Comments on: Metrocontextual science map

By: New age therapy flowchart | Bad Astronomy

New age therapy flowchart | Bad Astronomy — Thu, 30 Dec 2010 09:26:42 +0000

[...] [4]: http://www.fark.com/cgi/comments.pl?IDLink=5690735 [5]: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/08/31/metrocontextual-science-map/ [6]: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/04/15/i-am-a-skeptic-chipmunk/ [7]: [...]

By: Robert Carnegie

Robert Carnegie — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 13:17:48 +0000

Should Little Astronomer be on the map, too, perhaps? Maybe labelled “Under instruction”?

By: Keith (the first one)

Keith (the first one) — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 16:30:44 +0000

That’s cool. It’s not a metro-subway thing though. It’s a tube map. Duh. (Like 8 amtrad said)

By: Josh

Josh — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 15:33:08 +0000

Shouldn’t Luis Alvarez be in there somewhere, linking theoretical physics and natural history? He did contribute to the Manhattan Project as well as microwave research and radar research. Oh, and let’s not forget his whole post-WWII scientific endeavors: the hydrogen bubble chamber and the idea that the k-t boundary was created by an impact by an extraterrestrial object.

By: Jason

Jason — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 07:08:13 +0000

It is a shame that we can’t commute from the 10th-11th century and include Alhazen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhazen

By: Bryan

Bryan — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 21:44:44 +0000

@27

I agree. Looking at this one would think Geology has had nothing to say for ~100 years. In addition to Schmitt, let’s not forget MK Hubbert, Marshall Kay, JT Wilson, Charles Richter, Larry Sloss, and Ken Hsu (all active in the past hundred years), additionally you could make a convincing argument for Arthur Holmes (key in development of radiometric dating) and TC Chamberlain (MWH), the list can go on…

Though if we look strictly at the Paleo aspect, I am surprised I don’t see Romer, Simpson, or Ostrom in that list.

Rosalind Franklin should also be linked to the Geology line as well.

But as the disclaimer suggests, there are gross oversimplifications, dodgy demarcations, and glaring omissions. Oh well, I’m certain the other fields can add many names to their “lines” that were overlooked as well.

By: changcho

changcho — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 20:04:56 +0000

It is interesting not only for the fields I’m most familiar with (physics, astronomy, math) but it is even more interesting and fun for the fields I’m less familiar with (biology for instance). Very well done!

By: N8 Loller

N8 Loller — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 14:05:24 +0000

Ah, but on the contrary, in a few centuries I am sure some people from our time will be credited with making contributions to multiple disciplines that we don’t consider different, or that don’t exist yet! I’m sure Galileo just thought he was focused in one or two areas.

By: Ian

Ian — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 12:04:43 +0000

Cool – I’m going to use this to play spot the Catholic scientist! Thanks Phil.

Shame though that it does not include references to 11th, 12th, 13th and 14th century contributions to modern science from Roberte Grossetest, Nicolas of Cusa, Nicole Oresme, Roger Bacon, and many many more. When, in answer to your question Phil, science wasn’t known as ‘science’ back then but natural philosophy or just philosophy – indeed everything was cosmology, as the late Fr S Jaki said.

By: Gary Ansorge

Gary Ansorge — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 11:20:56 +0000

1. Brian Schlosser

I’ll bet Lamarck would have been really happy to see the advances we’ve made in molecular biology, especially in our understanding of epigenetics, which would have been right up his alley.

Gary 7