If scientists had logos

August 7, 2014 • 2:26 pm

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.


h/t: Merilee

61 thoughts on “If scientists had logos

      1. (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!

    1. Oh, and if one could suggest edits: The Darwin one should start with comic sans and progress up to, I dunno, maybe calligraphy.

          1. 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?

            1. 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.

              1. 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.

      1. You’re welcome! Your website gives me a great deal of enjoyment, and I’m glad to have provided a bit in return 🙂

  1. I understand all of these except the one with the Greek letters and I’m not even sure to whom it refers.

    1. 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!

      1. 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?

  2. 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!!

  3. Hi Jerry,

    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
    Toronto, Canada

Leave a Reply