>>13817295>scientifically illiterate pop sci normies the threadBtw, da Vinci was basically irrelevant as a scientist. He was primarily an artist, with some basic level of competence in mathematics and enigneering, but he wasn't by any means an accomplished mathematician or engineer. He did technically make a few minor contributions to projective geometry iIRC, but his primary scientific accomplishment was being an illustrator for math and engineering textbooks the one written by Luca Pacioli.
There are many example of scientists and mathematicians from the Italian renaissance that had far more influence on modern science and math than da Vinci, who again, actually had very little impact on science (but immense impact on art). Tartaglia and Ricci are two examples. Cardano is another. All three were basically contemporaries of da Vinci. Going back further, there was Fibonacci, and I'm sure there are plenty of others - those are just the biggest names.
Leibniz is a better example than any of the people in OP's picture, although Darwin was pretty smart, for sure. John Maynard Smith and Ronald Fischer are probably even bigger chads than Darwin however, but I would agree that Darwin is one of the greats.
