Re: philosophy of discovery
Chris Cogan (ccogan@sfo.com)
Fri, 24 Sep 1999 23:13:25 -0700> >Biochmborg@aol.com wrote:
> >
> >>Unless you try to argue that Wexler was the only person who could have
made
> >>this discovery, you will simply obscure the discussion all the more with
> >>this
> >>irrelevancy.
>
> Cliff Lundberg:
> >I wonder how many important discoveries can be attributed to one
individual.
> >I mean, what are some cases where an individual's discovery really was a
> >leap, where it wasn't something that was in the air, that was going to be
> >discovered by someone, given the prevailing state of the science? In
> >modern times, this must be very rare.
>
Susan
> rare indeed. Even evolution and the relatedness of species was "in the
air"
> in Darwin's time. Otherwise I have a feeling he would have waited to
> publish until after his death. I've always thought that may have been what
> he was trying to do, and only published because of Wallace's work.
Chris
It may be that *accidental* leaps, like the discovery of vulcanization of
rubber, are more commonly discovered solitarily, because they depend on
things that the "air" of the times would not tend to encourage people to do
deliberately.