Who Are The Main-Stream Scientists?

IMO it started a lot earlier with more common names: Archimedes, to name one to start alphabetically.

I don't know all of these guys, but I would consider a few adjustments.

Kepler should probably be demoted because of some of his mysticism.

Even though not a physicist/cosmologist, Darwin should go in the mainstream.

Newton had some ideas that might hold him back, but the calculus is important enough to propel him (mostly, anyway) into the mainstream.

Hoyle may have been a decent astronomer, but he was a total bonehead regarding evolution. His "airplane from a junkyard" bids fair to to be the dopiest "analogy" of all time.

It should be Kip Thorne and Hermann Bondi, and I think it is Steven Weinberg (recheck spellings).

We did do a Top Ten Scientists awhile back.

That discussion was started 10/11/09.

You are right about all the spellings. I got in too much of a hurry. Its Sir Hermann Bondi and Kip Stephen Thorne.

I would agree that Darwin's theories are widely accepted by scientists, so he goes in the main-stream list. Kepler's 3 laws are the main-stay of astronomy. I hadn't heard about the mysticism, but what a person does with his non-science time doesn't count, or we would have to demote Feynman too.

Newton is a tough choice. Many of his laws are still widely accepted. The problem is GR outdid his law of gravitation (or did it just supplement it?). Hoyle may have been well respected, but his steady state theory was "Ruled out".

Hoyle's steady-state theory may have been ruled out, but it wasn't stupid (though his biology was damned stupid). Aristotle and Ptolemy proved to be wrong about some things, but they weren't stupid. William Paley's natural theology and argument from design were not stupid, either--for his time--but later were shown to be inadequate. We humans are not omniscient, so we have to make do with the best evidence and reasoning available at any given time, just as in the goal of your present quest.

Feynman's bongo-drumming and safe-cracking are irrelevant to science. Kepler's scheme of nested polyhedra and planetary distances was almost surely fanciful. I'm not sure about "Bode's Law." I view GR more as a refinement of Newtonian mechanics, rather than a refutation. Newton still suffices for space navigation in fairly short time spans, even though it took GR to understand GPS timing.

That was a pretty quick and opinionated ramble, and I may be wrong about some of this. In that respect, I simply try to follow the best-supported information I encounter.

The problem with Darwin is that his "theories" are still highly controversial and somewhat disputable, unlike the physicist you named. Maxwell's laws are truly accepted, the courts don't have to step in to decide if we should accept Maxwell, Newton, or Einstein's theories. Hiesenberg, Pauli, Curie, et. al. would all be more applicable as mainstream accepted scientists then Darwin could ever come close to, especially when you are interested in physicist and such. In the courts and general public opinion, Darwin is still more controversial then Freud, thus you would have to accept Freud too. His "theory" may be more controversial and less accepted then anything posed by Masters and Johnson, so now they would need to be accepted.As you can see, accepting one psuedo-scientific theory because, while lacking to fulfill scientific method for developing and accepting a theory, it makes intuitive sense leades to a very slippery slope, where eventually you have to add rants from Al Gore as "scientific theory". It is best to stick with at most physicists and maybe chemists, as these theories will be properly posited, proofed, and tested before becoming accepted, and once accepted will repeatably work highly effectively when applied to predict the mechanics of a system. (Also, bear in mind you can not accept Darwin's "theories" and the concepts of preserving endangered species, as they are contradictory.)

something else to consider Newtonian physics is still applied on a far more regular basis then general relativity. In my opinion Newtonian physics is still applicable within the range of size, energy and velocity commonly encountered by man in most situations where physical laws must be applied, such as in cases of the vast majority of engineering. Newtonian physics just is not comprehensive enough to be applicable to large size, velocity energy systems. However, it is applied far more successfully and commonly in both science and engineering today than general relativity (which represents only one extreme adequately, where quantum mechanics represents the other)

Only people I am aware of that seem to have severe problems with Darwin, are Creationists who believe the world is 6,000 years old.

You're not making a lot of sense to me.

There are theories and facts. Scientists may well have both in mind, but are more believable, since typically they don't get very far as scientists unless they either base their "Theories" on facts, or find facts to support their theories.

facts?

As far as i know you are supposed to base theories on observation of a system, then develop a rational proof of that theory that can be peer reviewed for logical errors, then test that theory in a unbiased, representative, repeatable, quantifiable manner to attempt to disprove its accuracy and precision. If you can not disprove the theory through a variety of strenuous experiments developed to test the theory, then it appears to be valid until disproven, or in the case of newtonian physics bracketed within a range of applicability.

As far a darwin goes, i haven't seen the rational proof and repeatable experimental testing of the theory , nor have i seen any accurate and precise predictive result regarding the mechanics of the system it describes. Just because something makes intuitive sense to us at this time, doesn't necessarily make it science. I am not even really sure how you test the common descent theory, bearing in mind that just because two species have similar portions of DNA doesn't necessarily preclude the existence of two different lines of evolution from separate individuals that developed independantly of each other. Also, I am not sure how to accurately predict anything from common descent. Besides all of this, the concept of natural selection or "the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" would be contradictory to preservationist arguments for protecting endangered species. In addition, the mechanics for evolution that darwin posited have become less accepted as the drivers for change amongst biologist in favor of other mechanisms and the rates at which change may occur have come under serious question. Just because he was the first to posit that species evolved from other species that can trace back to a common origin, a single source species from which all life is derived, doesn't mean that his statements were necessarily scientific, even if he applied some portions of the scientific method to develop his concept. The issue is that what Darwin posits is more like the observations stage of developing a scientific theory, which he developed from the observations and discussions of previous people like his grandfather and lamarck and then correlated to his own observations. From Darwin many others have posited further ideas but no one seems to ever fully develop a scientific theory. It is more like philosophy then a scientific theory. However, is suspect a actually theory may be developed, probably by geneticists or biochemists that is scientific and is supported by the observations of all these previous people, is precisely, accurately, reproducibly testable, and predictive with regards to the mechanism.

If you haven't seen, you haven't looked. Fruit fly experiments. I learned about this in 7th or 8th grade science class back in the early 60's.

Russian-born biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky... Back in the 1930s, he began dusting down Darwinian evolution to leave it looking modern, shiny and new.

From HERE. And a gazillion other places on the net.

Hooker

One of the inferences of Darwin based on his observations was that slowly effected processes result in populations changing to adapt to their environments, and ultimately, these variations accumulate over time to form new species. The drosophila experiments were just evidence disproving a portion of Darwin's original argument. The article even indicates that genetics has basically had to rewrite Darwins argument to fit the experimental data. Now with the theories on epigenetics being developed, who knows whatever else Darwin may have been wrong about. Maybe there are separate lines of origns for species. If we find any evidence of life on other planets, that would support the concept that life can evolve independantly of a single orign of species, and can orignate independatly of a single source species. Thus it might be possible that there are species on this planet that qualify as life but did not originate from the same original spontaneous created first living species.

Fer goodness sakes! The world is only 4821 years old! I know for sure cause PennDOT still has the orange barrels up from when it was done.

I think you're barking up the wrong tree. For instance, Einstein's theories about quantum mechanics are now universally rejected. You would do better to ask which journals are the most respected, and read them.

A GA, and add to that to see who is the editor of those journals. There's a lot of good guys out there right now, but we seldom know they're great till after they're dead.

Einstein's theories of relativity (SR & GR) are very widely accepted. His Nobel Prize was related to quantum mechanics. He didn't like the 'chance' part of the universe, but I wouldn't call that a theory. Can you give a link to what you are referring?

As far as the most respected journals, are they the ones I have to pay to read? If so, what is wrong with this picture?

I recently finished reading a biography of Einstein, so I don't have a link - it's a book, but yes, he did win the Nobel for his paper on the photoelectric effect, and yes, his theories on relativity are universally accepted. However he rejected the notion of uncertainty in quantum physics and spent the last half of his life trying to discover a universal theory which removed it as a basis for understanding matter, thus becoming largely irrelevant to the rest of the scientific community. The book is Einstein: His Life and Universe by Walter Isaacson. I highly recommend it not only for its insight into Einstein but for its insight into history and the politics of scientific prejudice - which we see so much of these days.

As far as having to pay for journals, all I can say is that with regards to the quality of knowledge, you get what you pay for.

Einstein History and Other Passions by Kenneth Knowlton was a good read as far as Einstein is concerned.

Currently I'd be interested in who the most powerful scientists are myself. I've not seen the text of the Obama NASA speech that I believe was to be given yesterday.

In broad stroke I heard it came from an advisory panel?, that had recommended Commercial Rocket programs over NASA Rocket programs, and more money for Robots and Robotic ships, as opposed to manned flights and operations.

I am always interested in Bhankii's take on these issues.

What? The photoelectric effect W=hF has been superseded.

Albert must go down as one of the founders of QM. If you ever read his analysis of some of the theories of the time you'll realise he had valid (if now understood as wrong) objections.

I agree with Bhankii, read the journals if you want to learn "the truth" of our day. Theory evolves when it is put to the test.

"read the journals if you want to learn "the truth" of our day. Theory evolves when it is put to the test."

What if I want to learn the truth instead of "the truth of our day"? Should I read articles from the non-mainsteam list, which are not accepted into the journals because they don't fit the theories of our day?

There is no "The Truth", the current mainstream theory is our best approximation to what is observed in nature.

Any non mainstream theory needs only to make better predictions for it to become the mainstream. Just look at QM, relativity, evolution or geology etc as examples., within a few generations they've swept the world because of their power.

The bets thing of interest to truth seekers is to check and believe with their own eyes on the reality of their assumptions. Predictions of so called established theories will hold good only for specific cases.

If you want to be a scientist, experiment and establish facts for yourself.

The so called established theories will give mere guidelines only and the truth seeker has to carry on himself from his own findings. Theories are past observations intended to help one and not to conclude forever.

Mere reading of theories without reality applications scope, makes no meaning about Science.

"If you want to be a scientist, experiment and establish facts for yourself."

Cosmologists can't do experiments. A "backyard physicist" could, but you need a theory before you can establish a test to prove it. Even then, what are the chances that you would have the necessary equipment? I looks a little futile for a "layman" like me.

Standardguy:

Nice of meeting you in CR4. To be a scientist or science application researcher you need not have high level of equipments. Scientists are just human beings like you and me, having extra curiosity on phenomenon and reason for truth. That is why I have used the word truth seekers. Being a cosmetologist you can very well read, apply and experiment science within your reach. You need not even wear white coats and use sophisticated instruments. A good deal of common sense is enough to get you closer to scientists. Edison was an applied Scientist and a truth seeker who had not been to formal schooling.

Being a self designated scientist, I refer to lot of basics and consult science teachers in case of doubts and even do low cost model tests to verify myself.

One thing you got to be cautious is about keeping vigil on misinterpretations of Scientific theories.The so called firm believers politisizing Scientific factions.

I made a narrow escape from the rigid concepts of Laws of conservation of mass and energy, took up to out of box thinking and made proof of my conception.It was a silent thrill ofcourse. The terminology of the theory is correct, but the interpretor made all the fuss.

Always believe your own eyes. Take up the right part of scientific facts, since they are respectable.

Science is the greatest gift of mankind to our life and the whole world of development is woven on the basis of applied sciences. Cheers.

Hi s.udhayamarthandan,

I appreciate your comments. Although I have a telescope, I don't consider myself a cosmologist or even an amateur astronomer, but have an interest in it and other scientific things like quantum mechanics. I like the idea of doing my own experiments. What I need most is ideas about what experiments to do. All that was needed to discover Brownian Motion was a low power microscope. Building my own equipment is not out of the question - I have built a lot of electronic equipment, but not for testing scientific theories so far.

-S

There are lots of experiments the backyard scientist can do. Work on the radiometer. There is still no universally accepted explanation for their operation. It'll cost you a couple hundred bucks at best, plus maybe 2 or 3 years.

Work out the hydraulic paradox for thixotropic fluids. That could take a lifetime.

Of course cosmologists can do experiments - they do it all the time. Case in point, the observation of the bending of light in the eclipse of 1919 that proved Einstein's theory. A more recent example would be using new space telescopes to test the theory of dark matter.

"Of course cosmologists can do experiments - they do it all the time. Case in point, the observation of the bending of light in the eclipse of 1919 that proved Einstein's theory."

Those weren't experiments, only observations. Observations is all cosmetologists can do. What they look for depends on current theory. They see dark matter because they are looking for it, even though it may be something entirely different than what they think.

Cosmologist: Carl Sagan

Cosmetologist: Estée Lauder

Cometologist: Edmond Halley

[Editor Crankshaft]

Hi Tornado,

I had just tried to fix the spelling, but was too late. An example of "getting led down the garden path"?

I take it you don't like Halley. Care to elaborate?

-S

Not the first time I have seen a cosmologist/cosmetologist malapropism, and I just couldn't resist a little further wordplay.

No problem with Halley; I would consider him mainstream, so far as I know.

Yeah, that 15-minute time limit is a bit tight. (In contrast to Amazon, which allows you to edit posts forever.)

Oh I just saw that. Now i need to re-read the question posted at the top. I thought cosmologists and physicists is what i read, but sometimes because of the obvious relationship I interpret. This would be a much more complicated list if we have to do physicists and cosmetologists. Plus I am not really sure how you would qualify talent in cosmetology, i guess if they cut my hair well. hmmm.

But observations are the heart of experiments. Measurement is everything. Cosmologists - not cosmetologists - are scientists and they do science.

It may grieve me to say this, but the empirical underpinnings of cosmetology are probably equal to or better than those of cosmology. Alas.

And, put Willard Gibbs on that list. Puhleease?

"put Willard Gibbs on that list"

Which list? Tell us something about him that you want us to know.

The main-stream list. Einstein thought Gibbs the most important American scientist.

S.Chandraskekar (Main Stream) His limit for maximum mss of white dwarfs<1.2 Solar mass. http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ChandrasekharLimit.html Sir C.V.Raman (main stream) Why is the sky blue? http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/raman.htm

As another suggestion, check the Nobel Prize lists. Enrico Fermi for one is there. J. Robert Oppenheimer isn't, but a check of his wikipedia page reveals a bunch of Nobel Prize mentions among his associates. Also Werner von Braun, Robert Goddard, maybe Kelly Johnson.

Carl Sagan was about as mainstream as you could conceivably get, in a way, though some of his positions were fringe.

Please add the mostly unsung Freeman Dyson.

Though few outside the science fiction community may know of him.

Hooker

"Please add the mostly unsung Freeman Dyson"

From Wikipedia:

"I have the sense that when consensus is forming like ice hardening on a lake, Dyson will do his best to chip at the ice," physics Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg said of him. His friend, the neurologist and author Oliver Sacks, said: "A favorite word of Freeman's about doing science and being creative is the word 'subversive.' He feels it's rather important not only to be not orthodox, but to be subversive, and he's done that all his life."

I like him already, and we just met.

Well before the list gets that inflated an obscure, might need to add more influential physicists like: Born, Becquerel, Fourier, Helmholtz, Kirchhoff, Planck, Fermi, Curie, Liebniz, etc..

What about adding Tesla and Pasteur? The great microbiologist Koch from Austria and Germany?

I respect Tesla for his electrical inventions, but his only theory was that you could broadcast electrical power by radio efficiently. As far as I can tell, nobody accepted that.

List of physicist and cosmologist, not sure where you came up with Pasteur and Koch to add to the list.

And don't forget the greatest Astronomers of the last century: Hubble and Hale.

And you are classifying these as physicists (or more specifically cosmologist)? because that is the list he was preparing.

Darwin.

Not even close to a physicist or cosmologist.

It is important to include some of the leg work done by the unsung mathematicians. I would include:

Newton/Leibniz for calculus (unless your a student)

Carl Gauss for statistics

Rene Descartes for making geometry analytical

Mohammad al-Khowarizmi for decimal system

George Boole for Boolean Algebra and his work on logic

I am sure we could add many of the mathematicians from the past who helped build the methods of science. I agree with Bhankiii that Einstein should be included and I have read Isaacson's book. Another book I would recommend is by Mario Livio and called, "Is God a Mathematician",2009. Most of the great scientists arguably were also mathematicians including Darwin even if he didn't recognize the statistical evidence he gathered.

Actually, Liebniz, Newton, and Gauss would have also been considered physicist under current definitions. Bear in mind they developed some of the underlying rudimentary theories upon which physics is based. Liebniz developed the theory of conservation of energy, newton the pricipe, gauss developed theories in electrostatic, and all worked in astronomy,optics, mechanics. The reason they are so fundamentally important in mathematics, as are most physicists including modern ones like Einstein and Heisenberg, was that they had to develop the math to explain the mechanics. they did not work in a vaccuum, but rather needed a logical way to psoit their theories, and the mathematics at that time was insufficiently developed to do such, so they developed more advanced forms of mathematics. Math is nearly always developed as a means of solving two types of issues, monetary which is usually rudimenary changes to basic forms and physical mechanics which are usually development of new more advanced forms.

I would not disagree with your statements. The physical observations by Newton were quantified by mathematics. Where it did not meet his needs, he invented ways of proving his observations. for example he overcame the Kepler errors in orbiting bodies by locating centers of gravity as a point source. Simple today but revolutionary in his day. It gave accuracy to the calculations.

Math has been around long before any monetary system was invented. Check Ishango Bone

Sorry, I hit the submit button early. I could not keep typing with the link inserted. To continue;

From information gleaned from the Ishanga Bone, we can see that math was tinkered with 9000 years ago. The lunar calender (menstrual cycle?), adding, and possibly prime numbers were in thoughts. I am not sure if these thoughts were related to real science or even observational science. Descartes gave Newton tools to grow, as Galileo gave Descartes info and Euclid etc. Each observation grew Math which grew the observation. They work hand in hand. But idle minds can think of abstract math issues as the bone indicates.

I think even then you see in the rudiments of math advancing on a basis of need to quantify the mechanics of some system. With regards to monetary systems, you need to consider beyond hard currency and consider back to barter and trade. As societies developed the control of trade, taxations, etc. had to be quantified in some means, and as trade became more complicated the means of monitoring and quatifying that trade also had to advance. However, major since trade developed near the times of agriculture. I am not sure of mathematics beyond simple counting and documenting/recording counts for some future needs during times of hunter-gatherers. It appears that the bone would show some very rudimentary math developing prior to substantially complex trade developing. though i do wonder what the basis for development of the most rudimentary math concept was, that concept being 1 versus something more than 1.

I would add the guy who wrote the first book on the scientific method, to which all others really should pay homage. Without him, the dark ages would have lasted hundreds more years, as science would never have gotten the foothold it needed for leverage.

You need to define; 'mainstream', 'scientist'. Your qualification is too wide. Do you include people like Tesla and Edison, as their experimentation and theorizing provided a strong impulse to science in the 20th century, but I don't think they held doctorates.

There are lists to be found on google with a quick search.

Chris

Hi Chris,

I don't care about doctorates. Books are good, I have many. Famous scientists is not quite what I had in mind, but I suspect a high correlation with my definition. Perhaps a better list would be Nobel prize winners in physics. Here is a link:

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/

-S

Please, lets not let this get into a debate about evolution. Save that for another thread. Enough has been said about Darwin.

I'm glad to see some agreement with my thoughts of Newton. I see him as exceptionally brilliant. He will be on my main-stream list. What about the others in the uncategorized list? Any insight there?

Thank you all for your comments. I have given a couple of GAs. Here is my current list. The uncategorized require furthur study.

Main-Stream

Albert Einstein

Richard P. Feynman

George Gamow

James Clerk Maxwell

Kip Thorne

Neils Bohr

Stephen Hawking

Steven Weinberg

Werner Heisenberg

Johannes Kepler

Sir Isaac Newton

Archimedes

Josiah Willard Gibbs Sr.

S.Chandraskekar

Sir C.V.Raman

Louis Pasteur

Galileo Galilei

Enrico Fermi

Carl Sagan

Edwin P. Hubble

J. Carl F. Gauss

Wolfgang E. Pauli

Pierre & Marie Curie

Max Born

A. Henri Becquerel

Jean B. Joseph Fourier

Hermann Helmholtz

Gustav R. Kirchhoff

Max Planck

Non-Mainstream

Sir Fred Hoyle

Tom Von Flantern

J.P. Vigier

Carl Johnson

Eric Lerner

Hermann Bondi

Nikola Tesla

Edmond Halley

Uncategorized

Steve Carlip

Frank Znidansic

Dr. Lewis E. Little

Clifford M. Will

Freeman Dyson

Roger Bacon

Charles Darwin

Theodosius Dobzhansky

J. Robert Oppenheimer

Rene Descartes

Gottfried W. Leibniz

Other Nobel laureates

I never searched for these people thoroughly but what about: - Gallieo (astrology), - Leonardo Davinchi (physisist nd inventor of bearing to reduce friction), - Tesla (argued about some of Einstein's theories like energy cannot step out of solid matter (see wireless energy transfer and finally the acknowledged inventor of Radio)), - Faraday. It is worth to check out wikipedia it is full of links about some scientist and their works.

I think that you should read them all, good and bad. Reading bad science is not a waste of time. In my opinion it should be a nescessary part of any scientific education. By reading bad science you get to see some of the pitfalls that intelligent people fall into in their pursuit for knowledge. Many fantastic scientific discoveries were resisted by mainstream scientists when they were first suggested. It is also true that many mainstream scientists are wrong about things on a regular basis. A good example of this was Einstien's, incorrect, attachment to determinism over quantum theory summed up by his phrase "God doe not play dice with the universe". As far as reaching your goals of educating yourself in the areas of physics, and cosmology I suggest (as a university physics student) study as much mathematics as you can stomach, and then study some more mathematics. Having a strong mathematics background will at least help you weed out some of the more obvious bunk floating on the fringes of physics, and cosmology.

Einstein's, incorrect, attachment to determinism over quantum theory summed up by his phrase "God doe not play dice with the universe".

I remember this however was not sure about the exact details but yes, you're right, he was determined to prove that he too could be wrong just like anybody; - hence the expression nobody's perfect.

Actually, it wasn't that he was wrong, but rather he never could resolve the equations necessary. Quantum mechanics is kind of problematic in that it describes the mechanics of subatomic particles in terms of probabilities due to the concept of us not accurately and precisely knowing enough information about the intial conditions under which the particles originated, particularly the time and energy. Hawkin has been carrying on in a similar vein toward a theory of everything, which would have to solve the issues brought about by the probabilistic equations utilized for quantum mechanics. There are paradoxes, and other quandries that can arise under quantum mechanics given this probabilistic nature, even though very unlikely, e.g. the electrons in your body could disappear and instantaneously re-appear somewhere a substantial distance away, extremely low probability but possible. What Einstien conceived of was the likelihood that quantum mechanics is an initial solution much like Newtons gravity or liebniz conservation of energy, but that there ws a more comprehensive and accurate theory that might be applied that would provide better accuracy, precision and predictability, much like he had done with relativity.

The point I am trying to make is that trying to learn from a list of "main-stream" scientists is an appeal to authority that is completely antithetical what science is supposed to do. I wanted to use an example of a time when Einstien was mistaken, unlclear if you prefer, becuase he is so often thrown up as a sacred cow by people who don't understand any of his ideas. There are no sacred cows in science.

"There are no sacred cows in science."

Exactly!

Perhaps that's why Hitler was so carried away because he was overly complacent about the knowledge of his scientist and later had to realise how wrong he thought.

I guess it is human nature to get carried away however, we should realise that we are constantly on the learning curve therefore wisdom, knowledge and skills should be better shared.

When Einstein started making wrong assumptions he was also getting old that further supports that as we get older the same fate still awaits us regardless of our stratum.

This is the beauty of the internet that allows for sharing our knowledges better than through anything else and hopefully will remain the least prone to undesirable control and censorship.

Sadly, there are still a lot of thick heads out there, especially public servants, who tend to think otherwise.

If having mystical wonderings about truth makes one's eligibility for this list suspect, I would suggest reading a book called "Quantum Questions", by Ken Wilbur. This may remove some of the names here.

I want to add in Burt Jordaan... the South African who made relativity understandable without the heavy math.

Wouldn't that be more of a translator or maybe a teacher than a physical scientist. In otherwords, if I were to explain conservation of energy in a manner that allows someone specific to understand it in a very broad and rudimentary manner that opens it to ambiguities and incorrect interpretations, does that make me a physicist and would i be eligible for the nobel prize. The heavy math is actually the language of scientific theories, the explanantions in some common language we use is where the mis-interpretations really develop and explode.

In my OP I gave you the choice of who you respect and who you don't (meaning for cosmological or physical opinions). You will definitely get the main-stream explanation from Jorrie, and he explains it so that I can understand. He has been very patient with me at times. He has always had my respect.

I certainly would weigh Jorrie's opinions heavily. I looked for him on this thread, but didn't find anything. Can you refer to some thread(s) where he has addressed this or a closely related issue?