| ▲ | waihtis 5 hours ago |
| It's a valid viewpoint, however membership to the royal society is judged via candidates having made 'a substantial contribution to the improvement of natural knowledge, including mathematics, engineering science and medical science'. I would argue Elon is fully within scope, outside of the fact that I think Elon is not the slightest fit to the general ethos of that specific organization. |
|
| ▲ | quonn 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| How is he within scope? At best he might have contributed to advancing engineering science, but is that really the case? Has he not rather merely financed engineering science and perhaps not even engineering science but just engineering practice? |
| |
| ▲ | bondarchuk 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | From the blogpost: "wider contributions to science, engineering or medicine through leadership, organisation, scholarship or communication" He's clearly relevant based on contribution to engineering (maybe science too) through organization (maybe leadership, communication too). | |
| ▲ | nonrandomstring 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This is the salient point. Musk is not a "science" person. He is no
Einstein or Newton. He has many good qualities, amongst them a broad
appreciation of engineering, commerce and motivating people. He is
ambitious. But Musk neither holds a PhD (I imagine he'd lack the
patience and focus) nor has any notable specialism. Like Gates and
Zuckerberg who both dropped out of their computer science degrees to
make money, Musk is another of this new breed of "technologist" who we
lionise as though they were "great scientists". The Royal Society is a club for great scientists and it has erred by
expanding its definition of "contribution to science" to include
businessmen and financiers who contribute through money and influence. | | |
| ▲ | waihtis 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > This is the salient point No it's not lol. you just decided to ignore the criteria for membership and invent your own, like a phD being requisite (it is not.) Also, to call Musk a "businessman" is reductive as hell. I know a lot of people have pressure to hate him because of political reasons, but be real for once. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | bell-cot 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| The full quote: > Although most Fellows are elected on the basis of their scientific contributions, others are nominated on the basis of "wider contributions to science, engineering or medicine through leadership, organisation, scholarship or communication". [Italics in original.] But yes, you hit the nail on the head about Musk being within their supposed scope, but a disastrously bad fit for their org. Making him a Fellow (back in 2018) was a self-serving idiot move by the Society. And now the Wages of Dim are adding up. |
