Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Relics of Science History For Sale At Christie's

Posted by timothy on from the shroud-of-einstein-doesn't-have-the-same-ring dept.

circletimessquare writes "Dennis Overbye at the New York Times has some ruminations on some of the historical totems of science going up for auction at Christie's next week. There is the 1543 copy of 'De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium' by Copernicus, which you can have for $900,000 to $1.2 million. If you have some cash left over, maybe you can pick up an original work by Galileo, Darwin, Descartes, Newton, Freud, Kepler, Tycho Brahe, or Malthus. And then there is the 1878 copy of the world's first phone book: 'a shock of recognition — that people were already talking on the phone a year before Einstein was born. In fact, just two years later Einstein's father went into the nascent business himself. Einstein grew up among the rudiments of phones and other electrical devices like magnets and coils, from which he drew part of the inspiration for relativity. It would not be until 1897, after people had already made fortunes exploiting electricity, that the English scientist J. J. Thomson discovered what it actually was ...'"

142 comments

  1. If Freud Was a Scientist, Fire Up My Crack Pipe! by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Science: Relics of Science History For Sale At Christie's

    ... There is the 1543 copy of 'De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium' by Copernicus, which you can have for $900,000 to $1.2 million. If you have some cash left over, maybe you can pick up an original work by Galileo, Darwin, Descartes, Newton, Freud, Kepler, Tycho Brahe, or Malthus. Objection. Sigmund Freud may have been a psychologist but he was a far cry from a scientist. Tell me where he applied the scientific process in his work. Show me the universal laws he established.

    In a lot of respects, the man was nothing more than a cokehead with a penchant for strange sexually oriented neurosis.

    He may have had a degree as a physician but I don't recall anything scientific about his work or any contributions to our understanding of the relationship between our psyche and flesh.
    --
    My work here is dung.
  2. Ugh... by Jor-Al · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Am I the only one who finds it somewhat disgusting that rather then going into a museum these things are being sold to some private collector who will keep it locked up from the rest of the world?

    1. Re:Ugh... by houstonbofh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Next time you go to a museum, look at the little plaques under the items. You know... The ones that say "On loan from the collection of..." A museum frequently does not have enough cash to buy everything it shows.

    2. Re:Ugh... by djl4570 · · Score: 1

      Collectors with deep pockets often loan such items to museums or display them in their own museum.

    3. Re:Ugh... by InvisblePinkUnicorn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "private collector who will keep it locked up from the rest of the world?"

      Private collectors regularly donate or lease their collections to museums for display. And what's to stop a private collector from making their own exhibit to show for a fee? If you would like to help support a museum, feel free to donate, but don't tell everyone that they must give up a portion of their income to support your own cause.

    4. Re:Ugh... by Jor-Al · · Score: 1

      Sure, a fraction of their collections, but the vast majority of such stuff stays locked up from the rest of the world.

    5. Re:Ugh... by Jor-Al · · Score: 0

      Private collectors regularly donate or lease their collections to museums for display. Sure some do, but the vast majority don't.

      And what's to stop a private collector from making their own exhibit to show for a fee? How often does this actually happen in the real world?

      If you would like to help support a museum, feel free to donate, but don't tell everyone that they must give up a portion of their income to support your own cause. Who exactly are you attacking with this statement? It can't be me since I never made such a statement so I'm rather baffled why you made it in response to my post. *shrug*
    6. Re:Ugh... by InvisblePinkUnicorn · · Score: 1

      "Sure some do, but the vast majority don't."

      Based on what? Almost every museum exhibit I've seen says that it was donated or leased from a private collector. Are you citing some statistics, or just making stuff up?

      "Who exactly are you attacking with this statement?"

      You opposed private ownership, so you must be for public ownership, no? How is this public ownership (and maintenance) achieved without public funding? You may not have realized it but you were implying increasing everyone's taxes when you opposed private ownership. If that is not what you intended to imply, please clarify. If you're for private museum ownership, that museum still needs to get the money to either buy and/or maintain the exhibit. If that money is not privately acquired it must be public money.

    7. Re:Ugh... by east+coast · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why? Assuming that the texts of these works are available who cares what happens to the originals or early editions? It's almost like owning a mother master of Dark Side of the Moon... is it neat and historical? Absolutly, but I can still get out my CD and listen to it all the same. Nothing of value is lost.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    8. Re:Ugh... by Spudtrooper · · Score: 5, Funny

      That cross belongs in a museum!

    9. Re:Ugh... by LandDolphin · · Score: 1

      You answered you own post: is it neat and historical? Absolutly

      That in it self is enough to care

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    10. Re:Ugh... by InvisblePinkUnicorn · · Score: 1

      "That cross belongs in a museum!"

      So do you!

    11. Re:Ugh... by Jor-Al · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Based on what? Reality.

      Almost every museum exhibit I've seen says that it was donated or leased from a private collector. And this translates into every private collector doing such a similar thing, how?

      Are you citing some statistics, or just making stuff up? I'm doing exactly what you are doing. That is unless you are going to claim that you have some statistic that says that the vast majority of private collectors have their items all on loan to some museum.

      You opposed private ownership, so you must be for public ownership, no? Sorry, but no. I said they should be in a museum rather than locked up in someone's private collection where it will most likely be unavailable for others to see. Last time I checked, there was nothing about an item being kept in a museum that implied public ownership of said item. The rest of your rant is going to be ignored because it all stems from your fault assumptions of what you thought i was saying.
    12. Re:Ugh... by Strider- · · Score: 4, Informative

      Typically only a small fraction of a Museum's collection is ever put on display, or even ever looked at. There are a lot of researchers who spend their entire careers doing field work in the basements of museums, rather than getting dirty out in the jungles or deserts.

      With objects such as these, despite how rare they are, the knowledge contained within them is already well known. There are very few things that I don't think should be privately owned... The Rosetta Stone comes to mind, as would unpublished works of any of these great minds.

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
    13. Re:Ugh... by InvisblePinkUnicorn · · Score: 1

      You made the assertion that the "vast majority don't" donate/lease their items to museums. You need to back that up with some source. Saying "reality" is not the same as providing a source. Other replies to your original statement have made the same observation.

      "I said they should be in a museum rather than locked up in someone's private collection where it will most likely be unavailable for others to see."

      Alright. I agree with that too. So your option then (that does not violate anyone's rights) is to donate and persuade others to donate.

    14. Re:Ugh... by maxume · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do your donations match your indignation?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    15. Re:Ugh... by kbob88 · · Score: 5, Informative
      So I called my sister who works in museum curation and asked her about this. Here's her take on this:
      • Multiple copies of most books like this exist, so even after putting some in private hands, museums still have quite a few copies (usually).
      • Books going back as far as 1600 are usually really not that rare. They're rare enough to command $$ from collectors, but not so rare that museums and universities don't already have lots of copies.
      • The text itself is well known, and available in many other forms, that are easier to use than a 500 year old book.
      • Museums don't buy much stuff on the open market (although some). They are given stuff on loan (which is usually forever), or given it outright. Some well-funded museums do have large acquisition budgets.
      • Many museums actually sell a lot of stuff like this that they have been given, or when they want to refocus their collection. Usually they have to use the proceeds to acquire new items.
      • Most people don't really want to see rare, important books, plus they're hard to display effectively. There are exceptions (Book of Kells in Dublin). And science history is tough -- science museums do well with kids, and history museums do OK, but science history is a tough draw. Low attendance.
      • She wanted to know how much the parent poster has contributed to his local museums recently. A bit of 'money where your mouth is.'

      Her take in general: no big deal, happens all the time. They'd rather spend their precious acquisition money on extremely rare stuff of significant interest to the public or to scholars.
    16. Re:Ugh... by thermian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      if you check your history you will find that almost all major museum collections are the result of the work of private collectors.

      Take Tutankhamun. That entire excavation was the result of a private collectors interest in the subject.

      In the past they were frequently donated, such as on the death of the (typically extremely rich) owner, but nowadays many collections are worth serious money, so that's not an option that most would consider.

      My local museum has a set of 15th century Apprentice Indentures and land deeds that I donated to them 25 years ago. Had I realised what they were worth I'd have made it a loan. Semi permanently perhaps, but I shouldn't really have handed over what turned out to be many thousands of pounds worth of documentation.

      I don't feel too bad though, after all, they are particularly lovely documents, I doubt I could feel comfortable with them being anywhere but in a museum.

      --
      A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
    17. Re:Ugh... by gnick · · Score: 1

      Almost every museum exhibit I've seen says that it was donated or leased from a private collector. And this translates into every private collector doing such a similar thing, how? It doesn't. But, if you accept the premise that most museum exhibits are on loan from private collections, it does imply that museums would be much less impressively populated if it was not for support from private collections. I only see a few realistic options:

      1) Let wealthy people buy these relics and show them to me at their discretion.
      Part of the current model. Sad if things get buried or hidden away, but it's what we've got.

      2) Allow museums to buy artifacts when possible using their funding acquired through entrance fees, donations, and public support (taxes, bond measures, ear-marks, etc.)
      Also part of the current model. As long as we don't go overboard with entrance fees and taxes, I don't mind funding some select purchases for display. But not everything that comes up for auction. If the collectors want it worse than the museum wants to display it, let 'em have it. (Please don't infer support for ear-marks, but it seemed wrong not to include them as a source of museum funding.)

      3) Jack up taxes to compete at auction and buy all of these things for public display.
      Some of these things are impossibly cool, but most are not remotely necessary to the public good. In fact, I suspect that many wouldn't be on display even if a museum had them. So, I'll voluntarily pay $$ to support a museum that shows them off, but I don't want my tax dollars to buy them all just to make sure that a private collector doesn't horde them away. Just my opinion.

      4) Seize historic objects for display and compensate the owners some set amount that we, the public, determine rather than allowing them to submit their property to auction.
      No.

      5) Force private collectors to make their collections available for display.
      You can have my beer bottle collection when you pry it from my cold dead hands.

      Personally, I vote that we stick with #1 for most cases. Go with #2 when possible without hurting attendance through excessive entrance fees. And avoid #4 & #5 at all costs. What model are you hoping to see if you object so strongly to #1?
      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    18. Re:Ugh... by east+coast · · Score: 1

      I'd care enough to see that they don't completely disappear but to think that they shouldn't find their way into a collectors hands? Not really. The information outweighs the media or the historical value of the media. If these same works were somehow destroyed in a fire or flood I wouldn't morn their passing.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    19. Re:Ugh... by Jor-Al · · Score: 1

      You made the assertion that the "vast majority don't" donate/lease their items to museums. You need to back that up with some source. Saying "reality" is not the same as providing a source. Other replies to your original statement have made the same observation. So if the vast majority do, where's your evidence? Saying that you see a lot of donated items in a museum doesn't translate into the saying that the vast majority of private collectors do the same. In the end you are trying to hold me to a standard of evidence that you don't follow yourself.

      Alright. I agree with that too. So your option then (that does not violate anyone's rights) is to donate and persuade others to donate. Yes. I don't feel that people should be hoarding cultural artifacts from the world. I couldn't give a shit less if it's privately or publicly owned though.
    20. Re:Ugh... by Jor-Al · · Score: 1

      What model are you hoping to see if you object so strongly to #1? I don't object to those who are willing to allow the public to see their own cultural artifacts. I have a big problem with people hoarding such things away from the public. I can get called any sorts of names and get modded as a troll, but my view on the subject isn't going to change.
    21. Re:Ugh... by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      Nothing of value is lost.
      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
      Oh yeah? You try to call up Yog-Sothoth using only the Latin or Greek so-called translations *cough* of the Necronomicon sometime.
      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    22. Re:Ugh... by InvisblePinkUnicorn · · Score: 1

      "So if the vast majority do, where's your evidence?"

      I'm not making that assertion. I only said that all the exhibits I've seen were donated/leased by private collectors. You then said that the vast majority of artifacts were not. You need to back that up with some evidence.

      "Saying that you see a lot of donated items in a museum doesn't translate into the saying that the vast majority of private collectors do the same."

      Of course it doesn't. And that also explains why I never made that assertion.

      I have backed up my one claim with my own anecdotal evidence, which you can accept or reject, but you have not backed up your claim ("vast majority...") with any evidence.

      "I couldn't give a shit less if it's privately or publicly owned though."

      So you want a situation to occur (artifacts to be in museums), but don't care where the funding comes from. In other words, if a bill was proposed to expand museum public funding through increased taxation, you would be all for it. That is where my original complaint comes into play. You would be supporting a bill that forces people to give up a part of their productivity to fund a cause you support. This violates their rights as human beings. See my original reply.

    23. Re:Ugh... by Jor-Al · · Score: 1

      So you want a situation to occur (artifacts to be in museums), but don't care where the funding comes from. Nope. I just don't want cultural artifacts to be hidden from the world. The rest of your statements are you attempting to put words in my mouth.

      In other words, if a bill was proposed to expand museum public funding through increased taxation, you would be all for it. Where did I say anything of the sort? Pulling stuff out of thin air again, I see.

      That is where my original complaint comes into play. You would be supporting a bill that forces people to give up a part of their productivity to fund a cause you support. This violates their rights as human beings. See my original reply. Sorry, but I wouldn't. So again, you're still bashing on a strawman.
    24. Re:Ugh... by gnick · · Score: 1

      I don't object to those who are willing to allow the public to see their own cultural artifacts. I have a big problem with people hoarding such things away from the public. We'd all like for private collectors to share the things we'd like to see. But you've still yet to suggest any reasonable method for encouraging this. Do we force people to display their privately owned artifacts? Do we use taxes to buy everything that may be historic regardless of the price? Do we seize private property because we've decided it's museum-worthy?

      I can get called any sorts of names and get modded as a troll, but my view on the subject isn't going to change. I don't see anyone calling you names but, if you're going to object to something, offer an alternative. If private collectors shouldn't be able to buy and horde these things, what should be done?

      If all that you have to say is "Wouldn't it be nice if everyone shared?", then I agree. It's nice when people share. But I was hoping for something more interesting.
      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    25. Re:Ugh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, all the interesting stuff is in a big gov't warehouse with the ark of the covenant.

    26. Re:Ugh... by InvisblePinkUnicorn · · Score: 1

      "Where did I say anything of the sort?"

      I never said you did.

      "Pulling stuff out of thin air again, I see."

      Nope. I'm proposing a situation, and asking you to respond as to how you would react in that situation. Whether or not you choose to respond is up to you.

      "So again, you're still bashing on a strawman."

      I'm going based on what little information you've provided. So far, you don't care if funding for your desires is private or public. I've proposed hypothetical situations to find out more about your stance, but you have yet to respond to them. If I am incorrect in my estimation of your response, let me know how and why. If I am correct, then say so. If you don't want to respond with anything of substance, then continue as you currently are.

    27. Re:Ugh... by Jor-Al · · Score: 1

      I don't see anyone calling you names but, if you're going to object to something, offer an alternative. If private collectors shouldn't be able to buy and horde these things, what should be done? Put them into a museum and charge a nominal fee to see it. Just like any privately-funded museum does. Good enough?
    28. Re:Ugh... by InvisblePinkUnicorn · · Score: 1

      Still waiting for the evidence to back up your "vast majority" claim...

    29. Re:Ugh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Put them into a museum and charge a nominal fee to see it. Just like any privately-funded museum does. Good enough? No.

      It would be nice, but does nothing to stop collectors who care nothing about "nominal fees" from hording. We all agree - Sharing is nice. It would be nice if everyone shared. But if you're going to whine about collectors hording, offer us something that may encourage them to stop. "Nominal fees" won't do it.
    30. Re:Ugh... by djl4570 · · Score: 1

      Lets say you owned a substantial collection of original scores by Mozart, Corelli and other renowned composers, a First Folio by Shakespeare, A handwritten copy of Visions in a Dream, a first edition of the Principia. Would you want a bunch of slashdotters pawing through them? If I owned such treasures I wouldn't handle them myself.
      Datapoint: Antonio Stradivari made approximately fifteen hundred instruments in his lifetime. These were recognized as exceptional instruments during Stradivari's career and handled carefully by the musicians who owned them. Even handled carefully less than half that number of Stradivari's survive today.

    31. Re:Ugh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When Bill Gates bought DaVinci's codices I was able to view them at my local museum. I'm not positive; but I'm pretty sure they're touring other museums, not local to me, now.

  3. Re:If Freud Was a Scientist, Fire Up My Crack Pipe by Jason1729 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    At least in the modern usage, a "psychologist" doesn't have a degree in medicine at all. a "psychiatrist" does.

    Other than that, I agree, Freud should not be on a list of scientists.

    Then again, Tycho Brahe took Copernicus' heliocentric model and tried to revert us back to a geocentric model to appease the church, so I don't think he deserves the title either.

  4. I can see it now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Church inquistors rolling in their graves!

  5. Why Not? by eldavojohn · · Score: 2, Funny

    Let's all hope and pray . . . that some rich, right wing nutjob doesn't buy the collective works of Darwin and have a bonfire at his church.

    Why not? Seemed to work out alright for The Beatles.
    --
    My work here is dung.
  6. as soon as i hit submit by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Informative

    i knew i should have included a link to christie's site for the auction:

    http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/searchresults.aspx?intSaleID=21644#intSaleID=21644

    some of this stuff is (relatively) cheap, if you stray away from the really big names. i'm talking names like angstrom, fahrenheit, ampere, babbage, von neumann, can be had for a couple of hundred to a couple of thousand bucks

    some of you may wonder what the fuss is all about, but to me, this stuff is awesome. its the fruits of the enlightment, the intellectual explosion of mankind, solid proof of the greatness of mankind, that you can buy and hold in your hands

    a lot of us here work in computer science. well, for $2500 you can own the first edition book of something that pretty much started the entire computer field, boolean logic:

    BOOLE, George (1815-1864). An Investigation of the Laws of Thought, on Which are Founded the Mathematical Theories of Logic and Probabilities. London: Macmillan and Co., 1854.

    http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?from=searchresults&intObjectID=5084071

    well, maybe not $2500 after i just hyped the dang thing

    christie's should be paying me a dang commission!

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:as soon as i hit submit by houstonbofh · · Score: 2, Funny

      If that is still too high, I have 2 DEC RA50 disk packs I can sell you. Talk about scientific history!

    2. Re:as soon as i hit submit by TimeZone · · Score: 1

      Damn you, that was the one that stood out to me too, as being really cool and within budgetary reach.
      TZ

    3. Re:as soon as i hit submit by Rams�s+Morales · · Score: 1

      Its amazing how some "useless" things can create such an urge to spend all your money to get them.

    4. Re:as soon as i hit submit by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      Then you're really going to hate me now: you can buy your very own ENIGMA machine for $20K!!!

      I won't link to the listing so as to damper the hype :-)

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    5. Re:as soon as i hit submit by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      Christie's are being naive, disingenuous or coy - they should know that those books, papers and documents will sell for about 10 times the quoted amounts. Take this scientific paper ("Waves and Motion.") by De Broglie Do you really think it will go for "$1,000 - $1,500"?

      If you (and by "you" I don't mean the OP speficically, but anyone) think so, I own a huge copper-plated statue in New York I am willing to sell you for cheap.

      Seriously though, I guess these ridiculously low "estimates" serve only one purpose: to create the buzz.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    6. Re:as soon as i hit submit by TimeZone · · Score: 1

      I saw that one too. Very cool, but $20k falls outside of the "budgetary reach" thing for me, so no matter if you link it or not.
      TZ

  7. Give Brahe more credit. by Jabbrwokk · · Score: 5, Informative
    Tycho Brahe was a cornerstone for the development of modern astronomy:

    He is credited with the most accurate astronomical observations of his time, and the data was used by his assistant Kepler to derive the laws of planetary motion. No one before Tycho had attempted to make so many redundant observations, and the mathematical tools to take advantage of them had not yet been developed. He did what others before him were unable or unwilling to do -- to catalogue the planets and stars with enough accuracy so as to determine whether the Ptolemaic or Copernican system was more valid in describing the heavens.
    He meets the criteria of a scientist perfectly, regardless of his motivations. Plus, the dude lost his nose in a duel and wore a copper or gold one the rest of his life. How cool is that.
    1. Re:Give Brahe more credit. by doyoulikeworms · · Score: 5, Funny

      Nopper nose? Nat's not as nool nas yu nink.

    2. Re:Give Brahe more credit. by thermian · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't forget he lived on an Island, which also housed his lab. Heck, if he turns out also to have had a white fluffy cat......

      --
      A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
    3. Re:Give Brahe more credit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Tycho Brahe was also a member of the Priori de Scion which helped keep the documents from the Knights Templar from the hands of the Church, preventing their destruction.

    4. Re:Give Brahe more credit. by Dishevel · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Tycho Brahe was also a member of the Priori de Scion which helped keep the documents from the Knights Templar from the hands of the Church, preventing their destruction. lol That is all. Just lol.
      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    5. Re:Give Brahe more credit. by dances+with+elks · · Score: 2, Informative

      he had a pet elk, but it got drunk fell down some stairs and died :(

      --
      Will wash cars for karma
    6. Re:Give Brahe more credit. by piers_downunder · · Score: 1

      Slightly OT, but can anyone explain how to pronounce the guy's name? I tried to visit the eponymous museum in Copenhagen earlier last year, but none of the locals had any idea where/what it was, presumably on account of me butchering the Danish pronunciation. And yes I saw the wiki and no, I can't figure out the IPA pronunciation guide. English phonetics anyone?

    7. Re:Give Brahe more credit. by operagost · · Score: 2, Funny

      Too bad it was before the days of frickin' laser beams.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    8. Re:Give Brahe more credit. by Jason1729 · · Score: 1

      The same wiki article talks about "Tycho's Geo-heliocentrism". As brilliant as he may have been, he tried to sabotage the progress of science. How can you count him among the ranks of some of the most brilliant scientific minds in history. Cataloging data is grunt work, and his contributions were trying to undo advance.

      Yeah, losing his nose in a duel shows how classy he is.

    9. Re:Give Brahe more credit. by glittalogik · · Score: 1
      I thought you were joking! For anyone else who thought the same thing:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tycho_Brahe#Tycho.27s_elk_and_dwarf

      ...his mentor the Landgraf Wilhelm of Hesse-Kassel asked whether there was an animal faster than a deer. Tycho replied, writing that there were none, but he could send his tame elk. When Wilhelm replied he would accept one in exchange for a horse, Tycho replied with the sad news that the elk had just died on a visit to entertain a nobleman at Landskrona. Apparently during dinner the elk had drunk a lot of beer, fallen down the stairs, and died.
    10. Re:Give Brahe more credit. by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      Tie-koh brah-heh

  8. phones by syrinx · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Recently found an old newspaper ad, circa mid-1890s, for my great-grandfather's grocery store. Despite living in semi-rural Indiana, they apparently had one of the newfangled phones, as the ad listed their phone number. It was "12".

    --
    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
    1. Re:phones by sammy+baby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't suppose there's any chance you could scan and post that somewhere, could you? Because that is cool.

    2. Re:phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Puts the whole "My slashdot userid is lower than yours" in perspective doesn't it.

    3. Re:phones by ikkonoishi · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a local switchboard number. Likely it wouldn't work for anywhere farther than a few miles away. Its like someone omitting the area code when they give out a number in a local ad.

    4. Re:phones by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      It was "12".

      Almost as cool as /. UID 12.
      I think that belongs to Tycho Brahe... første indlæg!

    5. Re:phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, please do post a scan if you can, I'd LOVE to see that.

    6. Re:phones by noidentity · · Score: 1

      Recently found an old newspaper ad, circa mid-1890s, for my great-grandfather's grocery store. Despite living in semi-rural Indiana, they apparently had one of the newfangled phones, as the ad listed their phone number. It was "12".

      Ahh yes, those were the days of POTSv2, before we had POTSv7 for local calls and POTSv10 for long-distance. You should have heard the arguments against something more than POTSv2... the idea of every person having his own POTS "address" was odd back then.

    7. Re:phones by Yewbert · · Score: 1

      I'm from semi-rural Indiana, and would love to see a scan of this, as well.

    8. Re:phones by westlake · · Score: 1
      Sounds like a local switchboard number. Likely it wouldn't work for anywhere farther than a few miles away.

      The rural telephone in 1890 doesn't have long distance service.

      It doesn't have a dial.

      Every connection is made manually by an operator or - much later - through a chain of operators.

    9. Re:phones by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      I think the idea was that NAT would block telemarketers. It worked, too. Sure, you couldn't receive any calls at all, but Bell didn't let people run their own servers anyway.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    10. Re:phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congrats - I'd thought this was one thread where we weren't going to have /.ers posting about even older kit they have or remember.

    11. Re:phones by dhj · · Score: 1

      That is cool. I, like several other posters, would love to see that too. However, please do NOT scan it using a flatbed scanner or anything like that. The head and intense light of a scanner would not be good for such an old clipping. It would take a decent camera and tripod to get a flashless photo of the clipping. If you have those things on hand it would be awesome to see.

    12. Re:phones by syrinx · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Unfortunately I don't have it with me -- it's back with a lot of other family records and things in my parents' basement, and, contrary to popular belief, I don't live there. ;)

      I could probably get a picture or scan of it eventually, but this Slashdot discussion will be long since archived.

      Also, since posting that earlier today I'm thinking I might have misremembered the number. It was definitely two digits, but it might have been slightly higher, something like "52". Either way, I found it pretty interesting.

      --
      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
    13. Re:phones by initialE · · Score: 1

      Well that sure puts a new angle on the race to the lowest /. ID...

      --
      Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
    14. Re:phones by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Also, since posting that earlier today I'm thinking I might have misremembered the number. It was definitely two digits, but it might have been slightly higher, something like "52". Either way, I found it pretty interesting.
      ...well, it was definitely two, I mean three digits, did I say four? I meant four digits...or was it five, anyway this six or maybe seven digit number almost certainly had something like "2" or "5" or maybe "1" in it, I'm not sure of the order it was along the lines of "152" or "479" as part of this seven digit number or was that part of the area code, no I think that had a "0" and a "1" in it for sure, anyway...hold on, come back here! Goddammed kids today, won't let you tell a simple story without their eyes glazing over and feigning nausea.
      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    15. Re:phones by syrinx · · Score: 1

      lol.

      There was also a mention of onions, which we wore on our belt because that was the style at the time.

      --
      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
  9. Re:If Freud Was a Scientist, Fire Up My Crack Pipe by jwkfs · · Score: 4, Informative

    Then again, Tycho Brahe took Copernicus' heliocentric model and tried to revert us back to a geocentric model to appease the church, so I don't think he deserves the title either. Brahe may not have contributed much himself, but his work was extremely important. He recorded in detail the appearance and position of the planets and stars over a large period of time, which later scientists -- such as Kepler -- used his data to determine and test important concepts. Like Kepler's laws.
  10. Not that I'm against it by east+coast · · Score: 1

    I certainly don't mind the story and I don't wink at the significance of the items but...

    Science history just seems a bit overbearing to me. Not that I don't agree that we need to know our past to understand our future or any of the other little axioms about history.

    I think it extends from a funk that I felt about matter in my college years. I had an astronomy class that I really was hoping was going to be a bit better than what I expected from an intro course. There is such a ton of knowledge to cover without bothering with the history of astronomy but still we had to go over Brahe and Copernicus and so on. It was a major downer especially since the professor was a professional astronomer with some great insights into modern astronomy that you just don't pick up on the likes of The Science Channel. Unfortunately there wasn't anything beyond the intro to astronomy course offered either.

    --
    Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    1. Re:Not that I'm against it by choas · · Score: 1

      I would think of it like this:

      The tomb of Tutankhamun was very impressive...

      The piramid around it, though made out of plain rock/stone/whatever (IANAA) is BLOODY impressive as well and teaches us much about the construction and the time of the tomb itself.

      It's like a biologist that buys his wife a pearl without knowing what an oyster is...

      Sorry, hard to explain...

      --
      I will work to elevate you, just enough to bring you down
    2. Re:Not that I'm against it by east+coast · · Score: 1

      Really? So you know the history of all the technology and science that you use? Not to say I'm completely ignorant as I've been around the track a few times at this point but when it comes down to it there is no difference in my life as far as how the stuff works when it comes down it's history. For example, it means much much less to me to know who invented USB as to know how USB works. The same with astronomy, it's much more useful for me to know what exists compared to who discovered it.

      It's great to know that it was Einstein who floated the idea of relativity but if you don't understand the concept how much can it really mean outside of a trivia game?

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    3. Re:Not that I'm against it by choas · · Score: 1

      No, I do not understand the history of all technology and everything I use.

      But knowing the history sometimes helps me identify/deduce(?) the funcion of certain thing and allows me to fix and improve certain things.

      Times are almost gone that I could improve my C code because we knew assembler, compilers are getting to smart for me, yet still, I can imagine some historical stuff propagating and still staying true to its core.

      Maybe I mistook your post, and you were pointing more at the persons in history themselves the knowledge of which seems less usefull than their ideas itself.

      --
      I will work to elevate you, just enough to bring you down
    4. Re:Not that I'm against it by east+coast · · Score: 1

      Even their ideas to some degree can afford to be dismissed at this point. Knowing that people once thought that the Earth was the center of things really isn't all too important aside from the fact that it was disproved mathematically and the methods to disprove it. Ultimately even knowing that information would play little part in the understanding of astronomy for someone who is working in the field today since we've progressed well beyond the misunderstanding.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    5. Re:Not that I'm against it by Ben+Newman · · Score: 1

      I think the real difference here is an evolutionary vs revolutionary principle. The USP port was just an evolutionary step in the development of computer peripherals, and didn't have much of an impact beyond your computer. Kepler did some great astronomy, but he also helped usher in an intellectual movement that turned away from the superstitious, mystical mindset that predated him and into a more rational, materialistic view of the world that impacted society, government, art, technology and almost everything else. You'd be hard pressed to draw a connection between the creation of USB and the Iraq war, but there is certainly a case to be made that Kepler's work laid the intellectual groundwork that led to the American revolution.

  11. No, I'm not wearing anything Alumini?um by choas · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Just a weird thought, what's to stop a kook from buying this, burning it and to call any pictures/copies a fake ?

    scratch that, even if he/she doesn't call it a fake but just burns it out of spite, can anybody keep this from happening ?

    Isn't there a 'Library of humanity' (sponsored by us all) to which pieces like this should go ?

    --
    I will work to elevate you, just enough to bring you down
    1. Re:No, I'm not wearing anything Alumini?um by damienl451 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      From a purely utilitarian standpoint, all these books can be burned. There are many copies (which are known to be genuine) and, besides the cool-factor of owning a piece of history, these books are rather useless. The text they contain, which is available elsewhere, may be valuable in that it preservers ideas that impacted the world tremendously, but that's about it.

      Why exactly would we want to fund (read 'have to pay taxes for') a "Library of humanity". How many people are interested in traveling hundreds of miles to see an old book whose contents they cannot even understand?

    2. Re:No, I'm not wearing anything Alumini?um by choas · · Score: 1

      Yes, no, maybe

      I am usually inclined to a classical point of view as opposed to the romantic one (ZATAOMM ofcourse), yet still I think science is our greatest history, and a million copies (free) do not resemble the original (minor cost) in this case, for me.

      I have about 6 copies of 1984 but the facsimile is the most dear to me... weird.

      --
      I will work to elevate you, just enough to bring you down
    3. Re:No, I'm not wearing anything Alumini?um by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should read Rainbows End by Vernor Vinge. 8^)

    4. Re:No, I'm not wearing anything Alumini?um by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

      There are many copies
      their is no way to tell what information is still stored only in the original, that could be lost. Sure the pure science can't be lost, but to be able to verify timelines, genetic lines for example may be (who handled it and when). Who would have imagined 100 years ago what DNA could do, so many stories that could be told in so much more depth were lost to us. Who knows what future science could still learn, about the times when these were published, if they are properly stored. perhaps they will find a tag that explains the inspiration was environment...
      However in this case, I agree, nothing will be lost to the current generation by never seeing the original articles. And heck the publicity of these items selling for big bucks may make them desirable to a museum increasing viewer ship. But I don't agree burning the originals would be upsetting, and something would be lost.
  12. Re:If Freud Was a Scientist, Fire Up My Crack Pipe by multi-flavor-geek · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hey now, cocaine has given us lots of great things... Lindsey Lohan, Stephen King, Robert Loius Stevenson. Do you really think that Jules Verne would have made it around the world in 80 days with out a little bump now and then? Come now people, don't knock Freud because of his cocaine habits, knock him because he made you remember that weird night when you were four when you walked in on your parents.

    --
    Like arts? Like cheesy little Indie mags? Check out www.artwerkmag.com, and don't laugh at the bad coding please.
  13. It was Ben Franklin! by scipiodog · · Score: 4, Funny

    It would not be until 1897, after people had already made fortunes exploiting electricity, that the English scientist J. J. Thomson discovered what it actually was ...'"

    No way! Everyone knows Benjamin Franklin discovered electricity flying his kite, with a key attached...

    --
    http://clightnirish.wordpress.com/
    1. Re:It was Ben Franklin! by jmichaelg · · Score: 1

      .I don't know why Benjamin Franklin is ever mentioned as a scientist. He doesn't actually seem to have done anything great.

        Franklin is responsible for figuring out that electricity came with opposite charges which he labeled positive and negative. We still use his discovery and notation today.

      He also discovered that pointy things move charges better than flat surfaces and then turned around and capitalized on that discovery by inventing the lightning rod. That one invention saved so many lives that he was celebrated as a great scientist by the French years later when he went there as our Ambassador.

      He speculated on the nature of lightning and hence the famed kite experiment which proved his hypothesis. He was damn lucky not to have been killed by his experiment but in conducting it, he was in every sense a scientist - hypothesize, figure out a way to test the hypothesis, do it, publish the results. What more do you want - dancing naked ladies?

    2. Re:It was Ben Franklin! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No no all he showed was that lightning was a giant spark.

    3. Re:It was Ben Franklin! by Myrddin+Wyllt · · Score: 1

      Franklin I can live with, it's Da Vinci that always gets me. The guy was an artist with a good imagination, but a shite engineer and a worse scientist. Now he seems entrenched in the public psyche as some sort of scientific genius. I blame the writers of Star Trek, especially Voyager.

      --
      [ ]Half Empty [ ]Half Full [x]Twice as big as it needs to be
  14. TOTEMS of Science? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    C'mon now.

    Surely you mean tomes?

    1. Re:TOTEMS of Science? by porcupine8 · · Score: 1
      I believe definition #2 will clear up your confusion:

      totem (t'tm) pronunciation
      n.

      1.
      a. An animal, plant, or natural object serving among certain tribal or traditional peoples as the emblem of a clan or family and sometimes revered as its founder, ancestor, or guardian.
      b. A representation of such an object.
      c. A social group having a common affiliation to such an object.
      2. A venerated emblem or symbol: "grew up with the totems and taboos typical of an Irish Catholic kid in Boston" (Connie Paige).

      --
      Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
  15. freud is historically important by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Insightful

    freudian psychology is of course bulls***, exactly as you say

    it's like other pseudoscientific, yet highly influential lines of thought that have been thoroughly debunked like lamarckism, phlogiston, phrenology, etc.

    however, in the historical context, these topics are vitally important. modern psychology resembles freudian psychology like a modern ICBM resembles fireworks

    however, if it weren't for fireworks, you can be sure everything that came after would have never happened

    like alchemy: these guys were trying to make gold from lead. i think its kind of funny and ironic that centuries later, after refinements to chemistry, physics, etc., as a joke, some guys with some extra time at a heavy ion collider, did exactly that, convert lead into gold, as an afterthought. but they thereby reaffirmed the original goal of alchemists centuries before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_physics#History

    so my bet is that centuries from now, deep in the cognitive research and brain engineering advances still centuries from us, someone will come across a rather nifty bit of freudian psychology as a major truth about how our brains work. and it will be funny, and everyone will have a bit of a laugh about it

    so don't belittle where you came from son. your great grandchildren will certainly laugh at your petty pursuits, but their pursuits are built on your shoulders. show some respect to freud and his silliness, it trailblazed

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:freud is historically important by thermian · · Score: 1

      In my opinion the only thing that can be learned from Freud is how to get a degree is a very sober subject and still attract loads of chicks.

      My main problem with his work is that he took the results from rich, bored, sexually repressed wives and used it to generalise answers for the wider population.

      --
      A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
    2. Re:freud is historically important by Namlak · · Score: 1

      Excellent, well-thought post. You must be new here.

  16. Re:Let's all hope and pray . . . by db32 · · Score: 1

    The saddest part of this is the pathetic claims of Darwin renouncing his theory on his death bed crap. The end of his book on the subject of evolution concludes that all of what he wrote shows the incredible power and diversity of God's creation.

    --
    The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
  17. As we are discussing scientific matters. by sidragon.net · · Score: 1

    Would you care to provide facts or figures supporting your claim?

    1. Re:As we are discussing scientific matters. by EricTheMad · · Score: 4, Funny

      Would you care to provide facts or figures supporting your claim? Facts and figures will only get in the way of a good argument.
      --
      -- Remember, we're not happy until you're not happy. -- Local FAA Inspector --
    2. Re:As we are discussing scientific matters. by mgblst · · Score: 1

      The fact and figures have unfortunately been bought by a private bidder, and are currently on display in his conservatory. Public is not allowed to view.

  18. keep 'em! by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    money in the bank appreciating value better than a CD... if not recording as much data as the other kind of CD ;-)

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  19. Re:If Freud Was a Scientist, Fire Up My Crack Pipe by thermian · · Score: 1

    I did aa psychology module in the first year of my degree, and they said that Freuds work was pretty much disproved. Certainly that it wasn't applied by any decent psychologists.

    As for trick cyclists, well I wouldn't know.

    --
    A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
  20. Re:If Freud Was a Scientist, Fire Up My Crack Pipe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He was the firs to discover the precise locaion of eels genitalia.

  21. Value of accurate data by Crispy+Critters · · Score: 3, Informative
    Carefully collected data has a value that outlasts all but the most fundamental and far-reaching theory. Conceptual frameworks can evolve and adapt, but they remain anchored by observations.

    This is not obvious because of the way science history is taught. We learn about the geniuses and a few of the classic blunders. We don't spend much time on the work that was merely not great. Consider the development of quantum mechanics and atomic structure. There were accurate atomic spectra, correct mathematical descriptions of the line spacing, and innumerable incorrect theories about the mechanism before there was a correct description. The spectral observations eventually led to a usable theory, even though they may have been used on the way to support ideas that turned out to be bunk.

    1. Re:Value of accurate data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      We learn about the geniuses and a few of the classic blunders

      Never get involved with a land war in Asia?

  22. Missing.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What... nothing from Milo Rambaldi?

  23. Re:If Freud Was a Scientist, Fire Up My Crack Pipe by gnick · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hey now, cocaine has given us lots of great things... Lindsey Lohan... I'm going to have to stop you right there. I won't go so far as to start bashing cocaine, but please don't include Lindsey Lohan in your list of "great things"!
    --
    He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  24. Re:If Freud Was a Scientist, Fire Up My Crack Pipe by hkmarks · · Score: 4, Informative

    Freud was more of a theorist than an empiricist. He formulated hypotheses based on observations and case studies. Others tested his theories, and found many of them wrong or a little off. But not all of them: the idea of an unconscious mind (which is vital to current psychological theory), and of stress causing physical symptoms, are basically sound. Of course he didn't understand exactly why -- psychology was still in its infancy.

    Psychology generally doesn't work in terms of "universal laws" - it's the science of individual differences. Some discovery might be true in 30% of the population, have some bearing on about 40%, and be completely wrong for the other 30%. That doesn't mean it isn't true in 30%.

    Some people like the smell of tar and some hate it. There cannot be a universal law that says "tar smells bad." And just because an observation can't be explained correctly with the current state of knowledge doesn't mean it isn't science.

    I don't really like Freud either, and I think he was mostly a bad philosopher, but to say he didn't contribute anything to the modern understanding of the mind is just wrong.

  25. Re:If Freud Was a Scientist, Fire Up My Crack Pipe by Lapsarian · · Score: 5, Informative

    First of all, Freud was a superb neurologist before he moved into the area of psychology. Second, you may disagree with his basic ideas, be believe me, it is basically impossible to have a discussion about Freud, about the mind, about even the validity of his ideas without using terms he invented. Giving us a solid linguistic foundation for being able to debate the validity of these ideas is a superb step towards true scientific understanding. Pre-Socratic philosophers believed that the all matter was composed of small particles of earth (and, later, fire). This is clearly nonsense, and not at all 'scientific', but without it, we would not have an idea to work against in order to move towards ideas of atomism and the makeup of matter. This is absolutely a contribution to science and the basis of scientific progress. Last: try reading Freud sometime instead of the terrible wikipedia pages on him, you will find a very modest writer who continually prefaced his essays with assertions that he was only beginning a study of the mind, one that he hoped would keep a close link to neuroscience, and the he was more than prepared to have all of his ideas overturned once more was discovered of the mysteries of the brain. He was wrong, no doubt, but so were many great scientists that paved the way for our current understanding of scientific 'truth'. thanks.

  26. Re:If Freud Was a Scientist, Fire Up My Crack Pipe by RockoTDF · · Score: 1

    Freud was a neurologist, not a psychologist. What he did was called psychoanalysis, which believe it or not today is mostly practiced by psychiatrists (with MDs) and NOT psychologists (with PhDs or PsyDs). As a psychology major it drives me nuts that Freud is associated with psych, because psych is a science* (counseling is more of an art though, which is why psych never gets the respect it deserves) and his legacy of bullshit holds back the stature of modern research in behavioral and cognitive sciences.

    *If you say psych is a social science, you are utterly wrong, as most of psych never deals with group action, and much of biology would have to be dumped in the "social science" category under most definitions of social science.

    --
    There is more to science than physics!

    www.iomalfunction.blogspot.com
  27. Re:If Freud Was a Scientist, Fire Up My Crack Pipe by Dishevel · · Score: 1

    Lindsey is fucking awesome. Without her stupidity being broadcast nightly how would the mundanely stupid have anyone to point at and be better than?

    --
    Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  28. Re:If Freud Was a Scientist, Fire Up My Crack Pipe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I help you remove that cock you have in your ass; will you go away?

  29. Re:If Freud Was a Scientist, Fire Up My Crack Pipe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    penny-arcade, and it's retarded little brother, xkcd, are to comics as blogs are to journalism.

  30. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  31. Re:If Freud Was a Scientist, Fire Up My Crack Pipe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Many of freuds ideas have been shown to have merit. Other ideas have proved entirely baseless.

    You might not agree with his ideas, but he'll be remembered long after you're dead - and I think you're just jealous!

  32. Re:If Freud Was a Scientist, Fire Up My Crack Pipe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    What's annoying about Freud is that he doesn't get credit for the things that he got right: those passed into common usage. The things he got wrong are held against him as if he were still trying to treat hysteria by fumigation of the vagina, or psychosomatic paralysis by horrific treatments. Compare the Freudian "talking cure" with the "treatments" of the clinically insane that were current when he began developing psycho-analysis.

    What are some of those things that Freud got right? The Unconcious, or the discovery that oftentimes people mean something other than what they appear to be saying. You can criticize him for a clumsy ontology, BUT his thinking about how the mind works did evolve over the years. It's not exactly correct to speak of "the Freudian conception of mind or of the Unconcious". He developed and discarded more than a couple of models.

    The talking cure? It sure beats the hell out of cold water treatments, deprivations of food and sleep, and god only knows what "cures" some of the Victorians came up with. The talking cure is taken today as self-evident. But it wasn't always that way.

    If we judge Freudian psycho-analysis by current expectations, experiences, and understandings of how the brain projects and makes personality manifest, then yeah, sure he was the worst kind of charlatan. How else, then, could millions of otherwise intelligent people have been so very easily hoodwinked?

    However, it should also be kept in mind that is a horribly mean-spirited way of treating any thinker. If nothing else, this shows an appalling lack of imagination and capacity for understanding other human beings. "He does not talk like us, therefore he must be wrong,horribly wrong on all points, in general and in particular."

    The value of Freud lies in the simple fact that oftentimes his errors are not so very simple That is assuming, the effort is made to grasp what he wrote, and not simply rely on what "everyone knows to be true" about Freud and psycho-analysis.

  33. Re:If Freud Was a Scientist, Fire Up My Crack Pipe by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

    Some people like the smell of tar and some hate it. There cannot be a universal law that says "tar smells bad."


    Very true.

    And just because an observation can't be explained correctly with the current state of knowledge doesn't mean it isn't science.


    Bzzzt! I'm sorry, that answer is incorrect. Vanna, tell him about his wonderful consolation prizes. The inability to provide an explanation is *exactly* what makes it not science. When you can formulate practical theories as to why some people like the smell of tar and some don't, and test those theories, then you have science. Not before.
  34. Re:If Freud Was a Scientist, Fire Up My Crack Pipe by N.+Criss · · Score: 1

    Do you really think that Jules Verne would have made it around the world in 80 days with out a little bump now and then? Jules Verne is the author of the story. Phileas Fogg and Passepartout were the travelers in the story. You could be implying that Verne needed to be coked-up to write the story or Fogg needed to be coked-up to make the trip. But it would be incorrect to imply that Verne needed to be coked-up to make the trip...
  35. And the coke thing, while funny... by msimm · · Score: 1

    Doesn't really address the number of concrete thinkers that are using Methylphenidate, Adderall or any of the other common stimulant-based treatments for ADHD or intellectual performance in general.

    In this regard, he could simply be considered contemporary.

    --
    Quack, quack.
  36. Re:If Freud Was a Scientist, Fire Up My Crack Pipe by hkmarks · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I said "explain correctly." Freud did provide explanations. They were hypothetical. He didn't test them all. Others did, and disproved them, or found better explanations for them. He was only doing part of the scientific process himself, but he was still taking part in it.

    For an example, from Wikipedia:
    "Freud originally posited childhood sexual abuse as a general explanation for the origin of neuroses, but he abandoned this so-called "seduction theory" as insufficiently explanatory, noting that he had found many cases in which apparent memories of childhood sexual abuse were based more on imagination than on real events."

    Observation made, explanation given, explanation tested, explanation disproved. All by Freud himself.

    If a scientist said "I have observed X about light, therefore I propose that light is composed of particles," whether they are being scientific does not depend if they are right or not.

  37. Re:If Freud Was a Scientist, Fire Up My Crack Pipe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You just sit back and enjoy your "Cathy" and "Marmaduke" then...

  38. Re:If Freud Was a Scientist, Fire Up My Crack Pipe by multi-flavor-geek · · Score: 1

    Actually he was drinking a certain "herbally enhanced" wine product available at the time.

    --
    Like arts? Like cheesy little Indie mags? Check out www.artwerkmag.com, and don't laugh at the bad coding please.
  39. Re:If Freud Was a Scientist, Fire Up My Crack Pipe by multi-flavor-geek · · Score: 1

    Hrmph, Its Lindsey Lohan though... I'd frag her!

    --
    Like arts? Like cheesy little Indie mags? Check out www.artwerkmag.com, and don't laugh at the bad coding please.
  40. don't do it by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    if you publish your info like that, before you know it, crank callers will be dialing "12" day and night, and you'll never get any sleep form the constant ringing

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:don't do it by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Prefix it with 555 then.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  41. Your list is missin' someone by aztektum · · Score: 2, Funny

    Rick James, bitch!

    --
    :: aztek ::
    No sig for you!!
  42. Re:If Freud Was a Scientist, Fire Up My Crack Pipe by turbidostato · · Score: 1

    "Then again, Tycho Brahe took Copernicus' heliocentric model and tried to revert us back to a geocentric model to appease the church"

    So what? Copernicus always said his model only had operational significance by avoiding some hard work on the calculus of depherents at the price of being less exact than ptolemaic calculus, but it wasn't a real depict of the solar system, so are you going to ban Copernicus too?

  43. Re:If Freud Was a Scientist, Fire Up My Crack Pipe by Jason1729 · · Score: 0

    Didn't Copernicus just say that so the Church wouldn't go Galileo on him?

  44. Re:If Freud Was a Scientist, Fire Up My Crack Pipe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sigmund Freud may have been a psychologist but he was a far cry from a scientist. Tell me where he applied the scientific process in his work. Show me the universal laws he established.


    Your mother.

  45. Tycho Brahe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't he the dude on Penny Arcade? :P

  46. Re:If Freud Was a Scientist, Fire Up My Crack Pipe by turbidostato · · Score: 1

    "Didn't Copernicus just say that so the Church wouldn't go Galileo on him?"

    Who knows? We know what he wrote, not why. On the other hand, it makes sense within Khun's ideas about those kinds of "copernican revolutions" where the "revolutioner" is in fact the very last high member from the "old school".

  47. Re:If Freud Was a Scientist, Fire Up My Crack Pipe by SunTzuWarmaster · · Score: 1

    And todays XKCD is relevant!

    http://xkcd.com/435/

  48. Re:If Freud Was a Scientist, Fire Up My Crack Pipe by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    Is it just Freud or any psychologist/psychiatrist you object to calling a scientist?

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  49. Re:If Freud Was a Scientist, Fire Up My Crack Pipe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "from Wikipedia"? Sheesh.

  50. Re:If Freud Was a Scientist, Fire Up My Crack Pipe by vajaradakini · · Score: 1

    Psh. Everyone knows that maths are just tools for physicists.

    --
    what's that now?