Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Map of Critical Thinking and Modern Science

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the that-would-take-awhile dept.

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.

cancel ×

150 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Only One Half of the World Covered in This Map (2, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#33425928)

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

Hey you! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33425988)

Hey Slashdot!! Tonight only, CmdrTaco will be giving out free blowjobs at his local glory hole. kdawson is also supposed to be stopping by as well to give rim jobs to anyone who wants one. Don't miss this opportunity for a great Slashdot meet-up!!!

Re:Hey you! (3, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426012)

I tried using my iPhone's Map app's "use current location" feature, but instead of placing me somewhere on that map of critical thinking and science it took me back here to /.

Re:Only One Half of the World Covered in This Map (4, Insightful)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426216)

I zoomed in on a random portion of the map, and it lost a lot of it's charm when it listed Phil Plait, heading up 21st century Astronomy along the same line as Carl Sagan.

I don't want to knock what Phil has done, and I DO read his BadAstronomy blog fairly regularly. However, I think that including him in this map is highly premature. He is well educated, and can put together a somewhat interesting article, but I'm thinking it's a bit more pop-celebrity and reaching to find a 'current' astronomer that put him on there.

Not that in 15-20 years I would be surprised to see him on a later version of this map, but it just feels like a rush to make it more relevant. No offence Phil, if you read this, but I'm sure you can agree that there are likely a great number of more influential Astronomers who may better deserve the 'inheritance'.

There will probably be a few other 'gripes', and if the creator of this map had ended it a little earlier we might have been able to avoid statements like mine. It becomes an easy debate topic like a top 100 list.

Perhaps some metrics to show why the latest people were placed there?

Back to reading Phil's posts on Fark...

Re:Only One Half of the World Covered in This Map (3, Informative)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426540)

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

Re:Only One Half of the World Covered in This Map (1)

Hylandr (813770) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426788)

Considering the work he has done to bring astronomy to the previously oblivious ( yes that's the right word ) masses. He should be sainted.

In America most peoples eyes glaze over if you take a conversation outside TV, Beer or Politics. It's disgusting. The fact that he has done what he has demonstrates a pretty solid will, as most Americans will also fight against anyone that tries to open their eyes or awareness.

But this is Slashdot, We have all seen this at some point.

- Dan.

Re:Only One Half of the World Covered in This Map (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427042)

Sagan's dead and Phil has launched a pilot for hopefully a new series on Discovery channel. Eventually someone's got to take up the torch Sagan left behind.

Re:Only One Half of the World Covered in This Map (3, Insightful)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427650)

Sagan's dead and Phil has launched a pilot for hopefully a new series on Discovery channel. Eventually someone's got to take up the torch Sagan left behind.

My point is that it's on the same 'line' as Christian Huygens, Isaac Newton, Johanes Kepler, Edwin Hubble, Galileo Galilei, and Copernicus.

The creator of this map has some serious 'scale' issues. Perhaps if he split the Astronomer line to cover 'Astronomy-cheerleader'/got-a-show-on-Discovery. And I'm not saying that isn't important, but it's far too pop-culture for me.

If we are going to include people like that, then I'd like to see Don Herbert (Mr. Wizard) up on the list, because a hell of a lot more people can point to him as a science role model than Phil Plait.

Re:Only One Half of the World Covered in This Map (2, Funny)

Skjellifetti (561341) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427628)

I hadn't realized the gravity of Newton's interest in Alchemy. Putting Thomas Edison on a branch of the Theoretical Physics and QM Line was enlightening. Also interesting that biology does not seem to have acquired any characteristics from Lamark. Jared Diamond's work has too many facets to be relegated to just the Evolutionary Biology line. And I thought the whole project kinda bombed after I noticed that they had left off Andrei Sakharov.

I'll stop now.

Re:Only One Half of the World Covered in This Map (5, Insightful)

Shihar (153932) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426256)

True, but that in large part is because where you put the period at the end of this map has a massive influence on where you begin, especially philosophically. That isn't to suggest that there were not some parallels elsewhere in the world, but due to the great leaps the West made over the East from 16th century on up until the dawn of the 21st, those parallels became dead ends.

China was ahead of the West for a very long time. Right up into and even during the early part of the colonial age China was pretty far ahead of the West in terms of technology and culture. If China had maintained that path we might be in exactly the same place we are today in terms of technology, but instead of being able to trace back philosophical lines from Europe, to Roman, to Greece, you might trace it back from Japan, to Korea, to China with a set of Eastern philosophers to match. Hell, if you were to simply draw the map in the 1500s of where the major technologies trace their schools of thought from you would have two maps, on Eastern and one Western, and the Eastern one would be further ahead.

This isn't even to suggest that the West made its advancements in a vacuum. Lots of technology and thought crossed both ways across Eurasia, but when an idea travels a few thousand miles in the ancient world and suffers a dozen translations you pretty much lose all traceability. Hell, just jumping from an Islamic Empire to a Christian Empire is a pretty sure way to ensure that traceability is lost. It isn't like a Christian scholar in 1,200 AD influenced by an Islamic Arab scholar is going to cite his inspiration. The only reason why we remember those ancient Greek scholars at all is because the empires that came after worship the empires that came before, and were happy to cite them as influences.

Starting the map in the 1500s and working up to today means it is going to be a Western map because that was the period of time when the West dominated world thinking. Draw this map from 2000 BC to 1500 AD, or from 600 AD to 1200 AD, or from many other two points and you would see totally different maps. Hell, I bet the map from 2000 AD to 2500 AD is going to be a wild one with lines crossing all over the world like never before.

Re:Only One Half of the World Covered in This Map (0, Troll)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427080)

Hell, just jumping from an Islamic Empire to a Christian Empire is a pretty sure way to ensure that traceability is lost.

Suppose this is why many American teenagers don't understand Algebra?

Re:Only One Half of the World Covered in This Map (0, Troll)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426620)

Shocking, isn't it? There's, what, 120 names on it? So, go on, name 120 notable 'non Western' scientists, and we'll fix it. It's OK, we'll wait while you do that.

Re:Only One Half of the World Covered in This Map (1)

c0d3g33k (102699) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426750)

You think you're being clever and insightful, but it all depends on who does the naming, doesn't it? 'non Western' folks, who are unlikely to be hanging out here, might be able to provide quite a fine list.

Re:Only One Half of the World Covered in This Map (1, Informative)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427002)

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.

Re:Only One Half of the World Covered in This Map (2, Insightful)

c0d3g33k (102699) | more than 4 years ago | (#33428064)

Please refer to the rest of the parent thread where you will find your refutation. The cultural bias you are carrying around might be limiting how much of the larger scientific world you have been exposed to, both in the present and historically. Your view may be even more limited if you actually aren't trained in or actively practicing science, since your knowledge would only extend to what the popular media in your country presents as notable. "I haven't heard of them" does not equate to "not notable".

Re:Only One Half of the World Covered in This Map (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427022)

58 [wikipedia.org] + 72 [wikipedia.org] = 130. And that's just Japan and China (and then only those notable enough to be in an English language index).

Re:Only One Half of the World Covered in This Map (0)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427290)

There are only 516 American scientists on Wikipedia's list, and the country has only been around 234 years.

I'm not sure you actually understand that "notable" is the key word here, and that Wikipedia's notability standard is far weaker than what merits inclusion in that silly diagram.

Re:Only One Half of the World Covered in This Map (2, Informative)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 4 years ago | (#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 [wikipedia.org] 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.

Re:Only One Half of the World Covered in This Map (4, Insightful)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 4 years ago | (#33428360)

I'm well aware of the language bias, I had also added up around 400 scientists from six European countries but removed it because it detracted from the real point. You're so wrapped up in the perception of Western chauvinism that you deny reality, and that reality is that modern science was born in Europe and has been lead by Europe and later the United States for almost all of its existence. Yes, Japan, China, and India are now contributing in a big way, and yes, Islamic and Chinese scholars were making progress while Europe stared at its navel for a thousand years, but it hardly compares to the explosion of innovation and discovery that began in 16th century Europe.

Re:Only One Half of the World Covered in This Map (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#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: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_scientists.
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

Re:Only One Half of the World Covered in This Map (1)

Jedi Alec (258881) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427180)

Shocking, isn't it? There's, what, 120 names on it? So, go on, name 120 notable 'non Western' scientists, and we'll fix it. It's OK, we'll wait while you do that.

Please, for the love of all that is holy, tell us that you do not get to vote in a country that has nuclear weapons. When did it become fashionable to wear one's ignorance as a badge of pride anyway?

Re:Only One Half of the World Covered in This Map (2, Interesting)

Haxamanish (1564673) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427930)

Arab and Persian scientists had the habit of citing their sources in the Middle Ages, Westerners did not do that yet. So, a lot is lost due to our (=Western) lack of decent citing in those times. For example, we say it is 100 degrees Celcius or Farenheit, but we do not say it is 20hrs 08 minutes and 59 seconds Al-Nasawi.

Re:Only One Half of the World Covered in This Map (4, Informative)

ultranova (717540) | more than 4 years ago | (#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 [wikipedia.org] , Andrey Kolmogorov [wikipedia.org] and Min Chueh Chang [wikipedia.org] seem to have made it in.

Re:Only One Half of the World Covered in This Map (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33426862)

Min Chueh Chang seem to have made it in.

Yes, the Chinese born American made it.

Re:Only One Half of the World Covered in This Map (1)

SQL Error (16383) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426866)

Yeah, where are people like Satyendra Nath Bose (as in "Bose-Einstein condensate", Sin-Itiro Tomonaga (shared the Nobel Prize in Physics with Richard Feynmann for QED), Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar (as in the Chandrasekhar limit) or Chen Ning Yang (Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on parity non-conservation)?

Oh, wait...

Re:Only One Half of the World Covered in This Map (4, Insightful)

radtea (464814) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427620)

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

Glance again. You'll see Bose and Yukawa, at least, and a few others as well.

But I agree that the non-Westerners who invented calculus and laid down the foundations of physics, chemistry, natural history, evolutionary biology, relativity, cosmology and quantum mechanics do seem to be missing.

Re:Only One Half of the World Covered in This Map (1)

treeves (963993) | more than 4 years ago | (#33428300)

+1, Snarky, but true.

Great Bear (4, Informative)

DIplomatic (1759914) | more than 4 years ago | (#33425986)

Very similar to "The Great Bear" [google.com] by Simon Patterson

Where In The World (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33425998)

is Glenn Beck [youtube.com] on the map?

Yours In Osh,
K. Trout

Re:Where In The World (1, Insightful)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426022)

He's on the unseen part of the map where angry emotional outburst meets paranoid fear.

Re:Where In The World (0, Flamebait)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426106)

where angry emotional outburst meets paranoid fear

You mean the spot on the map where his critics were referring to his event the other day as a "klan rally?" That spot? If you want to see irrational outbursts and paranoid fear, listen to what people actually say about him instead. It's really quite amusing.

The spot on the map occupied by paranoia and emotional outbursts is going to be heavy with every other person that posts feverishly on MoveOn.org or the HuffPo, etc. The level of vitriol, naked hate, and refusal to address any issue of actual substance is off the charts. It's right up there with the Ron Paul fans sending the blogosphere off the charts this week based on his observation that it's a possibility there is no gold in Ft. Knox.

You need to step back a bit and look at the wider universe of irrational people - it's a whole lot bigger than your pet list of villains.

Re:Where In The World (4, Insightful)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426348)

Have you seen Glenn start crying live on the air as he was denouncing the families of 9/11 victims as selfish profiteers trying to exploit the victims for their own profit? I think Beck is way out there already.

Re:Where In The World (1)

Skjellifetti (561341) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427150)

What issues of actual substance has Glen Beck ever raised?

Re:Where In The World (3, Informative)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 4 years ago | (#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?

Re:Where In The World (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33427912)

The problem with Glenn Beck is that those important messages get lost amidst his sensationalist antics, like the embarrassingly fake crying episode, that are the real reason he has a show to begin with. Beck is Fox's attempt to snare the libertarian crowd's eyeballs. We libertarians are already seen as loony...we ought not point to someone as crazy as Glenn Beck for raising the issues when there are other more level-headed folks doing the same thing.

Re:Where In The World (1)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427088)

Gotta love the Kids in the Hall.

Destination (2, Funny)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426040)

Do all destinations in this map equal 42?

LAST CALL! (1)

Kc_spot (1677970) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426052)

ALL ABOARD THE LOGIC TRAIN!!

Re:LAST CALL! (4, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426120)

Bugs Bunny pops up between George Gamow and Robert Oppenheimer. He looks left, looks right then throws down his carrot.
Bugs: I knew it! I should've turned left at Albuquerque!

Re:LAST CALL! (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426374)

Nietzche would probably refuse to board that train on the basis that it has no free will.

Re:LAST CALL! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33427000)

and Hegel would argue that the reality is merely an a priori adjunct of non-naturalistic ethics.

Re:LAST CALL! (1)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427414)

too late, perspectivism is very much relative.

Re:LAST CALL! (1)

cmiller173 (641510) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426744)

Crud, anyone hear when the alchemy line is slated to re-open?

Re:LAST CALL! (1)

BarefootClown (267581) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427666)

It's going to be up and down for the next few years [discovery.com] .

Re:LAST CALL! (1)

cmiller173 (641510) | more than 4 years ago | (#33428116)

Well played sir.

"sort of subway style" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33426088)

It's done in the style of the london tube map:

http://images.intolondon.com/images/intolondon/transport-maps/london-underground-tube-map.gif [intolondon.com]

Re:"sort of subway style" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33426204)

Mind the gap.

Omissions? (1)

schmidt349 (690948) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426102)

I realize this map is intended to be pretty much science-only, but if that's the case, can you please leave off the "reason and critical thinking" part? 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 plot Western thought on a Tube map they're Paddington Station. I could go on with a pretty massive list of non-empirical non-mathematicians, but let's just stick with those two to avoid confusion.

Re:Omissions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33426160)

Morons

Re:Omissions? (4, Funny)

ejWasTaken (64290) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426176)

ObQuote: "Ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?...Morons."

Re:Omissions? (3, Informative)

Coryoth (254751) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426192)

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...).

Re:Omissions? (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426648)

They were making room for Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Frank Drake, Carl Sagan, David Attenborough, Alexander Graham Bell...

Re:Omissions? (1)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427108)

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?

Indeed, where is Darl McBride? Or did the authors intentionally omit the "21st century douchebaggery" line?

Re:Omissions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33427320)

Stephen Hawking?

Re:Omissions? (1)

Arthur Grumbine (1086397) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427416)

Also, the lack of two of my favorites Francis Bacon [wikipedia.org] and Karl Popper [wikipedia.org] , two of the most influential minds in separating the empirical sciences from metaphysics and pseudo-sciences.

Re:Omissions? (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427884)

Stephen Hawking really has the most interesting position on this map, because besides his contributions to 20th century physics, he also has (according to the map) built a time machine and contributed to 18th century astronomy. Really remarkable achievement there.

Also, I'm surprised that Rene Descartes doesn't get anything for his work in philosophy, which was really his primary focus. The mathematics was just a fun side project.

Re:Omissions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33426252)

To be fair it's a map of Modern Science, with the innermost part of the map labeled the 16th century. The earliest figures are guys like Tycho Brahe [wikipedia.org] (1546-1601), Niolaus Copernicus [wikipedia.org] (1473-1543), Hieronymus Bosch [wikipedia.org] (c.1450-1516) and Erasmus Reinhold [wikipedia.org] (1511-1553) while Plato and Aristotle are outside the scope of the project by nearly 2,000 years.

Re:Omissions? (1)

Shihar (153932) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426322)

It is a map of modern science. Do you know what a philosophy map that starts with Plato and Aristotle is? Neither modern, nor science. It is like complaining that a lineage map of Linux OS's doesn't include the complete history of agriculture.

Re:Omissions? (1)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426466)

Plato and Aristotle appeared approximately one thousand years too early to be included in this map. Hence their exclusion.

It only claims to list prominent personalities in the last 500 years. Hence the whole "Modern Science Map" description of it, the first paragraph specifically stating that it encompasses the last 500 years, the prominent markings of the century each person appeared in starting with the number "15", the specific mention that there were significant contributors further back in the past but that the map only includes the last 500 years. Little details like that.

Critical thinking indeed.

Re:Omissions? (1)

Arthur Grumbine (1086397) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427126)

Plato and Aristotle appeared approximately one thousand years too early to be included in this map...

Plato (b. 426 BC) [wikipedia.org]

Little details like that.

Critical thinking indeed.

The ironing is delicious.

Re:Omissions? (1)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427540)

The ironing is delicious.

Yes, I like to make tasty ironing. I put a little oregano and garlic in the starch.

Isn't two thousand approximately one thousand? (grin). Math fail on my part. LOL!

Re:Omissions? (1)

jvkjvk (102057) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427472)

Critical thinking indeed.

Indeed. If one thought about the parent comment, they were more lamenting the fact that it was labeled (science), "reason and critical thinking".

The fact that you missed the basis of the argument and instead focused on a mere detail tells me more about your critical thinking skills than his, indeed.

Little details like that.

Yup, you decided that lambasting him about the choice of his examples was more important than understanding what he was saying.

How about instead of those two examples, you tell me what is wrong with his basic statement when I substitute Bertrand Russel and Whitehead as examples?

Regards.

Gauss should be on the physics line too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33426178)

Gauss should be on the physics line too, after all Gauss' law is one of maxwell's equations.

And then there's the big train wrecks of... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33426188)

Eugenics! Fascism! Communism! Capitalism! Segregation! Anti-Desgregation! Anti-Environmentalism! Anti-Abortion! Free Love! Free Drugs! The Drug War! Abstinence Only!

Ok, I'm running out of exclamation marks.

Where are the women? (2, Insightful)

Kristian T. (3958) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426268)

Women always seem to say they can do anything as well as the men - so I guess women always have, and still are, choosing to not be good at science. What troubles me the most, is that even in the current generation, where the girls are fare much better in our school systems - none of that intellectual potential goes into moving the frontiers of the hard sciences.

Re:Where are the women? (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426516)

One theory is that they lack role models.
GO MARIE CURIE !
Also this kind of mindset may not help : http://xkcd.com/385/ [xkcd.com]

Re:Where are the women? (1)

thms (1339227) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426560)

Women staying out of the engineering and "hard" sciences is mostly a phenomenon of the western world (in Cold War terms). In eastern Europe and Russia these subjects are much closer to parity, IIRC the same hold true for China. Even in Iran (!) women don't share the western prejudices against CS, Math etc.

However, once in these fields, there is the entirely different issue of the glass ceiling, i.e. not getting promoted beyond a certain level.

Re:Where are the women? (0, Troll)

Kristian T. (3958) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427288)

So by this line of reasoning - there should be at least some russian and chineese women on the chart.

Regarding the glass ceiling - I don't think it matters one bit. Most of the truly revolutionary ideas a born in the mind of scientists while they are still students. It may take them the whole of their lives to prove and have the ideas accepted - but that's not the limiting factor.

Personally I believe that the reason for the gender disparity cannot be blamed on culture.

Re:Where are the women? (0, Flamebait)

dave420 (699308) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427798)

As you don't have any evidence to back up your point, your personal beliefs show you are a bigot. You are also conveniently forgetting a whole shit-tonne of facts that don't help your position, such as that this chart is not accurate. Using it as some sort of metric into the scientific capability of women is fucking retarded. Seriously retarded.

Re:Where are the women? (3, Interesting)

theghost (156240) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426608)

There's still a lot of cultural pressure telling women (everyone really) that the important things in life are popularity, beauty, love, and child-rearing.

It's kind of a wonder that anyone at all goes into science these days. Maybe they should make a "Real Physicists of MIT" show.

Re:Where are the women? (2, Interesting)

shiftless (410350) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427170)

There's still a lot of cultural pressure telling women (everyone really) that the important things in life are popularity, beauty, love, and child-rearing

Their culture isn't telling them that--it's their genes.

Of course women can do well in science, it's just that most women are not interested in a scientific career, regardless of culture.

Re:Where are the women? (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427364)

To be fair, it's not an exclusive dichotomy, quite the opposite, it is both societal pressure and genetic disposition.

Re:Where are the women? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33426612)

the ones that aren't giving birth at the moment are in the kitchen

Re:Where are the women? (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426652)

In the past, women were actively discouraged from entering sciences by the male dominated establishments. What women did enter science were often not credited with their work. Hell, half the female scientists in history are only well known because their research partner was their husband, the only person willing to give them equal credit for the work and even when they do research and even then it wasn't a sure thing. People still argue over how much influence Einstein's first wife had on his work.

And I think you can attribute the problems of getting young women interested in science at least partly to the fact that there are so few historical role models for them. What role models they do have were ostracized, largely uncredited, or only accepted because of the support of their husbands. It doesn't set a very good example for them to live by.

The other side of the coin is female math and science teachers who are selfdescribed to be bad at the subject that they teach. There's been lots of studies that show that a confident female teacher is all that it takes to get girls interested in science, but such teachers are surprisingly and depressingly rare.

Re:Where are the women? (1)

ultranova (717540) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427270)

People still argue over how much influence Einstein's first wife had on his work.

Who is arguing it? Have they showed any evidence that she had significant - or any - influence?

Re:Where are the women? (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427380)

I would like to note that Wikipedia lists more women scientists [wikipedia.org] than it does all scientists from China [wikipedia.org] .

Just because you haven't heard of somebody doesn't mean that person doesn't exist.

Re:Where are the women? (3, Interesting)

radtea (464814) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427674)

none of that intellectual potential goes into moving the frontiers of the hard sciences

Science and engineering are both pretty sucky careers, and like men have been brought up in an environment where male self-sacrifice is held up as an ideal and "Men Last!" is a highly admired sentiment. So it only makes sense that they would be dominated by men, in the same way that jobs that kill people are dominated by men.

Women are more than capable of doing these things, they just haven't been indoctrinated with the irrational willingness to sacrifice themselves that men have.

Re:Where are the women? (1)

Rudisaurus (675580) | more than 4 years ago | (#33428328)

I wish I had mod points right now. I believe your comment to be idiotic and I wish I could mod it down as overrated (even at 0) rather than merely commenting on it. I'm not certain that this exercise (my commenting) isn't a complete waste of time and energy with respect to influencing your thinking, but here's why I think your remarks are so stupid: there are many more possible reasons than merely "choosing to not be good at science" for women not to appear prominently in the annals of scientific history. Here are a few of them:

- in a patriarchal culture, women may not be given the same educational or career opportunities as their male counterparts
- in a patriarchy, women may not be fully credited with their accomplishments (Lise Meitner springs to mind; note that Otto Hahn appears on the map but she does not)
- in a patriarchal society, women may not even be allowed to work in fields which are considered to be in the male domain, such as science and mathematics

I don't think that anyone would rationally argue that what has existed in human society for the past two millenia -- whether we are talking about the ancient Greeks and Romans, the Arabs of the 10th century, or European societies through the Dark Ages, the Renaissance, and practically right up to the present -- is anything other than a patriarchy. Ergo, the strictures I've listed for you above do apply, and in applying go a long way explain why there have been so few notable scientific accomplishments credited to women through history.

Disclaimer: I am a male Ph.D. engineer who heartily wishes that more women were working in my field. This is changing now, but very slowly.

it confuses rather enlightens (1)

peter303 (12292) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426292)

Not the proper graphics metaphor. Plus its too convoluted to fit it on a page.

Obvious (3, Funny)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426384)

This map have a clear message for all humanity: You need a bigger screen.

Re:Obvious (1)

ultranova (717540) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427294)

Nah, the real message is: "SVG, learn to love it."

Seriously, what kind of moron uses a bitmap for something like this?

SHTMTOTH (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33426388)

Someone has too much time on their hands.

Re:SHTMTOTH (2, Funny)

RevWaldo (1186281) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426752)

- (looking at the drawing) Wow, you must have a lot of free time to do something like this.
- No, I'm usually quite busy. I just set aside half and hour every other day for a few months to work on it, and when it was nearly completed, I finished it up last Sunday night, after the century bike tour.
- Well, that's just amazing, it must take a lot of discipline to - Wow Hey! A double rainbow! (points up, then delivers a suckerpunch and runs off.)

.

That makes no sense (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33426392)

Modern science and critical thinking are OPPOSITES!

The MIA thread (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426458)

I don't see Alonzo Church or Stephen Kleene. Or Noam Chomsky, for that matter.

On a side note... (1)

Muad'Dave (255648) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426480)

Crispian Jago is also the creator of the awesome "Periodic Table of Irrational Nonsense" [redbubble.com] T-Shirt that I was wearing when a nice husband and wife pair of Baptists stopped by to invite me to their church. Uncomfortable!

Re:On a side note... (1)

oliverthered (187439) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427486)

I wouldn't buy a jumper then if you find t-shirts uncomfortable when being baptised.

Mirror anyone? (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426510)

I got the map, but it looked to be getting slashdotted when I did (at around 30 comments in), and no wonder! A 2882.62 KB, 4450px × 2737px image on the front page of /.? Tsk, tsk, tsk.

What about psychoanalytic? (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426602)

What about psychoanalytic? Is not this the greatest and newest science ever made in human history since some 100 years ago???

Re:What about psychoanalytic? (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426824)

Come on, people, this is comedy gold!

Ideas, not people (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426628)

Critical thinking and science is about ideas, not people. I do not care for the name of an inventor or of a discoverer, I care about what they actually did. Hubble is the name of an effect, not of an astronomer.

I would prefer a tech-tree, a la Civilization, with more details and updated to the latest discovery than a list of people the author of the map felt were important.

Re:Ideas, not people (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427222)

I've come across opinions like yours before (which you don't explicitly state but allude to the idea that if guy X didn't discover a thing then guy Y would, therefore only the thing discovered is important), and I have one important example that effectively refutes it: the wheel. Even after more than five thousand years of use in the Eastern Hemisphere, the Western Hemisphere had no wheels until the Europeans arrived. We don't know who came up with the wheel, but if an entire hemisphere could miss that opportunity for more than 5000 years, for all we know, without that unknown person in the fertile crescent the other hemisphere could have suffered the same fate. Then where would we be? The mind reels. Just as great works of art cannot exist without great artists, great ideas are not accessible to humanity without great minds. Both need to be known and remembered.

Re:Ideas, not people (1)

stdarg (456557) | more than 4 years ago | (#33428488)

The wheel is an interesting example. I didn't know it wasn't around in the New World. Plenty of other foundational technologies/ideas were independently developed though, like positional number systems, written language, boats, etc. Have you thought of other things besides the wheel to refute op's argument?

Ziggy (1)

phrostie (121428) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426710)

I can't find Ziggy and his, You Are Here, sign.

Re:Ziggy (1)

RepelHistory (1082491) | more than 4 years ago | (#33427708)

"I have an existential map; it has 'you are here' written all over it." -Steven Wright.

No. (2, Insightful)

blair1q (305137) | more than 4 years ago | (#33426894)

Any map that puts Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Brian Cox at antipodes is bollocks.

Astronomy and physics are more intimately related than most sciences, and should come out at almost the same point, not carry unsuspecting travellers to opposite ends of the map.

Looking at the rest of it, graphically it's confusing and randomly connected rather than insightfully linked.

Someone had a spreadsheet full of names in columns by college major and sorted by date, and they hung it on a colorful template. Which didn't fit so they wrapped the data around in a spiral, just like a ...subway system....?

Weren't we just discussing the fact that PowerPoint makes you stupid [slashdot.org] ?

Bunch of Dorks (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33427452)

All these posts and no one has suggested a quick game of Mornington Crescent yet.

Tufte (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33427746)

While interesting as artwork, I don't feel that this map really adds much value as a tool to help us derive meaning from the content. I don't think Edward Tufte would rate it very highly.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?