Re: What's in a name? New Championship Divisions
 

I wouldn't be surprised if FIRST begins to push STEAM rather than STEM (adding Art to STEM). It seems they're going that direction (and rightfully so). I wouldn't leave artists out of the mix for field names.

Re: What's in a name? New Championship Divisions
 

If we're going the sci-fi route...

Jules Verne. Rather prolific, and shockingly accurate with some of the devices he wrote about. Example, the Nautilus in 20000 Leagues Under the Sea could be considered to be quite similar to modern submarines, at least in concept if not in fact. Or, the Albatross from Clipper of the Clouds, which was made of paper (in a composite form), was heavier than air, and could beat any ligher-than-air craft at the time, at least in the story--see "airplane" and "helicopter". Some would consider Verne to be the inventor of sci-fi--as I recall, he did come before Asimov.

Also, Robert Heinlein.

Re: What's in a name? New Championship Divisions
 

Tesla tops my list.

If you are looking for a minority, albeit one still living, Neil deGrasse Tyson comes to mind.

If you want a well known name, I think Carl Sagan is the way to go.

Re: What's in a name? New Championship Divisions
 

Also, for those unfamiliar with his work, look at about half of Edison's "work"...

Re: What's in a name? New Championship Divisions
 

My Votes:

• Johannes Gutenberg (engineered the printing press - bringing an end of the dark ages and starting the enlightenment)
• James Watt (enabled industrial revolution and feedback control)
• Rachel Carson (a controversial choice? Certainly changed the way engineers and everyone else think about their work and world)
• Ada Byron / Lovelace (first computer programmer)

Re: What's in a name? New Championship Divisions
 

It's funny you mention that. I'm not sure of other areas, but to my knowledge our school seems to be the only one with SMERT (Robotics). Its pretty cool that we get our own letter in it :)

Re: What's in a name? New Championship Divisions
 

I may just be getting senile, but I think one of the fields at Epcot used to be called Watt.

Re: What's in a name? New Championship Divisions
 

I can hear it now:

"what Division are we in?"

"Watt."

"What division are we in??"

"Watt Division."

"Yeah, what Division?!?!?"

Re: What's in a name? New Championship Divisions
 

"Who's in our division?"

"That ONE Team"

"Which one?"

[ad nauseam]

Re: What's in a name? New Championship Divisions
 

So the everyone's on the same page in this discussion: Frank Merrick, FRC Director


I doubt that FIRST would over-push undeserving females/minorities. I mean, is there really a good STEM reason that Sagan is more of a household name than Hopper? (In terms of scientific advancement--I love Cosmos as much as the next guy, his whole UFO thing not withstanding.)

Eames is interesting. Charles and Ray?

Re: What's in a name? New Championship Divisions
 

Here's an outside-the-box thought: All of this effort on trying to find notable scientists / engineers plays right into the "Great Man" fallacy - the idea that history is directed by single, powerful or brilliant men (or women, but mostly men in the fallacy). The truth is that we are all a product of the technology and culture we're born into. Einstein wouldn't have come up with the theory of relativity without the work of Hertz, Maxwell, Lorentz and even Newton before. Newton himself recognized how much he owed to the existing body of scientific knowledge when he said "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." .

All of that is to say, maybe we should consider schools of thought, historical movements, or even organizations when naming new fields. Maybe "The Royal Society Field", "The ISO Field", "The Enlightenment Field", or even "Universal Suffrage Field". I'm sure there are better examples (or maybe we can't live without heroes :o ).

Re: What's in a name? New Championship Divisions
 

Good point about the "Great Man Fallacy". Certainly recognizing institutions would be a nod to the power of coopertition and GP. But I don't think that is likely to happen any time soon.

A few possibilities that pop to mind that I haven't seen yet in this thread...

Wright (as in brothers) and Bell (as in Sir Alexander Graham).

Both of them, however, fall short in that while they advanced technology, they didn't change how we actually viewed the universe. Einstein, Newton, Galileo, Archimedes, and Curie didn't just invent or create, they illuminated. They explained. They expanded not just our knowledge and abilities, but our understanding.

One scientist that hasn't been mentioned yet (apologies if I missed it) is Darwin.

Charles Darwin did for the life sciences what our current field nominees did for the physical sciences. It would be a particularly powerful statement because of the fact that Darwin's explanation of his observations continues to face the same kind of religious persecution that Galileo's explanations faced in his day.

Or maybe Louis Pasteur. Not only did Pasteur illuminate the workings of pathology, but through his work on vaccinations probably did more to improve and preserve human life than the current field nominees put together. ("Where's your field?" "Just Pasteur field.")

John Snow? Only founded the entire science of epidemiology. (Northern teams might appreciate playing on a Snow Field.)

But if you work on the idea that "You get what you celebrate" then I think we're already doing a pretty good job of celebrating European Male scientists. Not that they shouldn't be celebrated, but that if we want a more diverse range of scientists going forward, then we would be well-served to seek out a more diverse group to celebrate. I'm sure Darwin, Pasteur and their pals will forgive us if we seek out those who not only had to overcome scientific, but also social challenges in their path to better explain how our universe works.

Jason

Re: What's in a name? New Championship Divisions
 

He knows nothing.

Re: What's in a name? New Championship Divisions
 

Wow, sorry to cause such an uproar.

But, you know, Godwin's law

Re: What's in a name? New Championship Divisions
 

How about Edward Murphy? It would seem to be the "new Curie" division.