Just A Simple Survey..

Roald Dahl.

He was brilliant, clever, witty, fun-loving, secretly adored awful, revolting things, and was great at writing naughty things too. Perfect blend of Children's and Adult's author.

Tesla.

Almost 100 years later science is not even close to catching up with his method of wireless power transfer. And 'Signs' was an awesome song.

Lol that's so stupid to incorporate the band Tesla with the scientist. I'll stick with the ol' creator of what is physics and calculus today, Sir Isaac Newton.

Though it seems like a hack answer, I'm going to have to go with Einstein. He was able to accurately describe workings of the universe before the ability to accurately observe his predictions. Yet every time we do get the tools, sure enough, he was spot on.

Tesla was pretty damn smart, but I really think a lot of his smarts was really just 'right-place, right-time'. He did some great stuff, but much of it was being worked on by other people at the same time.

Hawking.

His brain is so large it caused his body to just shrivel up.

Nice...

But honestly, I hate Hawking.

So I might have to second Einstein. He predicted things scientifically, and like Kirk said, we keep finding out he was right. Hawking is just a reeeeeeeeeally good sci-fi writer, IMO. He uses the wheel chair as a crutch to get a sympathetic ear and then suddenly people are taking his far-fetched ideas seriously.

That whole string theory thing makes no testable predictions and is therefore unverifiable and unfalsifiable. It's got all the fanciful ideas and worthless, untestable propositions of a religion, only without the promise of virgins or eternal life.

I vote da Vinci. I like a polymath with a beard.

Dude. I'm going to ignore the "crutch" comment for the bunch of bull that it is. Sure, Hawking's become a bit of a rockstar, but hell, so was Einstein in his day.

That Einstein's hypotheses were so quickly testable is only an indicator of how close to the curve he was. String Theory, still well out of our grasp, once cracked, will be far more significant than anything to come before.

Give it a hundred years. You'll see I'm right.

Friedrich Nietzsche.

Different type of smart. His work has spawned endless creativity and different lines of thinking, as well as being quite possibly the most influential philosopher all time. Also the most over-quoted person ever.

^respect points for that dude!^
I think Leopold and Lobe are examples of just how influential he was in his writings.

Thanks for the insult, I was trying to be light about the whole thing. And well done for saying "give it a hundred years." So, after I'm dead then you'll be right. Sound just like a Christian. "Wait until the afterlife.... har har har." That's the equivalent of saying you can be invisible, but only if no one is looking. It works in comedy, not in real life.

Anyway, ST goes one direction, Enstein and guys like Garret Lisi are going in another, useful direction that actually furthers science.

He's probably the Einstein of our generation, being a sports loving type who's been stereotyped as a know-nothing 'surfer dude' by his detractors. Cause we all know, loving sports or working in a patent shop instead pursuing acedemics alone means you won't amount to anything.

He's the guy who's taken a shot at a Theory of Everything, which makes testable predictions that are going to be sought out using the LHC. His theory is still being hammered out but it's really quite interesting and infinitely more simple, beautiful and elegant than String Theory could ever hope to be.

He came up with E8, which again, is not perfect *yet* but it's pretty damn cool.

And since it's not real unless it's on wikipedia, here are some links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Garrett_Lisi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:E8_graph.svg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Exceptionally_Simple_Theory_of_Everythin...

So yeah, I've read all about String Theory and in my informed opinion, it's lame compared to Lisi's developing GUT and E8 research.

I concur.

Speaking of autistic savants. That autistic guy who they took up in a helicopter over New York, then he drew it from memory... that was awesome. That's a certain, very focused type of genius.

I've tried googling it, can't seem to find the story. It was really interesting.

Chris Nolan.

Anyway, I still think Lisi is worth discussing, too.

Has anyone else read up on his GUT or E8? It's pretty impressive.

I'll tell you what's not smart: paying too much for car insurance.

Also, it's odd to try and classify one person as the smartest ever, because you have to compare apples and oranges, and then the argument looses all merit and sense. The world's smartest musician couldn't explain string theory, but Hawking, partially for reasons already discussed, could play a concerto to save his life.

...man I'd pay money to see that though.

Well put.

It's like when someone says who's you favorite band, a guy like me has to say 'pick a genre.'

So unless we're talking renaissance men, you know, the type who many things exceptionally well, this is a bit short sighted to make our list primarily academic.

But then, I still think Lisi would be in the running. He surfs, kayaks, does all kinds of great , cool stuff, and has a PhD!

But DaVinci would also become a force to be reckoned with, since he was so well rounded for his time.

I must regroup.

Fucking hell. I'll tell you who's not the smartest person in the world. Me. I went to fix a horrible typo in my other post (looses instead of loses) and I hit quote instead of edit.

Also, lately I've been finding that I'm using apostrophes in inappropriate places! I'm losing my marbles, I tells ya!

Can you guys please stay on topic?

I mean if you want to rag on each other - that's fine. Just open a thread in GD to do it.

This is Research Forum. Everybody that's been commenting has been here long enough to know the rules.

Thanks!

darryl hannah

I don't find any insult even upon rereading. You are pretty free with throwing them about though.

Somewhat OT, but why are you so sure you'll be dead in a hundred years?

This thread has been moderated a bunch, so it's not all here.

I think I read "out of our grasp" as "out of your grasp" or something like that. But it wasn't you who really tipped me off, anyway. You can guess the rest from there if you wish. I was testy thanks to previous convos elsewhere on the Cult. Little had anything to do with you, personally.

Sorry it came across otherwise. It's no longer all here.

Oh, and I'm 28 with leukemia, so even if I do well, 100 years would be a fantasy. Fuck, another 20 would be aces.

Interestingly enough, Brian Dunning's Skeptoid podcast/blog addresses String Theory in this week's episode.

He sums up, with much more clarity, the same problems I have with the theory:

String theory has, however, drawn criticism for being unscientific, stemming from the requirement that valid scientific theories make testable predictions. String theories are theoretically testable, but not realistically testable. The energy levels at which the equations work are many orders of magnitude above the energy levels we can create in our largest particle beam colliders, and in fact far above those of any theoretically possible collider. Thus, if the predictions made by string theory can never be tested, it's of no value as a theory. So while some physicists still maintain that the work is important, an increasing number are turning away from it. Some feel it's on its way out.

Link to above: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4188

Stephen Hawkings, String Theory, etc...

OP?

Original post.

Oh, in that case, what doesn't Stephen Hawking have to do with the original post? He's pretty smart.

The String Theory isn't directly related to the survey on whom we think is the smartest person. The forum has turned towards bashing Hawkings for his theories which has nothing to do with the question originally asked. However, after reading the podcast/blog, I can't disagree with why you would make a statement about his intellect, but I'm ignorant to the whole ordeal about his theories anyway to form my own opinion. I never took the time to read his work yet.

Nonetheless, I keep trying to bring up other people worth talking about, but no one seems to know jack about them either, and instead, would rather be thread police, and this thread has already gone through one round of total BS, then a huge overhaul/comment moderation.

My vote is for Lisi. Would anyone like to actually talk?

If I didn't need to go to sleep within the hour and wasn't so tired as is, sure, but that's not the case.

Ire - I see what you were saying. I did say "our" rather than "your". I certainly don't grasp ST to an extent that I would like; I'm just not that bright.

Also, I'll be reading up on Lisi; sounds fascinating.

Gene Wilder

I think I agree with this.