Slashdot Mirror
Why Is There No Nobel Prize In Technology? (qz.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Quartz: As the world focuses its attention on this year's recipients of the planet's most prestigious prize, the Nobel, it feels like something's missing from the list: technology. Swedish inventor Alfred Nobel established the prizes more than century ago with the instruction that his entire estate be used to endow "prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit to mankind." The categories laid out in his will -- physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, and peace -- have remained the basis of the awards, and a prize for economics was added in 1968. So, what gives? Why only those five original fields? Nobel didn't say, revealing only that he made his choices "after mature deliberation."
One way of looking at it is that when he was designing his categories, he wanted the prizes to only reflect advances in fundamental science. In this view, "lesser" sciences such as biology, geology, or computer science -- or technology-driven fields such as engineering or robotics -- don't qualify. As genome-sequencing pioneer Eric Lander once said, "You don't get a Nobel Prize for turning a crank." But what then of literature and peace, or the newer prize for economics (an applied science at best, and a pseudoscience at worst)? Technology isn't the only field to get the cold shoulder. Mathematics -- the international language, the foundation of so many scientific pursuits, and arguably the most fundamental theoretical discipline of all -- doesn't have a Nobel Prize, either. Mathematicians have complained about this for decades. One story suggests that Nobel disliked the Finnish mathematician Rolf Nevanlinna, and assumed that he would be the first winner of the mathematics prize, if he decided to award one. Alternatively, math undergraduates are often told that Nobel was jealous of a Swedish mathematician who had an affair with his wife (though this story is ruined by the fact that Nobel didn't actually have a wife).
One way of looking at it is that when he was designing his categories, he wanted the prizes to only reflect advances in fundamental science. In this view, "lesser" sciences such as biology, geology, or computer science -- or technology-driven fields such as engineering or robotics -- don't qualify. As genome-sequencing pioneer Eric Lander once said, "You don't get a Nobel Prize for turning a crank." But what then of literature and peace, or the newer prize for economics (an applied science at best, and a pseudoscience at worst)? Technology isn't the only field to get the cold shoulder. Mathematics -- the international language, the foundation of so many scientific pursuits, and arguably the most fundamental theoretical discipline of all -- doesn't have a Nobel Prize, either. Mathematicians have complained about this for decades. One story suggests that Nobel disliked the Finnish mathematician Rolf Nevanlinna, and assumed that he would be the first winner of the mathematics prize, if he decided to award one. Alternatively, math undergraduates are often told that Nobel was jealous of a Swedish mathematician who had an affair with his wife (though this story is ruined by the fact that Nobel didn't actually have a wife).
Technology is not a category in the same sense physics, chemistry, and physiology are.
Because they do not want to give an award for something that turns out to be the next iteration of Dynamite.
I don't think there can be a Nobel Prize in technology until they stop claiming they're "disrupting" everything by making an app that does "real world thing X, but online/with an app"
And imagine every goddamn company promoting their product as worthy "technology".
"This year's Noble in Technology goes to Uber for their awesome app and innovative disruptive ride sharing technology!"
"This year's Noble goes to Elon Musk for his innovative disruptive genius idea that he got from a 19th century World's Fair."
Technology is applied science. Its Nobel Prize is a billion dollar company.
Because technology is a vague and nebulous term.
And do you think someone should get a prize for inventing rounded corners or doing something that already existed - but on teh interwebses? Because if there was one, it would be shitcocks like them who win it.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
"The categories laid out in his will -- physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, and peace -- have remained the basis of the awards, and a prize for economics was added in 1968. So, what gives? Why only those five original fields?"
The summary/article forgot about the literature category.
Any advance in tech is from a development in physics or math fundamentally. "Technology" is too vague a term.
Once the economists started getting awards, they didn't see any need to invest in further categories.
There is. It's called "becoming a billionaire, and probably also a household name".
There's also a Pulitzer in technology. It's called "Selling out to Google".
"Live as if you'll die tomorrow." Ridiculous. You could die later today.
Because 90% of 'great' technology is marketing hype and fashion trends.
The Nobel Prize is about discovery, technology is the act of monetizing existing science, not doing new science. Please.
Just look at some of the Nobel prizes in physics the last twenty years:
* Blue LED, and by extension white LEDs and low-energy LED bulbs. (2014)
* Graphene (2010)
* CCD (2009)
* Fibre-optics for communication (2009)
* Semiconductor-based integrated circuits (2000)
* Laser cooling (1997)
And chemistry:
* Nanotechnology (2016)
* Conductive polymers (2000)
All of those are more or less hugely important technologies ... that I as a non-physicist can have at least a fleeting grasp of what it is all about, so there may be something that I missed.
Many of the other prizes have gone to more fundamental science -- that may be used for some important technology in the future --
or to astrophysics or with applications mostly in medicine.
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
they should get over "the affair" and create that mathematics nobel.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Math is mostly based around assumed axioms and the possibilities that you can directly derive from them, there is absolute proof as it is almost tautology.
Sciences require the experimental method and you are never sure of anything, just that the data fits the theories and for bonus points the theories make new predictions that when new data is gathered from measuring those predictions it also fits. Typically Nobel prizes in science are given for a few fields when someone comes up with the latter and the new predictions fit theory in some way that significantly advances the field and new work can then be built off of it.
Applied sciences, like technology and engineering don't typically create theory but simply apply the theory in a practical way that allows for the sciences to be turned into applications and products.
You can't offer too many Nobel prize catagories or it would be overwhelming, but at the same time just because a Nobel prize isn't offered for that type of activity it does not mean it is a 'lesser' pursuit nor does it mean its equivalent to 'turning a crank'
Trust me, within the IT field, the Turing Award is considered every bit as prestigious as the Nobel Prize.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ..bruce..
Bruce F. Webster (brucefwebster.com)
Mathematics is NOT a language - it consists of a shared set of further representations/symbols for things that have different words in different languages. For mathematics to be a language by itself, there would have to be only one (unique) set of words for each number/function etc.. (And if we talk about only what the information is of, separately from its labels and representations, then that, by its very nature is something even more fundamental that language itself.)
'Stupidity is an often fatal disease' - R. A. Heinlein
Alfred Nobel invented dynamite. Dynamite, for its time, was extremely advanced technology. It made it easier to open the ground, to excavate, to mine resources. It also made it easier to kill greater numbers of people in military actions.
Nobel realized this when a newspaper errantly printed his obituary, believing he had died. Like anyone else, Nobel was interested in hearing what would be said about him after he died. When he realized the answer was terms like "butcher," or "greatest mass murderer of our time," he was shocked and appalled. But then, that is what TECHNOLOGY gives us as a species: tools that we can use for any and all purposes. Their use is entirely dependent upon our morals and ethics.
It was for this purpose that Nobel created a series of prizes to inspire those who would use their skills, talents, and abilities not to create mere tools for humanity, but to inspire others, to give our species an ethical center. (Something we apparently still lack.)
Simply creating new tech is (like it or not, techies, it's the truth) easy. Finding ways to encourage humanity to only use those tools wisely is increasingly difficult, especially in a world that lionizes Randian selfishness and Trumpian accumulation of wealth above virtually all else.
the Nobel Prizes are conducted in accordance with instructions in his will. that's how it is.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
>> Mathematics -- the international language, the foundation of so many scientific pursuits, and arguably the most fundamental theoretical discipline of all -- doesn't have a Nobel Prize, either. Mathematicians have complained about this for decades.
Not really. There's the "Fields Medal" after all.
http://www.mathunion.org/general/prizes/fields/details/
One of those is worth about four Nobel prizes because, well, math, yo.
The award is about scientific discovery.... Technology rarely is discovery, it's applying other people's discoveries.
No Steve Jobs never deserved one, hah.
Stop referring to the Nobel Prize in Economics. There's no Nobel Prize in Economics. There's the Swedish Central Bank's Prize in Alfred Nobel's Honour. It piggybacks off of the real Nobel prizes' good name. Every time you use the short name you take a piss on Alfred Nobel's grave.
This and calling the "Right Livelihood Award" the "Alternative Nobel Prize" are among my pet peeves.
but there should be an Arthur C Clarke Award for "Significantly Advanced Technology"
As for "the greatest benefit to mankind" that Nobel wanted to recognize, the list of Turing Award winners includes those who brought us personal computing, the internet, and the world wide web.
Because, simply, Alfred Nobel didn't think it worth having a category.
"On 27 November 1895, Alfred Nobel signed his last will and testament, giving the largest share of his fortune to a series of prizes in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature and Peace - the Nobel Prizes."
In 1968, the Swedish State Bank added Economics 'in memory of Nobel' and they are announced together, but technically it's not really a Nobel Prize.
It would certainly be within the realm of possibility that some super-rich guy endowed such an award, and then there'd be one. But hey, there aren't any tech guys with $billions lying around, are there?
-Styopa
It needs to be like the Oscars where you have categories like 'best foreign short film by a left-handed director'. Of course, they might have to split up the money a lot more so rather than getting a million dollars for the Nobel Prize for Chemistry you get $35.27 instead.
Aside from "technology" not being a science, it's also such a broad term as to border on useless. "Technology" is just "applied science". Literally everything we make and do that involves using the results of scientific research can be correctly called "technology".
Alternatively, math undergraduates are often told that Nobel was jealous of a Swedish mathematician who had an affair with his wife (though this story is ruined by the fact that Nobel didn't actually have a wife).
Maybe the details of the story are just a tiny bit off... could it be that Nobel's jealousy drove him to seduce and have an affair with the wife of a Swedish mathematician? Hmmmm....
Alfred Nobel picked those fields for reasons that he chose to keep to himself. That's it. One can endlessly speculate about his reasons, but that is all that one can do. Quite frankly, there are far more important things to devote one's mental energies to.
still a large divide in access
Not as large as the divide in desire for internet.
It is that technology ultimately does not help everyone and really contributes to the wealthy elite more than anything.
Wha?
Technology is what transforms science into something practical that benefits real people. Mostly, it has benefited everybody. Some examples:
Food production (beyond simply gathering) ... etc.
Clothing
Shelter (beyond huddling in caves)
Writing
All of that is technology.
Just because there are specific technologies that primarily benefit a few doesn't tarnish the entire spectrum that is "technology".
The technology was a clone of the Vax/VMS $phone AC@slashdot.org command.
Nevanlinna was born 22 October 1895. Nobel signed his last will 27 November 1895 establishing the funds for the Nobel Price. Nobel died 10 December 1896. So clearly Nobel knew nothing about Nevanlinna's mathematical work. The article is garbage. Bring up some unsubstantiated rumors. Add some click-bait names, Elon Musk, Steve Jobs, Satoshi Nakamoto. Instant Slashdot posting.
Some rich old dude left a bunch of money when he died for prizes to be awarded in four categories...and these prizes became pre-eminent in those fields. OK, so what? Why does that mean that we have to have a "Nobel prize for [insert name of pursuit here]"? Why don't we have a Nobel prize for movies (since there is already one for literature...why was film left out)? Who cares, we have the Academy awards, the Cannes film festival, the Golden lion in Venice, etc.
Similarly, in technology, we have the Turing Prize, the IEEE Medal of Honour, in mathematics we have the Fields Medal and so on. Why do we have to have a "nobel" something for it to be worthy? That's just hype.
I especially don't get that they gave one to Bob Dylan. A man who's bean is so dark roasted he can only speak in gibberish.
Sig. Sig. Sputnik
What Nobels need is a culling. Peace and economics need to go. Completely subjective criteria; they're just there to fete the Davos Jetset with another bauble that enables their collective ego to place the likes of Yassir Arafat or Paul Krugman on intellectual pedestal comparable to the likes of Niels Bohr - which is a joke by itself.
It's called an IPO...
Nothing to see here but us trolls...move along...
No new category has been added since the prizes were established. The "Nobel Prize for Economics" is a sham that was created by bankers. The memorial prize for economics goes against everything Nobel stood for.
Technology isn't the only field to get the cold shoulder.
Technology isn't a field - it's a buzzword.
When the prize fund was established at the end of the 19th century, the word "technology" described the study of practical applications of the "useful arts." So it was not really considered as a category of knowledge. It was just a descriptor to identify a place where you could go to study them, as in " École Polytechnique" or "Massachusetts Institute of Technology." The former was founded at the end of the 18th century and the latter in the middle of the 19th, and reflect the accepted definition of the word when the prize fund was established.
It didn't acquire its modern definition until decades later, when Thorstein Veblen started throwing it around (incorrectly) to translate the German idea of Technik which included not only the concept of education about, but also the end result of, those "useful arts." Every other language on the planet except English maintains a distinction between these two concepts.
If they are any good, you could win the prize for literature.
There are five Nobel Prizes: physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature and peace. They are there because Nobel named them in his testament. He did not consider robotics, as there was no robotics at his time, and engineering in general was just craftsmanship. He also did not consider theology, philosophy, mathematics, social sciences, and psychology. This is most likely rooted in his time and his focus on the natural sciences. In his time, new findings in the natural sciences propelled mankind forward. Literature and peace prize are relevant, as Nobel wanted peace and enlightenment in the world.
And there is no Nobel Prize for economics. Economics is often just a believe system not a real science, they are way back compared to sociology and psychology. They are like political sciences which are often not able to predict anything (key component of a science). The economics prize is called Swedish National Bank's Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel and is not financed by the Nobel foundation, but the nation bank of Sweden. If you want such prize in engineering or computer science, please found a foundation which hands out prizes in CS in honor to Nobel.
However, the great prizes in CS and mathematics are Touring award and Fields Medal. While the latter awards prizes to young scientists and is therefore not shaped like the Nobel prizes which award long lasting achievements.
The Nobel Prices are about categories that _don't_ provide immediate payback to the investor but are for the general good of mankind without immediate financial gain.
There you are. He chose to not-say, for his own reasons. Unless someone uncovers a previously misplaced codicil to his will, or invents a time machine so he can be snatched from his death bed and tortured to get an answer (which may or may not be true), we don't know and will never know.
In the time-machine-torture scenario, it is entirely possible that by the time of snatching, he'd forgotten, so will just make something up to stop the pain. Like that DPRK nuke in a storage unit in New York.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"