Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    We are building a new science block at our school and our head of science is running a competition to name each lab after a different scientist, hopefully not just the expected Newton, Darwin et.al.

    I am planning on entering with a list of rubbish scientists. Here's my list so far:

    Samuel Rowbotham, for the discovery that the Earth is flat.
    Edward Drinker Cope, for the discovery of the Brontosaurus.
    D.P. Hanig, for the discovery of the tongue map.
    Johann Joachim Becher, for the discovery of phlogiston.
    Albert Einstein, for the discovery of the cosmological constant.
    I. William Lane, for discovering that sharks do not get cancer.
    Charles Darwin, for blending of characteristics (although the idea wasn't his, so I don't think I should include it).
    Plato, for so many reasons - elements and circles being just two.
    Samuel Hahnemann, for homeopathy.

    Can anyone think of any others?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pigster)
    We are building a new science block at our school and our head of science is running a competition to name each lab after a different scientist, hopefully not just the expected Newton, Darwin et.al.

    I am planning on entering with a list of rubbish scientists. Here's my list so far:

    Samuel Rowbotham, for the discovery that the Earth is flat.
    Edward Drinker Cope, for the discovery of the Brontosaurus.
    D.P. Hanig, for the discovery of the tongue map.
    Johann Joachim Becher, for the discovery of phlogiston.
    Albert Einstein, for the discovery of the cosmological constant.
    I. William Lane, for discovering that sharks do not get cancer.
    Charles Darwin, for blending of characteristics (although the idea wasn't his, so I don't think I should include it).
    Plato, for so many reasons - elements and circles being just two.
    Samuel Hahnemann, for homeopathy.

    Can anyone think of any others?
    Not sure who 'discovered' them but the splitting of the brain/skull into sections representing personality traits, and the study of handwriting related to personality (might be called graphicology?)
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pigster)
    We are building a new science block at our school and our head of science is running a competition to name each lab after a different scientist, hopefully not just the expected Newton, Darwin et.al.

    Charles Darwin, for blending of characteristics (although the idea wasn't his, so I don't think I should include it).


    Can anyone think of any others?
    You just contradicted yourself...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Also, Newton was believed to support alchemy
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EdexcelAreIdiots)
    You just contradicted yourself...
    How was Darwin not a scientist, he was a naturalist and biologist was he not?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    J.J. Thompson, for the 'Plum pudding' model.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    This is stupid... For their relative times they were seen as good discoveries. In 1000 years from now I'm sure people will add Hawkings to that list...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pigster)
    Can anyone think of any others?
    The most obvious, and most damaging, is perhaps Bishop James Ussher for his chronology of Earth that established its creation as around 6 pm on 22 October 4004 BC.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Whats phlogiston?
    I would just go for Rowbotham. :lol: And call the block the "Idiotic Scientists Block".

    (Original post by Pigster)
    We are building a new science block at our school and our head of science is running a competition to name each lab after a different scientist, hopefully not just the expected Newton, Darwin et.al.

    I am planning on entering with a list of rubbish scientists. Here's my list so far:

    Samuel Rowbotham, for the discovery that the Earth is flat.
    Edward Drinker Cope, for the discovery of the Brontosaurus.
    D.P. Hanig, for the discovery of the tongue map.
    Johann Joachim Becher, for the discovery of phlogiston.
    Albert Einstein, for the discovery of the cosmological constant.
    I. William Lane, for discovering that sharks do not get cancer.
    Charles Darwin, for blending of characteristics (although the idea wasn't his, so I don't think I should include it).
    Plato, for so many reasons - elements and circles being just two.
    Samuel Hahnemann, for homeopathy.

    Can anyone think of any others?
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pigster)
    We are building a new science block at our school and our head of science is running a competition to name each lab after a different scientist, hopefully not just the expected Newton, Darwin et.al.

    I am planning on entering with a list of rubbish scientists. Here's my list so far:

    Samuel Rowbotham, for the discovery that the Earth is flat.
    Edward Drinker Cope, for the discovery of the Brontosaurus.
    D.P. Hanig, for the discovery of the tongue map.
    Johann Joachim Becher, for the discovery of phlogiston.
    Albert Einstein, for the discovery of the cosmological constant.
    I. William Lane, for discovering that sharks do not get cancer.
    Charles Darwin, for blending of characteristics (although the idea wasn't his, so I don't think I should include it).
    Plato, for so many reasons - elements and circles being just two.
    Samuel Hahnemann, for homeopathy.

    Can anyone think of any others?
    Something about this post just makes me feel you're a bit of a muppet mate
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I'd avoid Einstein, the cosmological constant won't be what people think of.

    Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons - the chaps behind cold fusion
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    How about Lamarck for his discredited theory on evolution, Dalton for the model of an atom?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hannxm)
    Whats phlogiston?
    I would just go for Rowbotham. :lol: And call the block the "Idiotic Scientists Block".
    a 'chemical' thought to be used when stuff burned (this is before the discovery of oxygen)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AHappyStudent)
    Not sure who 'discovered' them but the splitting of the brain/skull into sections representing personality traits, and the study of handwriting related to personality (might be called graphicology?)
    Phrenology. For some reason, I didn't want to include it in my list. I, honestly, am not sure what I have against it :s

    (Original post by Texxers)
    This is stupid... For their relative times they were seen as good discoveries. In 1000 years from now I'm sure people will add Hawkings to that list...
    Not true: The Earth is not flat, there is (and never has been) such a thing as a Brontosaurus, the tongue map is wrong, sharks DO get cancer, homeopathy; well don't get me started.

    I take your point though, some things, like the Plum Pudding model, were proven wrong but were, at their time and by their proposers, an honest attempt at explaining new phenomenon.

    (Original post by Good bloke)
    The most obvious, and most damaging, is perhaps Bishop James Ussher for his chronology of Earth that established its creation as around 6 pm on 22 October 4004 BC.
    Me likey.

    (Original post by HenryHaite)
    Something about this post just makes me feel you're a bit of a muppet mate
    Why so? (I have thick skin)

    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons - the chaps behind cold fusion
    I wonder if they honestly believed that they were on to something or that they just wouldn't get found out.

    (Original post by 27FT)
    How about Lamarck for his discredited theory on evolution, Dalton for the model of an atom?
    I discounted Lamarck as he is on the GCSE spec. and is too well known.

    What's wrong with Dalton's model? It is still correct, mostly.



    Andrew Wakefield I another I should, anger-provokingly, add.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Richard Bandler and John Grinder, the progenitors of Neurolinguistic Programming.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Delphine Jend, creator of the celebrated 'Enemies Explode' Spell.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Infraspecies)
    Richard Bandler and John Grinder, the progenitors of Neurolinguistic Programming.
    Excellent, I didn't know it had been rubbished. I was taught about it, when I used to be a salesman and always had my doubts about whether it was boswellox or not.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pigster)
    Excellent, I didn't know it had been rubbished. I was taught about it, when I used to be a salesman and always had my doubts about whether it was boswellox or not.
    It's widely discredited by any professional in the field.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Infraspecies)
    It's widely discredited by any professional in the field.
    Aha, but will they continue to discredit the work if they are indoors?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pigster)
    Aha, but will they continue to discredit the work if they are indoors?
    I'm not sure, I suppose it depends whether it's a Tuesday or not.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.