I would just add that there were no "scientists" in the Renaissance. The
word "scientist" and our idea of what it means is a product of the last
century.  To say he's overrated because he didn't publish is a trifle
harsh, IMHO.  He certainly intended to.  If you read his writings, you'll
find him constantly referring "the reader" that he intended his writings
for.

I would agree that he was no scientist in the same way that Galileo was.
However, I think it would as foolish to leave him out of the history of
science  as would be to leave out any of the Classical philosophers or
other non-"scientists" who have shaped the way we see the world.

Cheers,
Ed

P.S. My vote's with Eric on this. Name one other
painter/sculptor/engineer/inventor/anatomist/philosopher/musician who's had
as much impact on Western society.

>  Eric Seagel has commented that Leonardo di Vinci is "exceptionalism
>personified"; I would strongly argue that he is history's most overrated
>person.

___________________________________________________________
Edward Rodley            email:            [log in to unmask]
Exhibit Planner                           [log in to unmask]
Museum of Science,       URL:    www.tiac.net/users/erodley
Boston, MA

  Opinions expressed are the author's alone (thankfully)
___________________________________________________________