Favorite: This one is easy as heck, as no one comes even close to John Philoponus . This guy in the 6th century noted that:
"But this (the Aristotlean idea that time taken by a body to fall is inversely proportional to its mass) is completely erroneous, and our view may be corroborated by actual observation more effectively than by any sort of verbal argument. For if you let fall from the same height two weights of which one is many times as heavy as the other, you will see that the ratio of the times required for the motion does not depend on the ratio of the weights, but that the difference in time is a very small one. And so, if the difference in the weights is not considerable, that is, of one is, let us say, double the other, there will be no difference, or else an imperceptible difference, in time, though the difference in weight is by no means negligible, with one body weighing twice as much as the other."
Commentary on Aristotle's Physics, pp. 678.24 - 684.10 (http://homepages.wmich.edu/~mcgrew/philfall.htm)
Literally a thousand years before Galileo was a thing. Now he had a lot of wrong ideas for sure (theory of impetus and all that jazz), and was functionally a miaphysite (not always a good thing for anyone living under the rule of Constantinople), and so it is possible that his ideas would have never been particularly popular anyways. And considering the whole clusterfuck in the Near East that started in the mid sixth century and continued on, it is unsurprising that his ideas did not become well known until much much later. I do not subscribe to "ancient wisdom"/library of Alexandria BS, but the romantic in me does view him as a huge missed opportunity. If only the situation had allowed for it (i.e. no plague of Justinian and consequent butterflying of the remainder of the seventh century wars), we might have made significant earlier progress in science that would have led to a much more interesting world by 2017.
Not so favorite: This is a hard one, passing judgement on historical figures is not something I am comfortable with-especially since I can't claim to know everything about them. Leopold of Belgium seems a convenient option, as do the Conquistadors. I'll however go down another route and choose Peter Sabbatius Justinian. I can rant about his political decisions for a long time, and so will desist. He offers an excellent contrast with Philoponus at any rate, being the person who shut down the Neo-platonic Academy of Athens.
If I may ask, why Constantine Palaiologos? Not exactly a standard choice... .
"But this (the Aristotlean idea that time taken by a body to fall is inversely proportional to its mass) is completely erroneous, and our view may be corroborated by actual observation more effectively than by any sort of verbal argument. For if you let fall from the same height two weights of which one is many times as heavy as the other, you will see that the ratio of the times required for the motion does not depend on the ratio of the weights, but that the difference in time is a very small one. And so, if the difference in the weights is not considerable, that is, of one is, let us say, double the other, there will be no difference, or else an imperceptible difference, in time, though the difference in weight is by no means negligible, with one body weighing twice as much as the other."
Commentary on Aristotle's Physics, pp. 678.24 - 684.10 (http://homepages.wmich.edu/~mcgrew/philfall.htm)
Literally a thousand years before Galileo was a thing. Now he had a lot of wrong ideas for sure (theory of impetus and all that jazz), and was functionally a miaphysite (not always a good thing for anyone living under the rule of Constantinople), and so it is possible that his ideas would have never been particularly popular anyways. And considering the whole clusterfuck in the Near East that started in the mid sixth century and continued on, it is unsurprising that his ideas did not become well known until much much later. I do not subscribe to "ancient wisdom"/library of Alexandria BS, but the romantic in me does view him as a huge missed opportunity. If only the situation had allowed for it (i.e. no plague of Justinian and consequent butterflying of the remainder of the seventh century wars), we might have made significant earlier progress in science that would have led to a much more interesting world by 2017.
Not so favorite: This is a hard one, passing judgement on historical figures is not something I am comfortable with-especially since I can't claim to know everything about them. Leopold of Belgium seems a convenient option, as do the Conquistadors. I'll however go down another route and choose Peter Sabbatius Justinian. I can rant about his political decisions for a long time, and so will desist. He offers an excellent contrast with Philoponus at any rate, being the person who shut down the Neo-platonic Academy of Athens.
Dislikes ummm Cicero with a vengeance, Henry II, Henry VIII, Constantine XI
If I may ask, why Constantine Palaiologos? Not exactly a standard choice... .