I did not mean to blanket that other scientists do not contribute. And you might be right, my sentament was certainly fast paced and not perfectly thought out. I do go back and fourth on this idea. Sometimes I think that 90% of the science community could disspear and nothing substantial would be lost. Other times I think that that 90% largely contributed to the critical mass needed for a limited number of works to be celebrated over a long period of time. And provide many contributions that are not seen (apparently relativity was floating around in papers for almost a decade before einstein's 1905 paper).
> did not mean to be smug I might have been overly sensitive. I mistook the double use of 'founded' as an attempt to challenge my contextual understanding over the controversy of both calculus and alegbra (which I'm not expert on either topic by any stretch).
I certainly do not want you thinking that I do not appreciate any criticism of my arguments or opinions. I just felt the last comments of ours was going towards a path of 'who did what when', and 'what magnitude of work', etc...
"Founder of quantum mechanics" - I didn't say founder. I said one of the founding members; Planck, de broglie, einstein, von Neumann. I don't see how quantum mechanics materializes without the foundation created by these thinkers.
> "list of only true scientists" I didn't say list of true scientists. And you inserted 'only' as if I made the claim that this list is comprehensive (i.e. these are the only scientists that ever existed). But rather these scientists paved the way for a lot of scientific advancement in the last two centuries.
Lastly, which this one is more my fault - I clearly didn't explain my thought. Newton's association with calculus was to refute your claim that he only had an influence in the field of physics (he was the Lucasian professor of mathematics after all).
Alternatively, your "quotation" of founded (twice) is smug; and condescending. Further, none of this tit for tat banter is contributing to anything of real or inherent value. Perhaps our time is suited better on something else?