Short Biographies of Famous Scientists
This page has links to short biographies of famous scientists. It also has a custom search box for general biographies
If you have no particular person in mind, you might ask, "Which short biography of famous scientists should I begin with?" I would recommend starting at the top, with perhaps Sir Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein. Then you might move on to their greatest influences, like Galileo Galilee or Michael Faraday.
Another intriguing figure to start with is Leonardo da Vinci. He sits at the beginning of the Renaissance, and had a great influence upon it. He is also, perhaps, the greatest polymath. Few other great scientists had any artistic talent. Or, you could start at the beginning with Greek thinkers like Socrates or Aristotle.
To understand why we have included figures like Socrates and Columbus, but not Tom Cruise or Henry VIII, it is important to understand how we are using the terms 'science' and 'scientist'. The Oxford English Dictionary provides a wealth of detail on the origin of these terms and their meanings. Here, we provide an overview to justify the inclusion of figures who you may not consider to be scientists.
The recorded use of the term 'science', in English, goes back to the 14th century, when it referred to any branch of knowledge or learning. At this time, ‘the seven liberal sciences’ ( also called ‘the seven liberal arts’) were the foundation of University studies. They were:
- The Trivium (Grammar, Logic, Rhetoric)
- The Quadrivium (Arithmetic, Music, Geometry, Astronomy)
The liberal sciences were thought to be the only ones worthy of a free man (free women were not thought worthy of pursuing them in those sexist times.) Other sciences, like medicine, were thought to be servile or mechanical and not worthy of a gentleman. But when one thinks of the vast variety of pursuits pursued by Victorian gentlemen, and today's internet millionaires, it is difficult to see how such a separation can be supported.
The term science has been applied to systematic accounts in all areas of knowledge, including areas as disparate as card games, divinity and law. Therefore, perhaps, we can define a scientist as anyone who studies any area of human knowledge in a systematic fashion, and gives some account of his studies.
Marlon Brando has not written a significant systematic account of the science of acting, nor has Elizabeth I written a significant systematic account of political science. So they may be famous, but they are not scientists. You might point to, say, an interview where Marlon Brando has given a fairly systematic account of the art of acting as proof that he is a scientist. But to be a famous scientist rather than famous and a scientist, the person has to have produced scientific work of some significance, as judged by accepted experts in the science.
It is difficult to place some people in the category famous scientist. For instance, Columbus is a famous explorer, but is he a famous scientist? I would argue that he was. He had a superb knowledge of the sciences of navigation and climatology (trade winds). He may not have greatly advanced the technical aspects of these sciences, but he used them to great effect. An applied scientist is also a scientist. But as Marlon Brando used systematic theory to inform his acting--"the method"--isn't he an applied scientist?
Wittgenstein pointed out that it is impossible to define the word "sport". There are always borderline cases, like "darts" or "snooker". The same is true for most words, including "scientist". So if you think a person in the following list may not be a scientist, I may tend to agree. But if they are borderline and interesting, they are in.
