Vizzini. Along with Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle, they’re all morons.
Apparently when he got his most recent speech synthesizer upgrade they could have gone with a more realistic voice. He declined so I guess he agrees with you.
How you coming along learning fractions? Negative numbers? The metric system?
It’s hard to compare Hawking to Galileo, Newton or Einstein for a variety of reasons that include the fact that I think they might be a little over-rated themselves. (Like how Newton went a little nuts on the alchemy thing. Einstein made some impressive leaps, but, given the state of science at that time, someone would have done it soon. And Galileo strikes me as being notable for the social/religious controversy of his work more than the scientific achievements themselves.)
Anyway… that comparison aside, I think Hawking is not over-rated. He’s made real contributions to his field. He is a real genius. And he’s managed to accomplish this while being disabled. This may not put him in the top ten scientists of all time, but he certainly deserves most of the credit he’s given.
Wow, couldn’t disagree more. Newton is without doubt the greatest scientist ever, and Einstein and Galileo are in the top 5.
What? No love for my bro JK? (Kepler).
Galileo was a fantastic physicist, but his theological problems make him famous for one ítem of astronomy.
If he had been a regular theoretical astrophysics guy and made the same discoveries he’d be like Al-Kharizmi, Omar Kayyam, or Rosalinf Franklin. If you’ve read a little bit on the topic, you’d know they were great but not very popular.
Yes, overrated, but not becuase he hasn’t done really good stuff.
I remember hearing people note that he held the same chair as Newton (Lucasian Professor of Mathematics) but can’t remember if they equated the two.
BTW, when and why did he become so widely known? Was it his book, A Brief History of Time, or was it earlier than that?
I think my problem with people saying that Hawking’s reputation is largely due to his ALS is that it seems to come with the suggestion that he isn’t someone who didn’t reach the very pinnacle of his field(s) (relativity/quantum gravity) or that he isn’t a person (even when the bar is internationally renowned physicists) of particular brilliance (for example his doctoral thesis, along with Penrose’s work forms the backbone of an entire chapter in each of the three main textbooks on general relativity, very few physicists have done such important work in their doctoral theses).
Saying he is the 20th or 30th most important living physicist is so subjective as to be meaningless as it could only be achieved by comparing him unfavourably to physicists working in different fields and/or physicists of different generations.
Whilst clearly the image of a brilliant mind trapped in a crippled body has made him iconic, I can’t buy into the idea that he owes his entire media profile to ALS. Even though, as coffee-table physics books go, in many ways A Brief History of Time isn’t that good of a book, when it was written the time was clearly right for a book like that to be written by a world-renowned physicist. If Stephen Hawking didn’t have ALS, he would’ve probably still have been the most likely candidate to write the book (i.e. a leading physicist in a particularly ‘sexy’ field with a reputation for brilliance).
Ever since picking up and starting to read his first best seller years ago, I wondered what all the fuss was about. I am sure his knowledge of physics and the natural universe is far beyond mine, and there is much to be admired in his life-long success despite his condition.
I wonder how he has managed to live so long. Usually ALS does not tarry in carrying off its victims (I am thinking of Tony Judt here–not a physicist, but an influential thinker nevertheless).
It’s tricky. Yes, in the past there were still various low-hanging fruit that, today, has all been plucked. Hawking, back in 1750, might have been big in the discovery of new chemical elements, or atomic theory, of whatnot.
But there are more tools available today, so the new kids have the ability to make new discoveries. I’m thinking specifically of mathematical tools, the sort that allowed Yukawa to predict the pion from QM theory, or Einstein and others to predict Black Holes, or Higgs to predict the Higgs boson.
To paraphrase Newton, there are more giants now for us to stand on the shoulders of.
The media and publishers might be hyping him beyond his abilities. But then, the same is true with Einstein and recently, Tesla.
Robert163, if your question was who is actually considered the best scientist in the world today, I’m not sure if it’s possible to compare between different fields. Physics? Maybe Edward Witten or Alan Guth. Mathematics? Maybe Andrew Wiles or Grigori Perelman. Perhaps someone else here can speak to the other sciences.
Stephen King is overrated. Stephen Hawking is just as clever as they all claim.
He’s not overrated, but that’s because people don’t put him in that category. They may say he’s the closest modern equivalent, but that’s not the same as saying he’s actually on their level.
The guy earned where he is, and is not just there because he got famous.
He might still be well known even without the ALS - scientists who can communicate with lay people do get to be known, think Carl Sagan, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, or Stephen J. Gould. The public do tend to overestimate the scientific status of such people, but that’s largely because those folks are the only scientists they know the name of.
It’s the magical/saintly cripple effect. He’s also an embodiment of the Genius Cripple trope except he would have still been a genius even if he was able-bodied.
I could take him.
Hawking is not the nearest modern equivalent of Einstein or Newton. He’s not on the level of Galileo either (who’s slightly below those two). He’s one of the 20 best physicists alive today. That doesn’t make him the nearest modern equivalent of any of those three scientists.
Trouble with decimals was a little bit of an exaggeration for comedic effect. Integers have never been as much of a problem as string theory. Improper fractions can go take a leap, though. 
My point would be though that Carl Sagan’s and Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s fame far outstrip their academic achievements (Carl Sagan was a scientist of reasonably high stature stature in the fairly unfashionable field of planetary science and NdGT academic output is simply a handful of published papers), this is not the case for Hawking who is as deserving as anyone as the title of “greatest living physicist”.
Since you’re asking me, I’d say no; I’m not in a position, intellectually or educationally, to judge his achievements.
The scientific community overall needs to be the judge of this.