigraphic relationships in rocks, so he wasn't held out as particularly unique on the continent -- though in Scotland and England he may have been well known for that kind of careful field observation.

 

[Commander Dutch]

Incorrect.
What "anger", oh most gifted psychic?
I guess it all makes sense. You were SO BAD in undergrad at your "psych" degree that you couldn't hack a graduate level degree. Now you fancy yourself some sort of "human screener".
The funniest part is: I can see what you are doing. You think you are being so clever but I see what you do. You needle and then act like you are surprised someone responds even slightly negatively toward you.
Are you sure you are mentally OK?
That is a LIE. YOU started off by, once again, accusing me of something. I only responded to you and you assume that means I am angry and want to talk to you.
Your "insights" in anything are exactly valueless to me, so honestly I don't want to interact with you. You actually DO kind of annoy me. Not "anger" per your suggestion, but mild annoyance.
I find stupid people who fancy themselves smarter than they demonstrably are to be annoying.
Inquisitive nature? LOL. You are playing a schtick. You know it, I know it. Maybe you can convince someone else you aren't.
I can learn nothing from you because you aren't worth anything to me. Sorry.
If you can't take criticism then perhaps you are not as sharp as you think you are.

^^^
Death by verbal diarrhea. Clearly you are upset with me, Perry Phd.

The fact you can't be clear, concise and to the point is interesting. You seek to flood the thread with your scattershot verbosity then, what? Declare victory?

Go for it, Perry. Declare yourself the winner and feel good about yourself. After all, you have a PhD.

BTW, disagreed that you aren't angry. You are clearly upset, but I strongly doubt it's just me. I'm simply the cat in your little displaced aggression scenario. That's fine too because, like a cat, I'm curious...even if it's not in my best interests to be so. LOL

 

[Commander Dutch]

Actually doesn't sound like you could stick with anything. You got an undergrad degree in psych then went on to what, "international relations" or some such fake degree? And you were a flash ace pilot, too? Yeah, you don't sound like you could stick with much.

Yeah, like the entire field of psychology which you CLAIM you got a bachelors in but you never actually use legitimate psych terms. You go for the kind of "diagnoses" an uninformed layman would rely on. EVERYONE has a vicious psychosis in your world.

LOL. You are a layman even in your own field!

Yes most of us do. ESPECIALLY those of us who could make it all the way through grad school in a field.

You wouldn't understand.

QED on anger.

You're clearly emotionally upset. You can call it "annoyed", but I'll stick with anger.

Again, my guess is that it's not this forum that makes you angry. If so, a sane person would just leave. You come to JPP angry and seek to vent your frustrations. Is it because you can't get a job? A particular promotion? Going through a divorce? Why do you come to JPP angry, Perry PhD?

FWIW, I'm fine with you taking out your frustrations on me. As posted previously, we can learn something from each other. Win-Win!

https://www.apa.org/topics/anger

Anger is an emotion characterized by antagonism toward someone or something you feel has deliberately done you wrong.

Anger can be a good thing. It can give you a way to express negative feelings, for example, or motivate you to find solutions to problems.

But excessive anger can cause problems. Increased blood pressure and other physical changes associated with anger make it difficult to think straight and harm your physical and mental health.

https://dictionary.apa.org/displaced-aggression

displaced aggression
the direction of hostility away from the source of frustration or anger and toward either the self or a different entity. Displaced aggression may occur, for example, when circumstances preclude direct confrontation with the responsible entity because it is perceived as too powerful to attack without fear of reprisal.

 

[Cypress]

Actually doesn't sound like you could stick with anything. You got an undergrad degree in psych then went on to what, "international relations" or some such fake degree? And you were a flash ace pilot, too? Yeah, you don't sound like you could stick with much.



Yeah, like the entire field of psychology which you CLAIM you got a bachelors in but you never actually use legitimate psych terms. You go for the kind of "diagnoses" an uninformed layman would rely on. EVERYONE has a vicious psychosis in your world.

LOL. You are a layman even in your own field!



Yes most of us do. ESPECIALLY those of us who could make it all the way through grad school in a field.

You wouldn't understand.

The thing I like about DU is he is curious about a variety of topics, including science. There's only about six posters here genuinely interested in discussing science. I am no expert on genetics or cosmology myself, but it's fun to discuss. Psychology is a social science, so I figure that people with psychology degrees enjoy analytical inquiry the same as those trained in the physical sciences.