• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

.....Can you name the single greatest practical scientific ......?

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
"Hawking, Dawkins, DeGrasse- I'm sure could give lectures and sell books on their knowledge of academic definitions of science to your satisfaction. Can you name the single greatest practical scientific contribution of any of them?"

_____________
The thread was conceptualized from post #69 @Guy Threepwood , one may like to read the full post to understand its context. Thanks to him.
Please
Regards
 

Quetzal

A little to the left and slightly out of focus.
Premium Member
"Hawking, Dawkins, DeGrasse- I'm sure could give lectures and sell books on their knowledge of academic definitions of science to your satisfaction. Can you name the single greatest practical scientific contribution of any of them?"

_____________
The thread was conceptualized from post #69 @Guy Threepwood , one may like to read the full post to understand its context. Thanks to him.
Please
Regards
Of the three, Hawking has done the most, I think. Here is a good write up:
What has Stephen Hawking done for science?
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
"Hawking, Dawkins, DeGrasse- I'm sure could give lectures and sell books on their knowledge of academic definitions of science to your satisfaction. Can you name the single greatest practical scientific contribution of any of them?"

_____________
The thread was conceptualized from post #69 @Guy Threepwood , one may like to read the full post to understand its context. Thanks to him.
Please
Regards
Hawking greatly improved our understanding of the cosmos in regards to gravity, space-time, black-holes, etc.

Here are some for Hawking (from What has Stephen Hawking done for science?)

1970 Singularities in gravitational collapse
Physicists working on Einstein's theory of gravity noticed that it allowed for singularities – points where spacetime appeared to be infinitely curved. But it was unclear whether singularities were real or not. Roger Penrose at Birkbeck College in London proved that singularities would indeed form in black holes. Later, Penrose and Hawking applied the same idea to the whole universe and showed that Einstein's theory predicted a singularity in our distant past. It was the big bang.

1971-72 Black hole mechanics
Black holes have their own set of laws that mirror the more familiar laws of thermodynamics. Hawking came up with the second law, which states that the total surface area of a black hole will never get smaller, at least so far as classical (as opposed to quantum) physics is concerned. Also known as the Hawking area theorem, it created a puzzle for physicists. The law implied that black holes were hot, a contradiction of classical physics that said black holes could not radiate heat. In separate work, Hawking worked on the "no hair" theorem of black holes, which states that black holes can be characterised by three numbers – their mass, angular momentum and charge. The hair in question is other information that vanishes when it falls into the black hole.

1974-75 How black holes can vanish
Nothing can escape a black hole, or so physicists once thought. Hawking drew on quantum theory to show that black holes should emit heat and eventually vanish. The process is slow for normal black holes. It would take longer than the age of the universe for a black hole with the same mass as our sun to evaporate. But smaller black holes evaporate faster, and near the end of their lives release heat at a spectacular rate. In the last tenth of a second, a black hole could explode with the energy of a million one megaton hydrogen bombs.

1982 How galaxies might arise
A popular theory in cosmology holds that the fledgling universe went through a period of rapid inflation soon after the big bang. Hawking was one of the first to show how quantum fluctuations – minuscule variations in the distribution of matter – during inflation might give rise to the spread of galaxies in the universe. What started as a tiny difference grew into the cosmic structure we see, as gravity made matter clump together. Recent maps of the heavens that pick up the faint afterglow of the big bang reveal the kinds of variations Hawking worked with.

1983 Wave function of the universe
Hawking has spent much of his time trying to develop a quantum theory of gravity. He started out applying his idea of Euclidean quantum gravity to black holes, but in 1983 teamed up with Jim Hartle at Chicago University. Together they proposed a "wave function of the universe" that, in theory, could be used to calculate the properties of the universe we see around us.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Of the three, Hawking has done the most, I think. Here is a good write up:
What has Stephen Hawking done for science?
I say his major accomplishment is his recurring appearance on The Simpsons & Futurama.
This is more significant that science stuff by those other nerds.
How is this "practical", you ask?
He helped the networks sell advertising, making oodles of money hawking (note lame
pun) things like new cars & extended warranties on male enhancement devices.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
To some people being a teacher and an author of science-based books is not worthwhile.
The thread OP specifically asked for greatest practical scientific contribution. The books help illustrate those contributions. Dawkins Selfish Gene and memetic gene theory contributions to biology, Stephen's contribution to astrophysics and especially our understanding of black holes, and Neil's making discoveries like those more accessible to a general public knowledge through public outreach and education.
 

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
"Hawking, Dawkins, DeGrasse- I'm sure could give lectures and sell books on their knowledge of academic definitions of science to your satisfaction. Can you name the single greatest practical scientific contribution of any of them?"

What's with the endless string of people who do nothing but ask questions they don't really want answers to? You obviously don't care to know the answer and this tactic fails miserably on a rhetorical level, so it serves no function, other than to make the poster look childish and/or silly.
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
As already noted, the direct contribution to science, specifically, physics, goes to Dr Hawking, of course.

However, you cannot simply dismiss the contributions of Dr Tyson either, his effort to bring science into the common arena, and make it accessible to everyone has been (and still is) an incredible contribution to general science. We cannot possibly know, how many young minds were inspired by watching or listening to Dr Tyson's charismatic exposition on physics, science and the cosmos.

As for Dawkins? I think his contribution is more esoteric, he has managed to pull the concept of atheism back from a seemingly fringe idea, and brought it firmly into the mainstream. His outspoken rejection of theism has allowed others to also come out of the "atheist closet" and speak out as well. His willingness to speak openly, and say "The Emperor is Naked" has helped to break down the automatic free pass (from criticism) that religion has enjoyed for centuries. Religion no longer enjoys quite as privileged a status it once had.

So, each have contributed in their own way.

(Some would ask, how has Dawkins' making of atheism more accessible, contributing to science; do I need to spell this out? Religions have, since their inception, been a deliberate block to scientific progress all through history. By reducing their strangle-hold on culture? You automatically increase the ability of scientific progress to ... well, progress.)
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
"Hawking, Dawkins, DeGrasse- I'm sure could give lectures and sell books on their knowledge of academic definitions of science to your satisfaction. Can you name the single greatest practical scientific contribution of any of them?"

_____________
The thread was conceptualized from post #69 @Guy Threepwood , one may like to read the full post to understand its context. Thanks to him.
Please
Regards
Lol, Dawkins was used repeatedly to teach us Physics in freaking High School (he did a series of educational promos back in the day, I assume.) But he did contribute to Biology. Ever hear of the Selfish Gene? Like sheesh.
Stephen motherfreaking Hawking is like the promotional guy for astrophysics. Like come on, that's like asking to list achievements in art done by Micheal Angelo or Leonardo Da Vinci. The response should be how do you not know. As for DeGrasse, umm he made science accessible to the mainstream. He essentially inspired the next generation of scientists. How is that not practical?

Richard Dawkins - Wikipedia
Stephen Hawking - Important Scientists - The Physics of the Universe
10 Cool Things About Neil deGrasse Tyson

What is even the point? There are other scientists apart from those three. I mean what no Carl Sagon? Bill Nye? Hell I'd be willing to wager that Sir David Attenborough contributed more to science than you ever will in your lifetime and he's technically not even a scientist. I don't mean to be harsh, I'm just saying. Either way, who cares? A doctor will use the germ theory, even if he doesn't like whoever discovered it. Science does not collapse if you point out flaws in a couple or even all scientists. It doesn't work like that.
Though Hawkings is certainly beyond awesome, I mean I'd like to see you achieve even half of what he's accomplished in life and he's wheelchair bound and can't even speak. Tyson is like the Fonz of science. Dawkins is like the crotchety grandpa of science. But I'll admit that I do respect his bluntness and fearlessness in his speaking. Even if he does come across as condescending sometimes.
Though I'm not an atheist, I personally liked the big "Four Horsemen" of atheism and do sort of miss seeing them all in action. To challenge one's view of faith, of religion of tradition even I think is healthy and personally I see it as a chance to grow. All of their debates and lectures left me a lot of food for thought. And that's just awesome.
 
Last edited:

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
"Hawking, Dawkins, DeGrasse- I'm sure could give lectures and sell books on their knowledge of academic definitions of science to your satisfaction. Can you name the single greatest practical scientific contribution of any of them?"

_____________
The thread was conceptualized from post #69 @Guy Threepwood , one may like to read the full post to understand its context. Thanks to him.
Please
Regards

Sure. The practicality of education.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
To some people being a teacher and an author of science-based books is not worthwhile.
He made some incredible discoveries about the cosmos too. And, certain people's opinion that being a teacher and author isn't worthwhile in no way diminishes the value in those things. Understanding our cosmos and teaching others is about as practical/worthwhile as it gets.
 
Top