Fishbone makes a convincing case:
M. Wise Brown wrote the Runaway Bunny, which hasn’t been out of print since 1942 and might possibly be one of the most endearing children’s books ever. She could regale us with stories of kindness and love. Lisa Lisa was part of a Cult, which, although they did Jam, basically copied the Motown vibe and added some latin flavor. A seminar from Lisa Lisa runs the risk of making the seminar attendees get up and dance, and nobody wants to see any group of scientists doing that.
Indeed, I’d probably pay to avoid watching a bunch of statisticians get down and boogie.
Today’s matchup
This is a good one! Whaddya want, the 3 laws of motion or the 3 laws of robotics? A famous virgin or a famous groper? Science or science fiction? Alchemy or psychohistory?
Either one will be facing a tough challenge in the next round, as both Lauren Hill and Li Wenwen are formidable competitors.
Too difficult to choose. Why not just advance Isaac Isaac and call it good? Transcategorization, a strong contender, and a pop hit machine in one swell foop.
I didn’t know about Asimov sexually harassing women, so I had to look it up. This alone should make the choice easy… but in addition, Newton was interesting character and I would love to hear anecdotes from his career outside physics/math.
For example, as a Master of the Royal Mint, he was a kind of 1700s Batman/Judge Dredd, infiltrating crime organizations to persecute counterfeiters (he was even a Justice of the Peace, but it is not clear to me whether he could or did order summary executions). I think he has enough material for a whole semester of fascinating seminars.
(If he gets invited, I suggest giving him an intro book on LaTeX as a gift. Writing a lot of math, he would be in a position to appreciate how far we advanced since his time).
I have to go with Newton here. While both men appear to have had both outsized egos and disagreeable personality traits, I’ve been to too many seminars in my life where it was clear the seminar speaker believed, as Asimov did, that there were only “two people he ever met whose intellect surpassed his own.” Not to mention having to stare at those mutton chops for a whole hour.
War of the Isaacs!! Hari Seldon’s equations predicted that Asimov will pass to the next round, but what if Newton was the Mule?
Newton’s 3 Laws are only approximate, per Einstein, while Asimov’s 3 Laws are exact, per Will Smith. Given your distaste for Exact Tests and everyone’s distaste for Will Smith, it’s Newton.
But are you sure there are exactly 3 Laws?
Very tough choice for me. Newton is a god, but from so long ago that he might need simultaneous translation, plus we might get sidetracked into arguments over some of the advances in science that he would have difficulty believing.
If I think of as more for his benefit, to see where his work led, I would have to go with Newton. If I think of as more for our entertainment, I would go with Asimov.
Since both are dead and I don’t believe in miracles, they would have to be simulated and I think ChatGPT would do a much better job simulating Asimov, so that’s my feeble vote.
Isaac Asimov is the only one in the bracket who I’ve actually met: he and I were great friends back in 1981…by which I mean we once shared an elevator. Asimov had gone down to the lobby to get a copy of the Sunday paper, and was on his way back up to his room (I assume). He said to the two or three of us in the elevator, “This newspaper cost 75 cents. When I was a kid the Sunday paper cost a nickel. On the other hand, when I was a kid nobody had a nickel, and now everybody has 75 cents.”
We had a falling out after that — by which I mean we got to my floor and I got off — and those were the last words he ever spoke to me.
I’m not sure whether this argues for or against him being the speaker, but there it is.
Phil:
That’s not as good as Riad Sattouf’s Asimov story, but it ain’t nothing, either.
That is not quality seminar material. Newton it is.
My excellent high school physics teacher looked a lot like Asimov, down to the massive muttonchops. This had a big impact on me in terms of field of study, though not facial hairstyles.
On the other had, my wife notes that Asimov wrote a lot, and there may be nothing to hear that he hadn’t already put in text. And she and I have both been reading the entertaining “Rivers of London” series of supernatural crime novels, from which we learned that Newton founded the modern study of magic — presumably in between science, Biblical numerology, and hunting counterfeiters.
Having heard Asimov speak, I can vouch that he is an engaging speaker. I also have a book autographed by him. It is readable. If I had one autographed by Newton, I couldn’t read it, because it would be in Latin.
Of course, we could take Newton’s advice and stand on the shoulders of giants:
Me:Do you think Isaac Newton or Isaac Asimov would make a better seminar speaker?
ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I don’t have personal opinions, but I can provide you with some information to help you compare the two.
Isaac Newton, the famous 17th-century mathematician and physicist, made significant contributions to the fields of mathematics, physics, and astronomy. He is best known for his laws of motion and his law of gravitation, which laid the foundations for classical mechanics. He was a highly intelligent and influential figure, but he lived in a time before public speaking and seminars were common, so it’s difficult to say how he would fare as a seminar speaker.
Isaac Asimov, on the other hand, was a 20th-century science fiction writer and biochemist. He was known for his ability to explain complex scientific concepts in a way that was accessible and engaging to a general audience. He was a prolific writer and a popular speaker, and he frequently gave lectures and seminars on a variety of scientific topics. Given his experience as a communicator and his ability to make science accessible and interesting to a wide audience, I would say that Isaac Asimov would likely be a better seminar speaker.
Newton’s proof of Kepler’s second law is dazzling. (I have spent many hours with it.) Also, although Fig Newtons aren’t named after him, there would have to be some on the refreshments table, and I’d surely eat a few.