ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS & OTHER NOTES
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am grateful to individuals and organizations whose help facilitated my research-hauls, which culminated in this publication. Profound appreciations are for the libraries and research centers of these institutions: University of Zurich, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, University of Applied Sciences Winterthur, University of Basel, University of Bern, University of Geneva, University of Lausanne, École Polytechnique Lausanne, Institut de Hautes Études Scientifiques Bures-sur-Yvette, Pierre and Marie Curie University Paris, École Polytechnique Palaiseau, École Normale Supérieure Lyon, University of Milan, Sapienza University of Rome, University of Pisa, University of Bologna, University of Salamanca, Humboldt University Berlin, Georg August University Goettingen, Goethe University Frankfurt, University of Vienna, Charles University Prague, University of Oxford, University of Cambridge, University of Glasgow, University of Melbourne, University of Southern Queensland, National University of Singapore, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Tsinghua University, Wuhan University, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beihang University, South China University of Technology Guangzhou, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Osaka University, University of Tokyo, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, University of Mumbai, University of Madras, University of Calcutta, Assuit University, Cairo University, Al-Azhar University Cairo, Alexandria University, University of al-Qarawiyyin Fez, University of Nigeria Nsukka, University of Ghana Accra, University of São Paulo, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of California 10-Uni-System, and a host of others. Kindly accept my succinct but heartfelt gratitude in lieu of the pages that would be needed to thank you all.
SCOPE AND CRITERIA
Ancient sciences comprised of maths, astronomy, medicine and metallurgy. Alchemy was an adventurous pseudoscience: pursued in the hope of economic guerdons. Before the 19th century, those core sciences we know now as physics, chemistry and biology were collectively referred to as natural philosophy. Only their applied forms (such as medicine and engineering) were clearly demarcated. This project traversed the entire fields of pure and applied sciences: dating from the Mesopotamian era to the dawn of 21st century AD. In other words, the 5000 years between 3000 BC and 2000 AD. As highlighted in the Introduction, my research which saw me visiting over 20 countries (and territories) took more than 15 years to conclude. The rankings were based on merit. My four criteria (each of which carries 25% of the total assessment points) are: overall ability, versatility, productivity and developmental influences. These are no doubt ideal. Though, sieving-out thousands of contenders was to say the least, onerous. Hence, this compilation (including extra revisitations and reassessments) took me years to finalize. Without bothering you with the dour intricacies, I will attest that (based on my experiences) assessments like these are abraded with inherent defects. But at the same time, they evince statistical accuracies, which enhance validity by diluting each of those defects. Comparative analyses can be arduous. The difficulties I encountered in the course of this assignment were immense. Notwithstanding, I did gain insights which still thrill me. Apart from visiting so many places, it was exhilarating to behold all those antique manuscripts whose stories inspired me. Thus, I have become even more knowledge-thirsty; and would continue to update this website, other portals, and the related pages of wikipedia, if I come across any new data. For all intents and purposes, sapaviva remains an ongoing project.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Based on the fact that historic injustices permeate our social and professional lives, it was imperative to ameliorate their impacts: whenever and wherever possible. Hence, in all instances where capable and/or promising individuals were systematically hindered—through sabotage, persecution, discrimination, etc., the circumstances of such hindrances were taken into account during my evaluations. Examples of those affected are Hypatia of Alexandria, Marie Curie, Emmy Noether, Katherine Coleman Johnson, Lise Meitner, George Washington Carver, Georg Cantor, Galileo Galilei, Vivien Theodore Thomas, Jesse Ernest Wilkins Jr., and James Joseph Sylvester. As compensation, I prioritized their natural talents such as ingenuity, deftness, expertise, and resourcefulness above all else in evaluating what should be their optimal ranking positions.
DISCLAIMER
Although I did my best in ranking those scientists (and mathematicians) as they deserved, I admit that it is practically impossible to obtain complete information on their respective lives and works. I was particularly disappointed by Greek philosophers such as Pythagoras, Hippocrates and Archimedes. Despite millennium-old stories about their achievements, few proofs exist. Every “expert” I confronted with the astonishing lack of substantiations admitted that in their stead, tales might have sufficed. Even the “authoritative” catalogs I perused replicated those tales with pardonable exaggerations. Also, majority of the inventions attributed to these Greeks were developed and used by Egyptians many centuries prior. Hence, reexamining “the works of these philosophers” did expose inextricable tinctures of facts and fictions. And in the absence of better options, I had no choice but make do with inherently embellished ‘proofs’. As a result, this site is presented in “as it stands” basis. You must condone all the shortcomings therein. It is always difficult to comparatively rank people or things. And, I do not claim perfection of any sort. Notwithstanding, my research were based on the available facts; neither hypes nor myths were invoked. So, bear with me. Thanks for understanding.
UNSUNG HEROES AND COINCIDENCES
Maths and astronomy are the oldest sciences. Prior to European ascendancy, the ancient empires of Egypt, Babylon, China, India, Japan, Persia, Arabia, Maya, Inca, Aztec, Kush and Western Sudan dominated these sciences. But it is unfortunate that much of the intellectual glories went to their sovereigns; instead of the geniuses who drove the civilizations. As a result, little is known about them: thereby making it impossible to assess and rank them. Also, I perceived coincidences (during my research), which connected a number of scientists. For example, the two female pioneers of Radioactive Chemistry and Nuclear Physics, Marie Curie and Lise Meitner, share the November 7th birthday. Claude Bernard, Wilhelm Roentgen and Joseph Lister, all of whom advanced medical sciences in the 19th century, died on the 10th day of February. These three ingenious pacesetters: Pierre-Simon Laplace, Emmy Noether and Wernher von Braun share the March 23rd birthday. Two of the world’s most impressive polymaths: Alhazen Ibn al-Haytham and Gottfried von Leibniz, share the July 1st birthday. Similarly, two of the acclaimed scientific revolutionaries: Paul Ehrlich and Albert Einstein share the March 14th birthday; whereas these two 18th century great physicists: Alessandro Volta and Pierre-Simon Laplace died peacefully on the same day (which was Monday the 5th day of March 1827).
THE REALM OF INTELLECTUAL MIRACLES
For most parts, the lives and works of great scientists are fascinating. Numerous things about them seem impressive. But even more awesome are the virtuosos who despite having little or no training, dominated their respective fields at the highest levels. Everything about them is mind-blowing. I mean; how could one explain the triumphs of an “academic nobody” like Srinivasa Ramanujan, who quelled penury, poor health, and several other vicissitudes to dominate leading mathematicians in their own domain. The same applies to Vivien Theodore Thomas, whose innate abilities relegated racism, privation, and incommensurate High School Certificate: compelling top cardiologists, as well as surgery professors, to seek his advice. Needless to mention Michael Faraday, who lacked even Primary School Certificate; yet, rose to become the greatest experimenter in the entire history of science. Are we missing something? Or, are there intellectual miracles which remain as mysterious as science itself? Even after holidaying in the territories of ultra-geniuses, the abilities of Ramanujan, Thomas and Faraday still had me wondering: How could such rarities be explained?
METHODOLOGIES AND CRITICISMS
The 19th century philosopher, theologian and priest, Cardinal John Henry Newman, forethought that: “A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault in what he did.” Hence, despite having spent more than 15 years researching and reviewing the works of over 3000 great scientists (including mathematicians), I wasn’t oblivious of the fact that my efforts cannot satisfy everybody. Perfection in this sort of enterprise is an illusion. That was why statistical accuracies were my focus. In view of this, I cultivated multi-tier equi-proportion ranking criteria (of overall Ability, Versatility, Productivity, and Developmental Influences). Perhaps, this explains why I have received much less criticisms than I expected. And most of my critics yowled about Albert Einstein being ranked “at a lowly” number 10; whereas Charles Darwin did not even feature in the Top 100. These criticisms are easy to fend off: given my ranking criteria. For example, a good look at the Top 10 clearly showed that each scientist there was far more versatile than Albert Einstein. I will clarify thus: Isaac Newton, Leonhard Euler, Gottfried Leibniz and Carl Friedrich Gauss (respectively) made revolutionary and in-depth discoveries in numerous areas of mathematics and physics. Michael Faraday attained comparable status in Chemistry and Physics — just as Alhazen and Galileo Galilei were celebrated pacesetters in maths and physics. Nikola Tesla unraveled modern branches of engineering and physics; while a widowed Sklodowska-Curie single-handedly pioneered works in chemistry and physics. My respect and admiration for Albert Einstein notwithstanding, the fact remains that his major works were only in physics. There are other issues, which I can list; but as the saying goes: A word suffices for the wise. With regards to Charles Robert Darwin, whose achievements have been over-hyped and over-promoted, I must inform (honest brokers) that contrary to popular assumptions, the Evolution Theory was not initiated by him. It predated him by centuries: with ancient scholars like Anaximander and Empedocles highlighting it. Even his famous On the Origin of Species text was not his original idea. It was an emulation of the works of his underappreciated contemporaries named: Robert Chambers and Alfred Russel Wallace. Unlike folks who give Darwin full credits for the Evolution Theory, I think that (based on my research findings) he should be praised solely for popularizing it. Needless to stress that Gregor Mendel’s Theories and Laws of Genetics which (comparatively) are better substantiated, more foundational, and far superior to Darwin’s Evolution Theory, do not receive any such attention (much less of acclamations). From Healthcare to Biotechnology to Agriculture to Ancestry — even to Forensics or Law Enforcement Investigations, the importance of Genetics cannot be overemphasized. My dear ladies and gentlemen, facts are no respecter of opinions. Whether we like it or not, our Life Sciences’ reality is that both Carl Linnaeus’ Taxonomy and Gregor Mendel’s Genetics have already addressed most of the things which Charles Darwin’s Evolution diehards hold dear. And they did so with more cogent and compelling evidence than Evolution ever tendered. Despite the overwhelming superiority of Mendelian Genetics over Darwinian Evolution, mischief-makers still prefer baseless hypes to fundamental facts. It would be travesty for any conscientious evaluator to rank Darwinian Evolution above Mendelian Genetics. So please, do understand that all my rankings were based entirely on merits. I neither underrated Albert Einstein nor excluded Charles Darwin. If they fell short here (in your own opinion); then, it was due to the evaluative rigors of the ranking criteria. As I emphasized in the introductory notes of this website, my four criteria are: overall Ability, Versatility, Productivity, and Developmental Influences. These are in all fairness ideal. My ratings are devoid of any popularity contest. All hypes and myths were ignored.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
My name is Valentine Oduenyi. I live in Switzerland, and enjoy learning. Having excelled in academics as a child, I became disillusioned with the Education System during my teenage years. Even now, I still believe that reforms are overdue. All the academic curricula which I have reviewed seemed profoundly deficient. And as such, my four degrees from universities in three continents are just for official purposes. I consider myself a perpetual student. The liberty to explore various disciplines is invigorating. Perhaps, that is why studying is a lot more intriguing to me now than while at school. As an omnivore, I nibble at Sciences, Arts, and everything in-between. For a glimpse into my perspectives and philosophies, click on the following link https://www.sapaviva.com/the-220-quotes-of-valentine-oduenyi. Thanks for visiting. I wish you all the best.