The First True "Scientist"

[astroron]

I have just seen this article on the BBC website.
A very interesting read:thumbsup:

[h0ughy]

must be the heat from the steam train Ron- :D have you got the link mate;)

[astroron]

Sorry again:(
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7810846.stm

[Ian Robinson]

The Roman Catholic Church would have had him burnt at the stake, good thing he was living in Egypt and Iraq.

He was a smart guy, at least a cleavour as Newton , perhaps more so as you can bet Newton benefited from his work.

[jungle11]

No, I definately haven't heard of him. Too westernised i guess. I've also heard about the chineese and their advances in astronomy long before the west. I remember something about the first recording of a sunspot made by the chineese. Cant remember the date, but I believe it was BC.
Wasn't galileo the first westener to do that?

[glenc]

I was going to post that, but Ron did so first. A very interesting article.

[Enchilada]

IMO, Abu ʿAli al-Ḥasan ibn al-Ḥasan ibn al-Haytham, westernised as Alhazen (which I've known him as) - the same name as the crater named after him on the Moon. Yet researches haven't published his remaining astronomical works as English translations as yet, and until they do, it is hard to place his position in the scheme of things. He might have been brilliant, but his influence on the evolution and rise of science as we know it today is - well still is somewhat questionable.
It is also his Arabic predecessor Al-Sufi (903-986AD) was probably more influential on the development of astronomy. If it weren't for him, Ptolemy's Megale Syntaxis would not have survived in its entirety. Al-Sufi also updated Ptolemy's work, that included stylised drawings of the constellations. He also observed several then unknown new deep-sky objects.
As to the earliest or scientist is surely debatable, mainly because they were really natural philosophers, whose interest was in the natural sciences and the uses practical of the applied sciences. Examples of here of such applications would be people like the physician Hippocrates of Cos II (460BC-c.370BC.) and problem solving of alleviating sickness or illness. Understanding of the practical sciences was high on the agenda in Roman Times, and there are many examples, but likely the best we know of is the engineer Marcus Vitruvius Pollio (c.70 BC.-c.15 BC). His books - the De Architectura became the textbook on the use of materials and general building construction of, say, public facilities and temples, etc. He also had good understanding of astronomy, whose translated writings are very well written and useful for very basic surveying. Were both of these scientists - well yes and no. They used methods of deduction and a crude form of the scientific method, but some of their ideas were based on philosophy and religion.
If you ask me, I would say probably the astronomer and mathematician Hipparchus of Hipparch, who built an observatory on Rhodes in the Mediterranean, and did careful observations of the star positions never done before. However, as much of his writings has not survived, it is hard to adjudge his contributions. Others on a similar par would be say Thales of Miletus (his works on geometry) or Geminus of Rhodes.
Really, the first scientist was likely Isaac Newton, based solely on his volume of work independently discovered and employed. If not him, then it was the application of some theoretical science using the modern scientific method, which rose in the 1850s. This is when natural philosopher became what we term a "scientist" - often defined as "...a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences."
IMO, all of the above mentioned meets this criteria.
Was Alhazen the first physicist? well pity this wasn't the original question.

[avandonk]

A scientist does not just have answers only more questions and more experiments. We are all limited by our environment and grossly ignorant of many who came before us especially from a foreign country. It still exists today and is known as NIH not invented here!

The many despots of the past and present were/are not interested in science only their power over others. It is a very brave man who puts up a truly original idea in front of these morons if it threatens their so called 'devine god given power' as they had/have no real rational reasons why they should be in control. The alternative was for far more brutal methods of torture, burnings at the stake etc etc etc. Most employed both methods! Devine right and instilling fear! Unfortunately this required many 'good' men to do the nasty work in the name of these cretins. A dictator does not rule alone. There are many collaborators that are just as blind, that follow unthinkingly without reason or logic.The piteous thing is that these collaborators only do unto others so it does not happen to them!

Have a look at any small child exploring their world. The wonderment and joy in their eyes is so obvious. Too bad 'education' really suppresses this natural human urge.

The best education is the one that teaches you to think for yourself.

Bert