There are some clever ones here; my favorites are Newton, Gödel, Darwin, and Feynman:
p.s. I don’t know who the clever person is who should get credit for these logos, but if anybody knows tell us in the comments.
UPDATE: Reader Don Bilgren, in the comments, identifies the designer as Kapil Bhagat, who made these logos for a National Science Day in India.
61 thoughts on “If scientists had logos”
Love Newton and Darwin.
My fave is Einstein.
(For just a split second I thought to myself “this must be some Scottish scientist I’ve never heard of”.)
LMAO! That made my morning!
No, it’s a rapper!
Coyne (insert image of coin with fresh cherries and felid daguerreotype).
I envisaged it as something like this:
Oops! (That’s the Darwin one (see below).
* Oh, carp! Try again: COYNE.
Not enough ☕️!
VERY nicely done!
PS. The font is Jazz LET.
Glad to see Norman Borlaug get a well deserved shout-out. That man saved a lot of people from starvation.
Don’t tell the anti-GMO crowd.
I don’t anticipate that being too much of a problem. The anti-GMO crowd and I are not exactly simpatico.
Also glad to see Borlaug among the logos, and further glad that someone else is as well.
I also like the Goodall one. But I did not get Godel until I looked him up.
Oh, and if one could suggest edits: The Darwin one should start with comic sans and progress up to, I dunno, maybe calligraphy.
Or runes, uncial, black letter, serif, humanist (!), …
But all of those suffer the same fault as the well-known procession of hominids: evolution as progress. How about something using a circular family tree, or a family bush with Darwin as one of its fruit?
Ah! Quite so. And since I made that point on the post about the Mashable video, I should’ve known better!
Evolution does produce progress. As time goes on, the number of possible designs that evolution can explore goes up. That includes more complex designs, which are by definition earlier designs plus something else.
Filling in larger and larger portions of design space via including more and more complex designs is a type of progress, by definition.
The mistake you’re making is assuming that progress, as a concept, entails moving toward some predetermined ideal. It does not. It entails only moving in some direction, and covering ground not previously covered. Because of how evolution works, it does mean progressing towards something better, but only better for reproducing under the prevailing circumstances.
I like your comment a lot. Evolution evidences a progression toward more diversity and complexity, rare counterexamples not withstanding. The mistake often made is confusing progress with teleology.
Hey, you forgot one:
(Yes, I made this. Yes that is the modern domestic cat family speciation tree. Of course it is.)
Here is the image link if the above doesn’t work:
They’re wonderful, thanks for the images and for the link to attribution.
Just to be clear, I made the one I linked to, but not the one on the main page.
Appropriately, the cats sits in the ceiling.
Kink stole it. All by himself. I no can haz helpd.
Excellent! Thanks a lot!
You’re welcome! Your website gives me a great deal of enjoyment, and I’m glad to have provided a bit in return 🙂
Excellent, and it could have “I think” above as per Darwin’s own early diagram.
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_curvature ]
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_cycle ]
Superb. My fave is the Gödel one.
I understand all of these except the one with the Greek letters and I’m not even sure to whom it refers.
It’s Democritus & it shows atoms. I feel I’m ripping of Ben by identifying him because I’ve heard Ben talk about him a lot in other posts. 🙂
I have my doubts about the inclusion of Democritus. I think his atomic theory counts as philosophy, not science – he had, as far as I know, no evidence for it. And he certainly didn’t visualise his atoms in that way, as nuclei with orbiting electrons!
The evidence in favour of ancient atomism is conceptual, not “visualizable” – though there is a suggestion that motes of dust may have played a role.
Should he be included? Where does one draw the dividing line?
Like a dumbass, I commented on the picture. I said the following but now I think I really do need a nap:
OMG I read “logos” as the Greek logos (λόγος) then I wondered why Democritus had flowers in his name. I need to take a nap!!
Yeah, until I read the comments I thougt he’d invented the Flowerpower.
Anthony Benedetto the great.
I saw this post as a challenge, so here is a logo for you: http://listofx.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/coyne.jpg
Brilliant! I love the Bigfoot sighting at the end!
That is truly superb!
What big ears you have!
Thank you! There were no monkeys or photographers involved in making of this image, so feel free to use it.
The designer is Kapil Bhagat, made for a National Science Day in India
Or his tumblr:
One more, since we’re at it: https://www.flickr.com/photos/113231223@N05/14672142090/
Kind of surprised no-one (so far) mentioned liking the Pauli logo. Maybe you have to be a chemist, or especially in NMR.
A little late, but here are two ideas 🙂 https://www.dropbox.com/sc/z627rbu8b4oaso6/AAD0kDkvIqofYOi7jNyh8u8ba
Very cool! My gosh this web-site is full of talent!
Clever, but sadly Watson and Crick’s DNA appears to be twisting the wrong way.
What a catch!
I’m too thick to understand the Goedel one 🙁
“In 1931 and while still in Vienna, Gödel published his incompleteness theorems…”
Thanks for posting this! In fact the poster above is a mash-up of two different artists: the first six are indeed by Indian graphic designer Kapil Bhagat. The remainder are my designs from last year. If you or your readers are on Facebook, they can visit “LalaLand Graphics” for the full set of 175 scientist logotypes I’ve put together so far.
Hope you enjoy them!
Prateek Lala, MD
So many great ones!
Jerry might have a particular fondness for Schrödinger!