# Famous scientists who are overrated. **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [September 29, 2019, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/famous-scientists-who-are-overrated/841004 "2019-09-29T17:18:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2019, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/famous-scientists-who-are-overrated/841004/41 "2019-09-30T19:30:01Z")
> [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > Sagan is not quite overrated since I don’t think he was ever highly rated as a scientist. Yes, he was well known, but so was Asimov and no one ever thought his repute was science based. My impression on reading Sagan is that he liked to consider himself a great scientist, something that Asimov never did. The villain of the excellent movie “Real Genius” seems to be based on Sagan, with a popular TV science program called “Everything.” His popularization work was important, but he still seemed to be a butthead astronomer. ---
**Author:** ![Deltree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/6de8d8/32.png) [@Deltree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deltree)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2019, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/famous-scientists-who-are-overrated/841004/42 "2019-09-30T20:20:19Z")
> [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > If De Forest didn’t invent the vacuum tube, who did? And why did De Forest get the credit? Thermionic emission was first discovered by Frederick Guthrie in 1873. It was apparently independently (re)discovered by Edison in 1883, which is when it became well-known. The diode was invented by John Ambrose Fleming in 1904. It was used as a detector for radio signals in place of crystal detectors, but could not amplify signals. Finally, the triode was invented by De Forest in 1907. He probably gets credit because Fleming’s had such limited use, and Edison and Guthrie never made any use at all of their things, so most people are unaware of the previous history. Wikipedia: [Vacuum tube - History and development](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_tube#History_and_development) ---
**Author:** ![bibliophage](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bibliophage/32/7615_2.png) [@bibliophage](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bibliophage)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2019, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/famous-scientists-who-are-overrated/841004/43 "2019-09-30T21:08:18Z")
Going back a bit, I nominate Democritus. Almost all introductory chemistry textbooks cite his atomic theory of matter. But he wasn’t really a scientist and he didn’t reach his conclusion through rigorous evidence and rational analysis. It was basically a lucky guess. That’s very different from the way that the real founders of modern atomic theory (Dalton, Lavoisier, Avogadro, etc.) reached their conclusions about 2200 years later. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I don’t believe this is correct. Einstein discovered phenomena which other scientists (primarily Niels Bohr) then explained by developing quantum theory. But Einstein himself did not accept quantum theory and spend a long time seeking an alternative explanation for the phenomena. Einstein is responsible for the correct quantum explanation of the [photoelectric effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect) and co-discovered and [Bose-Einstein statistics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_statistics) that correctly describe the quantum behavior of bosons. He wasn’t opposed to quantum theory, per se, but to the [non-deterministic interpretation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation) of quantum theory held by Bohr et al. Einstein thought there must be some [hidden variable](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden-variable_theory) that if we knew to measure it, would make quantum theory deterministic. All the evidence suggests that Bohr was right and Einstein wrong on this count. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2019, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/famous-scientists-who-are-overrated/841004/44 "2019-09-30T21:34:07Z")
Here’s a video lecture on Edison which makes the case that he’s honored for the wrong reasons, and that his true genius was being able and willing to follow through on his ideas all the way to the industrial scale. That is, his genius wasn’t so much in inventing the light bulb, but in inventing the electrical system practical electric lighting requires, and getting that off the ground despite the immense time and trouble required: ---
**Author:** ![AncientHumanoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ancienthumanoid/32/278_2.png) [@AncientHumanoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AncientHumanoid)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2019, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/famous-scientists-who-are-overrated/841004/45 "2019-09-30T22:38:56Z")
That’s HEDLEY! ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2019, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/famous-scientists-who-are-overrated/841004/46 "2019-09-30T22:59:16Z")
Watson and Crick, so well known for elucidating the structure of DNA, yet they were not particularly notable without the work of Rosalind Franklin. Opinion piece from The Guardian expands a bit more on the rather unseemly side of Watson’s views on race in addition to W&C’s taking of Franklin;s data without her knowledge. [He may have unravelled DNA, but James Watson deserves to be shunned](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/01/dna-james-watson-scientist-selling-nobel-prize-medal) ---
**Author:** ![mbh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@mbh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mbh)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2019, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/famous-scientists-who-are-overrated/841004/47 "2019-09-30T23:10:10Z")
Sagan may not have been a Great Scientist, but he did do some respectable work studying Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. He worked with NASA from the 1950s through the 1970s, and contributed to many of the space probes. He was one of the scientists who developed the idea that Venus is not a tropical paradise, but a desolate hellhole. (I’m oversimplifying, but you get the idea.) from Wikipedia: > [@](#): > > Former student David Morrison describes Sagan as “an ‘idea person’ and a master of intuitive physical arguments and ‘back of the envelope’ calculations”,[24] and Gerard Kuiper said that “Some persons work best in specializing on a major program in the laboratory; others are best in liaison between sciences. Dr. Sagan belongs in the latter group.”[24] > > Sagan’s contributions were central to the discovery of the high surface temperatures of the planet Venus.[2][33] In the early 1960s no one knew for certain the basic conditions of Venus’ surface, and Sagan listed the possibilities in a report later depicted for popularization in a Time Life book Planets. His own view was that Venus was dry and very hot as opposed to the balmy paradise others had imagined. He had investigated radio waves from Venus and concluded that there was a surface temperature of 500 °C (900 °F). As a visiting scientist to NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, he contributed to the first Mariner missions to Venus, working on the design and management of the project. Mariner 2 confirmed his conclusions on the surface conditions of Venus in 1962. > > Sagan was among[clarification needed] the first to hypothesize that Saturn’s moon Titan might possess oceans of liquid compounds on its surface and that Jupiter’s moon Europa might possess subsurface oceans of water. This would make Europa potentially habitable.[34] Europa’s subsurface ocean of water was later indirectly confirmed by the spacecraft Galileo. The mystery of Titan’s reddish haze was also solved with Sagan’s help. The reddish haze was revealed to be due to complex organic molecules constantly raining down onto Titan’s surface.[35][self-published source] > > Sagan further contributed insights regarding the atmospheres of Venus and Jupiter, as well as seasonal changes on Mars. He also perceived global warming as a growing, man-made danger and likened it to the natural development of Venus into a hot, life-hostile planet through a kind of runaway greenhouse effect.[36] Sagan and his Cornell colleague Edwin Ernest Salpeter speculated about life in Jupiter’s clouds, given the planet’s dense atmospheric composition rich in organic molecules. He studied the observed color variations on Mars’ surface and concluded that they were not seasonal or vegetational changes as most believed,[clarification needed] but shifts in surface dust caused by windstorms. > > Sagan is also known for his research on the possibilities of extraterrestrial life, including experimental demonstration of the production of amino acids from basic chemicals by radiation.[37][38] ---
**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2019, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/famous-scientists-who-are-overrated/841004/48 "2019-09-30T23:24:16Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > . . . Einstein himself did not accept quantum theory and spend a long time seeking an alternative explanation for the phenomena. Not an alternative explanation, but an _explanation_. The so-called ‘Copenhagen Interpretation’ of quantum physics is not an explanatory one. It is more an exercise of self-censorship. Einstein sought to get past the almost ad hoc nature of by which the tenets of quantum physics had been established and find out ‘the why’. The accurate predictions of quantum physics weren’t enough for him. A complete theory would offer explanation too. [In his book](https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/) Sean Carroll writes: > [@](#): > > In the popular imagination, Einstein lost the Bohr-Einstein debates . . . and that he had grown old and conservative, and was unwilling to accept or even understand . . . quantum physics . . . > > Nothing could be further from the truth . . . While Einstein failed to put forward a complete and compelling generalization of quantum mechanics . . . it is wildy off base to think that he failed to understand quantum theory . . . > > What he failed to do was convince his fellow physicists of the inadequacy of the Copenhagen approach When Einstein gave us the [EPR paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox), he was giving us a clue to a deeper reality. ---
**Author:** ![dorvann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/df705f/32.png) [@dorvann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dorvann)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2019, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/famous-scientists-who-are-overrated/841004/49 "2019-09-30T23:32:38Z")
> [@dtilque](#): > > Somewhere I read that Newton, if he did use the phrase, was making a dig at one of his fellow scientists who was of short stature. Boyle, I think. According to the Wikipedia article he was referring to Robert Hooke. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing\_on\_the\_shoulders\_of\_giants](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_giants) ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/famous-scientists-who-are-overrated/841004/50 "2019-10-01T03:07:18Z")
Given Einstein’s high reputation it may seem peculiar to call him _under_-rated! But I think it’s correct. [This article agrees with me](https://blog.press.princeton.edu/2014/03/12/fantasy-physics-should-einstein-have-won-seven-nobel-prizes/) and thinks \*Einstein should have been awarded seven Nobel Prizes! \* According to that article, here are some of Einstein’s contributions to quantum theory: > [@](#): > > But it is a remarkable fact that Einstein’s work on early atomic theory, what we now call quantum theory, is vastly under-rated. This is partially because Einstein himself downplayed it due to his rejection of the final version of the theory, which he dismissed with the famous phrase, “God does not play dice.” … > > … quantum theory began in 1900 with the work of … Max Planck who, in what he called “an act of desperation,” introduced into physics a radical notion, quantization of energy. Or so the textbooks say. … This idea turns out to be central to modern atomic physics, but Planck didn’t really say this in his work. He said something much more provisional and ambiguous. It was Einstein in his 1905 paper – but then much more clearly in a follow-up paper on the vibrations of atoms in solids in 1907 – who really stated the modern principle. It is not clear if Planck himself accepted it fully even a decade after his seminal work (although he was given credit for it by the Nobel Prize committee in 1918). In contrast, Einstein boldly applied it to the mechanical motion of atoms, even when they are not exchanging energy with radiation, and stated clearly the need for a quantized mechanics. > > … Einstein … was well aware that light interfered with itself in a similar manner to water waves (a peak can cancel a trough, leading to no wave). In 1909, he came up with a mathematical proof that the particle and wave properties were present in one formula that described the fluctuations of the intensity of light. Hence, he announced that the next era of theoretical physics would see a “fusion” of the particle and wave pictures into a unified theory. This is exactly what happened, but it took fourteen years for the next advance and another three (1926) for it all to fall into place. In 1923, the French physicist Louis de Broglie hypothesized that electrons … actually had wavelike properties similar to light. He freely admitted his debt to Einstein for this idea, but when he got the Nobel Prize for “wave-particle” duality in 1929, it was not shared… > > … three years after Niels Bohr introduced his “solar system” model of the atom, where the electrons could only travel in certain “allowed orbits” with quantized energy. Einstein went back to thinking about how atoms would absorb light, with the benefit of Bohr’s picture. He [was first to propose] that the theory of atoms had such random, uncaused events, a notion that became a second pillar of quantum theory… The principles of spontaneous and stimulated emission introduced by Einstein [underlie the Laser and] underlie the modern quantum theory of light. > > … in 1924 he received a paper out of the blue from an unknown Indian, physicist Satyendranath Bose. It was yet another paper about particles of light, and although Bose did not state his revolutionary idea very clearly, reading between the lines, Einstein detected a completely new principle of quantum theory, the idea that all fundamental particles are indistinguishable… > > Einstein took the principle and applied it to atoms for the very first time, with amazing results. He discovered that a simple gas of atoms, if cooled down sufficiently, would cease to obey all the laws that physicists and chemist had discovered for gases over the centuries, and to which no exception had ever been found. Instead, all gases should behave like a weird liquid or super-molecule known as a Bose-Einstein condensate. But remember, Bose had no clue this would happen; he didn’t even try to apply his principle to atoms. It turns out that Einstein condensation underlies some of the most dramatic quantum effects, such as superconductivity … Roll over Archimedes, Leonardo, Mozart. Einstein was the world’s greatest genius ever. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/famous-scientists-who-are-overrated/841004/51 "2019-10-01T03:29:42Z")
BTW, UIAM there are several different models of QM — Everett’s, Cramer’s, Barbour’s? — in which “God does NOT play dice.” I wouldn’t rush to bet against Einstein on this issue. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 10:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/famous-scientists-who-are-overrated/841004/52 "2019-10-01T10:52:56Z")
> [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > My favorite candidate for overrated is James Watson. From their subsequent careers, I feel that Crick was a far better scientist. And Rosalind Franklin gets glossed over once more! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![BeepKillBeep](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9e8a1a/32.png) [@BeepKillBeep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BeepKillBeep)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/famous-scientists-who-are-overrated/841004/53 "2019-10-01T12:26:57Z")
Some of the nominations in this thread are hilarious. Two, in particular, that stand out are: Stephen Hawking. Are you kidding? His earliest papers, dating back to 1966 (long before his fame), are cited hundreds of times. I cannot imagine anybody in the scientific community considering him overrated. Carl Sagan. While not as heavily cited as Hawking had an eminent career as in astrophysics. Many of his papers earliest papers are cited 30-80 times (a very respectable number), and quite a few are cited hundreds of times. Again, this is long before his fame. His work was unquestionably considered to be of good quality by the scientific community. ---
**Author:** ![Snarky\_Kong](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a183cd/32.png) [@Snarky\_Kong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snarky_Kong)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/famous-scientists-who-are-overrated/841004/54 "2019-10-01T15:33:21Z")
> [@BeepKillBeep](#): > > Some of the nominations in this thread are hilarious. Two, in particular, that stand out are: > > Stephen Hawking. Are you kidding? His earliest papers, dating back to 1966 (long before his fame), are cited hundreds of times. So? How many physicist have papers with hundreds of citations that are unknown? If you ranked every physicist ever, what place would you assign him? What place would the general public assign him? I’d guess the latter would be top 5 if not top 3. If he’s not actually top 5, then, yeah, he’s overrated. ---
**Author:** ![BeepKillBeep](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9e8a1a/32.png) [@BeepKillBeep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BeepKillBeep)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/famous-scientists-who-are-overrated/841004/55 "2019-10-01T15:50:39Z")
> [@Snarky\_Kong](#): > > So? How many physicist have papers with hundreds of citations that are unknown? If you ranked every physicist ever, what place would you assign him? What place would the general public assign him? > > I’d guess the latter would be top 5 if not top 3. If he’s not actually top 5, then, yeah, he’s overrated. Publishing a single paper with hundreds of citations is a significant accomplishment. Having dozens of papers all with hundreds (or thousands in some cases) is the mark of a truly exceptional scientist. And again, these are papers that predate his fame to the general public. The scientific community assessed Hawking’s from an early time and found it to be exceptional. Where exactly he is ranked is irrelevant. He’s a top scientist who is considered by both professionals and the public to be a top scientist. ---
**Author:** ![Snarky\_Kong](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a183cd/32.png) [@Snarky\_Kong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snarky_Kong)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/famous-scientists-who-are-overrated/841004/56 "2019-10-01T16:06:08Z")
> [@BeepKillBeep](#): > > Where exactly he is ranked is irrelevant. Actually that’s the only that that is relevant in the discussion of being overrated. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/famous-scientists-who-are-overrated/841004/57 "2019-10-01T16:46:23Z")
> [@BeepKillBeep](#): > > Carl Sagan. While not as heavily cited as Hawking had an eminent career as in astrophysics. Many of his papers earliest papers are cited 30-80 times (a very respectable number), and quite a few are cited hundreds of times. Again, this is long before his fame. His work was unquestionably considered to be of good quality by the scientific community. But not good enough for Harvard apparently. Though that might not be surprising if he was as much of a putz there as he was in other places. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/famous-scientists-who-are-overrated/841004/58 "2019-10-01T16:58:21Z")
:raises hand: I’ve heard of Alan Guth. 😉 Anyway, gonna go with Galileo for the OP’s question. Everything he did scientifically was extremely valuable, but it is the veneration held Galileo by Protestants who want to stick it to the church which has caused this [over-rating](https://www.tostepharmd.net/hissoc/top100people.html) of Galileo’s influence. In the end, Galileo recanted and spent the rest of his life in a sinecured “house arrest”. ---
**Author:** ![Busy\_Scissors](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/d78d45/32.png) [@Busy\_Scissors](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Busy_Scissors)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/famous-scientists-who-are-overrated/841004/59 "2019-10-01T17:00:34Z")
> [@Iggy](#): > > Watson and Crick, so well known for elucidating the structure of DNA, yet they were not particularly notable without the work of Rosalind Franklin. > > Opinion piece from The Guardian expands a bit more on the rather unseemly side of Watson’s views on race in addition to W&C’s taking of Franklin;s data without her knowledge. > [He may have unravelled DNA, but James Watson deserves to be shunned](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/01/dna-james-watson-scientist-selling-nobel-prize-medal) Jim Watson, with Crick, discovered the structure of the most important molecule in the universe, making the scientific breakthrough of the twentieth century, from the vantage point of his couch. Never did an experiment himself. That ain’t overrated - that is a truly exceptional (and ruthless) grasp of the problem at hand, how to solve it, and why it’s important. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2019, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/famous-scientists-who-are-overrated/841004/60 "2019-10-01T17:13:08Z")
I nominate Gregor Mendel as over-rated. There’s no question that Mendel’s Laws are extremely important, and essential to understanding genetics and evolution. To contrive a simplistic nonfactual example, if all but one human is 5’ tall and a single mutant is 6’ tall, Darwin assumed that the mutant’s children would be 5’6"; his grandchildren 5’3" and his great-grandchildren (with no inbreeding) 5’1½". The tallness mutation has almost disappeared after just three generations! When this problem was explained to Darwin he began editing his books, even accepting that Lamarck might have been partially right after all! Mendel solved this problem. Half the mutant’s children would be 6’ tall; and the full 6’ tallness trait would pass even to his great-grandchildren (though only ⅛ of them). But even after Mendel published his paper, Darwin continued to edit his books despondently _because he wasn’t aware of Mendel’s work_. Mendel’s Laws were hugely important _but for 35 years they remained almost secret!_ When the Laws were finally re-discovered it was by other experimentalists (who then searched the literature and found that their results were not new). Had Mendel’s ideas caught the eye of Darwin or one of his colleagues in 1865 it would have led to huge progress toward the understanding of genetics and evolution. But they didn’t. Other than influence, a scientist can be considered great because of his talent. Mendel did do excellent work, but it has also been argued that he was lucky in his choice of species and traits. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/famous-scientists-who-are-overrated/841004.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/famous-scientists-who-are-overrated/841004.md?page=4)