What's in a name? New Championship Divisions

[Michael Hill]

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.

[EricH]

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.

[Zaque]

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.

[Johnnybukkel]

Originally Posted by David8696

Tesla. With the number of contributions he's made to the world of both mechanical and electrical engineering, he seems like the obvious choice. For those of you less familiar with his work, here's a bit of perspective (not to mention one of the funniest, most eye-opening things I've ever read) (Warning: language) (But it's definitely worth it) http://www.theoatmeal.com/comics/tesla

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

[nuclearnerd]

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)

[kghaemi96]

Originally Posted by Michael Hill

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.

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

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by nuclearnerd

• James Watt (enabled industrial revolution and feedback control)

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

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

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

I can hear it now:

"what Division are we in?"

"Watt."

"What division are we in??"

"Watt Division."

"Yeah, what Division?!?!?"

[Michael Hill]

Originally Posted by wilsonmw04

I can hear it now:

"what Division are we in?"

"Watt."

"What division are we in??"

"Watt Division."

"Yeah, what Division?!?!?"

"Who's in our division?"

"That ONE Team"

"Which one?"

[ad nauseam]

[Siri]

Originally Posted by piersklein

I personally doubt almost all of the choices already given. If we look at what FIRST has chosen for names they are not engineers and there are many who are arguable more disturbing. What the requirement would seem to be is that the names be common in popular culture and used regularly by non scientists.

Originally Posted by colin340

the push toward female name for the sake of female names is really sketchy. and i would like to see poeple who made things not just ideas.

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?

[nuclearnerd]

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 ).

[dtengineering]

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

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by dtengineering

John Snow?

He knows nothing.

[BBray_T1296]

Wow, sorry to cause such an uproar.

But, you know, Godwin's law

[dodar]

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