The Nobel Prize
eggmac
Join Date: 2003-03-03 Member: 14246Members
Join Date: 2003-03-03 Member: 14246Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Noble or completely biased?</div> Every year the Nobel prize is awarded to people who are said to have made revolutionary discoveries or progress in medicine, literature, physics, chemistry, peace and economics.
It is maybe one of the most respected international prizes.
Still, there have been a lot of questionable decisions of the Nobel Prize committee.
Look, for example, on the case of Lise Meitner. She has made significant contributions to the discovery of Uranium-fission together with Otto Hahn and she was the one to explain the proccess in an adequate way. Yet, Hahn and Fritz Strassman were awarded (for that particuliar work) but she wasn't. Clearly a wrong decision...
Another example is the awarding of Boris Pasternak. He was a Soviet dissident writer and gained popularity (in the West) with to his book "Dr. Zhivago". I have read this book and in my view there is absolutely nothing special about it. There have been a lot of other Soviet writers who were much better, yet they were not awarded as they weren't dissidents. Many critics also disliked Pasternak's work. So was the Nobel prize only a political instrument during the Cold War?
Furthermore, the case of Henry Kissinger is very striking. Maybe it was fools day when they awarded him the Nobel Prize for peace or maybe they were just pouring scorn on world politics. He was responsible for the US attacks at Cambodia thus for the widening of the Vietnam war and hundreds of millions of civilian casualties. He was responsible for the assassination of the Chilenian general Schneider and thus helped dictator Pinochet to become dictator. He gave the permission for Indonesia to attack East-Timour.
Yet, he was awarded with the Nobel Prize for Peace.
So, do you think the Nobel prize is a respectable award or is its value far too exaggerated?
It is maybe one of the most respected international prizes.
Still, there have been a lot of questionable decisions of the Nobel Prize committee.
Look, for example, on the case of Lise Meitner. She has made significant contributions to the discovery of Uranium-fission together with Otto Hahn and she was the one to explain the proccess in an adequate way. Yet, Hahn and Fritz Strassman were awarded (for that particuliar work) but she wasn't. Clearly a wrong decision...
Another example is the awarding of Boris Pasternak. He was a Soviet dissident writer and gained popularity (in the West) with to his book "Dr. Zhivago". I have read this book and in my view there is absolutely nothing special about it. There have been a lot of other Soviet writers who were much better, yet they were not awarded as they weren't dissidents. Many critics also disliked Pasternak's work. So was the Nobel prize only a political instrument during the Cold War?
Furthermore, the case of Henry Kissinger is very striking. Maybe it was fools day when they awarded him the Nobel Prize for peace or maybe they were just pouring scorn on world politics. He was responsible for the US attacks at Cambodia thus for the widening of the Vietnam war and hundreds of millions of civilian casualties. He was responsible for the assassination of the Chilenian general Schneider and thus helped dictator Pinochet to become dictator. He gave the permission for Indonesia to attack East-Timour.
Yet, he was awarded with the Nobel Prize for Peace.
So, do you think the Nobel prize is a respectable award or is its value far too exaggerated?
Comments
The Nobel commitee tries regularly to decide about the significance of things that didn't even happen <i>ten months</i> ago. No matter how big the effort, it's bound to fail from time to time.
Otto Hahn was awarded in 1946, 8 years after the discovery of fission.
You can judge a book immediately after you've you read it, there is no need to wait for several years.
And you can't tell me that the Nobel committee didn't know about the Vietnam war...
I happen to think that the Nobel Prize is often given out in error. Jimmy Carter recently got a peace prize, for a lot of very good (recent) works.
He also abandoned hundreds of Americans to be tortured in Tehran for 444 days and did nothing about it except kill a few Marines in a ridiculously undermanned rescue operation. That single incident of paralyzed mishandling is why for the next 20 years terrorists have felt that attacking america is safe and easy. Well, except for the Libyans, where the response to their downing of the Locharbee Scotland 747 resulted in their bombing by F-111's. Have you heard from the Libyans since 1986? Me neither. Carter's mishandling of the US economy is perhaps the main contributor to the loss of most US jobs overseas, and was certainly the worst recessive economy since the great depression. He also stood by and let the Soviets invade Afghanistan (giving us pretty much most of our modern terrorist attacks on a plate - without the Russians, there would have very arguably been no Taliban).
He was perhaps the worst president in 100 years of the US government, and all those factors listed above cannot really be undone by his later works in life. It was just too much, and someone else certainly deserved it more.
Just my example...
He was perhaps the worst president in 100 years of the US government, and all those factors listed above cannot really be undone by his later works in life. It was just too much, and someone else certainly deserved it more.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
No way, the worst had to be Herbert Hoover <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
Yes, it's possible to state that a book is 'high literature', or that a discovery is important, but that does in my opinion not qualify for the highest prize on Earth.
I wasn't defending the Nobel Peace Prize for Kissinger. I was making a general point about pretty much <i>every</i> Peace Prize. Just take a look at Jassir Arafat, holder of one of them, who's now back to actively supporting terrorism and never even got close to being democratic.
Humans are exactly that, human. We are creatues who make mistakes constantly and consistently but we try to rise above that. Jimmy Carter was awarded the Peace Prize for his work AFTER his term of presidency. Same with Kissinger (not 100% sure). You have to look at it and remember that these people were awarded this for work not neccesarily done while in political office.
gah. I remember now why I left the discussions forum.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The end of humanity is at hand!
It would be interesting to know why certain decisions were made. I am pretty sure that the award for Pasternak was a political decision. On the other hand, the Meitner incident seems to be just plain idiocy...
I found it funny that when Kissinger was awarded (1973 afaik) his counterpart, the president of North Vietnam who should have been awarded, too, didn't show up. He said "there is no peace in Vietnam so why should I receive a prize for something that is not existant?".
I think people shouldn't overrate the meaning of those prices. An award does not imply any good work, it might have very well other reasosn...
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Erhmmm, the Soviets, not the Russians. Though the Afghan incident did greatly spur up Islamic fundmentalism, it wasn't the sole cause of terrorism. Although, if there was no invasion, bin Laden might not have taken the course that he did.
Anyway, the nobel prizes are bias. It seems that the prize commitee has made several questionable decisions. I do not know the criteria to recieve a nobel prize, they might be following established guidelines, but some of their decisions seemed somewhat bias/political.
MonsE, without the Soviets invading Afghanistan there would be no US funding of Al-quaida in the 1980's and hence less terrorism, you're right <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
History Bites.
<!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
MonsE, without the Soviets invading Afghanistan there would be no US funding of Al-quaida in the 1980's and hence less terrorism, you're right <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
A fair point. But the root cause is still the Soviets and that wank Carter. Then no deals with the devil would have been necessary. Besides, what would you have done? Let the russkies carpet bomb villages with impunity, or provide stinger missiles?
A fair point. But the root cause is still the Soviets and that wank Carter. Then no deals with the devil would have been necessary. Besides, what would you have done? Let the russkies carpet bomb villages with impunity, or provide stinger missiles? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would do exactly the same as today: I would oppose the war for exactly the same reasons! Because they are nearly identical: purely political, although the propaganda says something different (the Soviet administration also claimed to fight terrorism and to bring freedom to the Afghan people btw! Maybe that's the reason why I can hardly believe any political propaganda, because I know from my own experience in the Soviet Union that it is always present!).
I was born during the Afghan war and I am sure I inherited my mother's opposition to it. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
EDIT: lol, I am hijaking my own thread : <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
So we were unjustified in attacking Afghanistan as well? Because someone else did it before us? New topic please.
Any other points on Nobel peace prize?
Let me give you an example: A few kilometers from where I live, there's a big physical research facility. Some years ago, a scientist from there found out by an experiment how to determine which of the big atoms (those with three-digit amounts of protons in their core) would remain stable and which not. In the time, this was clearly a nobel-worthy achievement, yet, he didn't recieve the prize - instead, it went to the theoretic scientist who later supplied the mathematic prove that the formulas were correct.
The commite of the time was clearly biased against experimental research.
For the record:
There is <b>no</b> Nobel prize for mathematics! Unfortunately.
I think they are biased in science, too, although on a different scale. As Nem mentioned already, they partly prefer particuliar scientific areas, which might be more 'fashionable' or just more appealing, although the scientific value is somehow different.
There have been a lot of wrong decisions in Nobel prize awarding for Physics (I don't know much about biology and chemistry...), yet it is still said to be one of the most respectable awards.
But I think you're right when saying that science is not as biased as peace or economy, relatively speaking.
I really do think Carter earn the Nobel Prize.
Comeon, the only downfall for him was the Hostage Crisis, and that's only because the operation failed.
Israel and Egypt really did ceasefire.
He was more of a "damn if you do, damn if you dont" president in my opinion.
Better example would be Sharon and Arafat, talk about propaganda.