The Greatest Person of the 20th Century?

[Nearly Sane]

Seems a bit UK biased.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/profiles/xfhZH9qWPt1G8F2mbN2fVc/meet-the-icons

[Gordon]

Wonder how they got to the final selection: if there was going to be someone representing jazz I'd have thought the likes of Miles Davis was a more influential and iconic figure than was Billie Holiday, and as regards acting I'm surprised to see Marilyn Monroe is thought to have been more iconic than, say, Audrey Hepburn.

[Roses]

Keller and Pankhurst would be at the top of my list.

[Anchorman]

Keller and Pankhurst would be at the top of my list.

Pankhurst, yes.
Helen Keller?
Hmmmm....while, yes, she was iconic in the deaf.blind breakthrough movement, the 'language' of fingerspelling she helped invent is not the one used today in either tthe UK or most of the U.S.

[jeremyp]

Pankhurst, yes.

Why Pankhurst? From a UK perspective, she is obviously an extremely important person but from a global perspective?

Anyway, how a list of four 20th century scientists with Albert Einstein in it could have a different winner is beyond me.

[Anchorman]

Why Pankhurst? From a UK perspective, she is obviously an extremely important person but from a global perspective?

Anyway, how a list of four 20th century scientists with Albert Einstein in it could have a different winner is beyond me.

[Steve H]

THATCHER?! They're taking the fucking piss!

[jeremyp]

THATCHER?! They're taking the fucking piss!

First woman prime minister. Plus, good or bad, she had quite an influence on politics in the UK. Of course, we also have to ask why Stalin, Mao and Hitler are not on the list, if we are not rejecting the bad.

[ad_orientem]

Rubbish! No Bobby Moore.

[jeremyp]

Rubbish! No Bobby Moore.

In global terms he is a non entity.

[Roses]

THATCHER?! They're taking the fucking piss!

I couldn't stand the woman, but she certainly made a HUGE impact, not least because she was the first British woman PM.

[Steve H]

I couldn't stand the woman, but she certainly made a HUGE impact, not least because she was the first British woman PM.

Her impact was entirely bad. As someone else pointed out, if we're ignoring morality and just going for historical impact, where are Hitler, Mao, and Stalin?

[ProfessorDavey]

Seems a bit UK biased.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/profiles/xfhZH9qWPt1G8F2mbN2fVc/meet-the-icons

Overall a fairly rubbish list.

Too UK-centric and also too much retrospective pandering to the modern diversity agenda. We may now recognise that (for example) women and people with disabilities weren't provided with the opportunities they might be now, or certainly that they should be but that doesn't mean we 'retrofit' our modern mindset to historical reality.

Interesting to see the winners so far however.

[Steve H]

It's also much too broad to have meaning. How do you compare a great artist with a great scietist, or either with a great politician?

[Roses]

It's also much too broad to have meaning. How do you compare a great artist with a great scietist, or either with a great politician?

I agree with you, I better lie down, I feel faint!

[ProfessorDavey]

I agree with you, I better lie down, I feel faint!

There is also the issue that in many cases the selection is based not only on their contribution to their 'field' - e.g. science or music or sport - but on the basis that they suffered adversity and were an activist. I think this blurs categories - the most iconic musician or artist of the 20thC to me is the person who produced the most iconic and game-changing music or art. That they might also have been an activist is interesting but not really the point.

So I'm struggling to see how Billy Holiday's contribution to music is somehow deemed greater than Miles Davis. To me the latter is streets ahead in terms of his game changing contributions to music and how influential his music has been to more recent generations of musicians. Holiday didn't even write the song that according to the article defines her iconic status - Strange Fruit.

[ProfessorDavey]

There is also the issue that in many cases the selection is based not only on their contribution to their 'field' - e.g. science or music or sport - but on the basis that they suffered adversity and were an activist. I think this blurs categories - the most iconic musician or artist of the 20thC to me is the person who produced the most iconic and game-changing music or art. That they might also have been an activist is interesting but not really the point.

So I'm struggling to see how Billy Holiday's contribution to music is somehow deemed greater than Miles Davis. To me the latter is streets ahead in terms of his game changing contributions to music and how influential his music has been to more recent generations of musicians. Holiday didn't even write the song that according to the article defines her iconic status - Strange Fruit.

Just re-read the start of the thread and Gordon's comment - we are in agreement.

[ProfessorDavey]

Why Pankhurst? From a UK perspective, she is obviously an extremely important person but from a global perspective?

I agree - too UK-centric.

Anyway, how a list of four 20th century scientists with Albert Einstein in it could have a different winner is beyond me.

Which comes back to my point about the activism/suffering adversity.

Was Turing a greater scientist than Einstein - nope. Did Turing's scientific discoveries have a greater influence on science than Einstein - nope. But Turing was treated dreadfully by the UK because of his sexuality. That's why he won, not for his science. Now I'm not in any way condoning the actions of the authorities against Turing and it is correct that we should look to 'right wrongs' as best we can. But that doesn't make him the most  important or iconic scientist of the 20thC.

[ProfessorDavey]

Anyway, how a list of four 20th century scientists with Albert Einstein in it could have a different winner is beyond me.

I think there is also a problem that science is often done collaboratively.

So it seems bemusing that someone related to the discovery of the structure of DNA is not included as this is arguably the most significant scientific discovery of the 20thC - but who would you choose as the 'iconic scientist' involved - Watson (hmm, his activism counts against him), Crick (but why just him), Franklin?

[Nearly Sane]

I agree - too UK-centric.
Which comes back to my point about the activism/suffering adversity.

Was Turing a greater scientist than Einstein - nope. Did Turing's scientific discoveries have a greater influence on science than Einstein - nope. But Turing was treated dreadfully by the UK because of his sexuality. That's why he won, not for his science. Now I'm not in any way condoning the actions of the authorities against Turing and it is correct that we should look to 'right wrongs' as best we can. But that doesn't make him the most  important or iconic scientist of the 20thC.

I'm not sure that is why he won. It is probably a part of it but I would suggest that the people voting might have thought that computers, for which Turing is the representative in the list, had more impact on their day to day lives, and that the part he played during the war was more relevant to them. And that's without considering how good the advocate for each on the show wad.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm not sure that is why he won. It is probably a part of it but I would suggest that the people voting might have thought that computers, for which Turing is the representative in the list, had more impact on their day to day lives, and that the part he played during the war was more relevant to them. And that's without considering how good the advocate for each on the show wad.

I think the arc of Turing's fame and prominence is interesting. For a variety of reasons he was pretty well unknown amongst the general public until relatively recently. I first came across him when studying developmental biology as an undergraduate in the late 80s (he developed a mathematical model of limb development). I suspect if I'd mentioned Turing to people then I'd have got completely blank looks.

I think his rise to prominence is largely on 2 groups - first the involvement in the war time code breaking (and critically a blockbuster film) although he was very much part of a team. Secondly a recognition of the appalling way he was treated due to his homosexuality, leading to his very early death.

[Nearly Sane]

I think the arc of Turing's fame and prominence is interesting. For a variety of reasons he was pretty well unknown amongst the general public until relatively recently. I first came across him when studying developmental biology as an undergraduate in the late 80s (he developed a mathematical model of limb development). I suspect if I'd mentioned Turing to people then I'd have got completely blank looks.

I think his rise to prominence is largely on 2 groups - first the involvement in the war time code breaking (and critically a blockbuster film) although he was very much part of a team. Secondly a recognition of the appalling way he was treated due to his homosexuality, leading to his very early death.

I think this missed that he is in general seen as the 'father of computing', and that was becoming the general idea well before the film. Now I think that is an incorrect view, but most people aren't that bothered about the detailed history of computing. Anyone with a passing interest in AI would have been aware of the Turing test for as far back as I can recall. It's nearly always good to have a thing named after you in polls.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think this missed that he is in general seen as the 'father of computing' ...

No he is sometimes referred to as the 'father of computing', but then so are a bunch of other people - so at best he is a 'father of computing' along with many others. Perhaps better referred to as a 'pioneer of computing'

The IEEE lists a whole host of people it considers to be 'pioneers of computing', including Turing.

https://history.computer.org/pioneers/index.html

Anyone with a passing interest in AI would have been aware of the Turing test for as far back as I can recall. It's nearly always good to have a thing named after you in polls.

Very true - although the Turing test is more a philosophical statement rather than a scientific advance.

[Nearly Sane]

Of the categories voted on so far, I agree with some and disagree with others. I would have gone for Mandela in the leaders category, and Ali in the sports category was easy. For the activists, don't have a problem with MLK but might have gone for Ghandi. For scientists are, I'm with jeremyp and would have gone for Einstein. The entertainers, of the choice avaiable, Chaplin, but thought Elvis should have been in there. I am a huge Bowie fan but not sure the global impact is as wide. The explorers category is just odd, but Shackleton seems bizarre. Of the choice there, Armstrong.


The artists category, yet to be voted on seems a bit of a motley. Given a free vote, I would likely have chosen Dali. Of the four already chosen, Picasso.



When it comes to the overall head to head, which I agree with earlier posts is a nonsense, but then the whole thing is, I would hope that it will be Mandela from MLK, and would probably have Ali next

[Nearly Sane]

No he is sometimes referred to as the 'father of computing', but then so are a bunch of other people - so at best he is a 'father of computing' along with many others. Perhaps better referred to as a 'pioneer of computing'

The IEEE lists a whole host of people it considers to be 'pioneers of computing', including Turing.

https://history.computer.org/pioneers/index.html
Very true - although the Turing test is more a philosophical statement rather than a scientific advance.

Not sure why you have taken issue with the comment that in general he is seen as the father of computing, when I already covered that I think it is an incorrect view. This is a public vote and the general perception is what is important in terms of the reasons people vote.