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.
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.
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.
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"