(1) geniuses exist—individuals with statistically rare brains and knowledge bases able to make advances
(2) for major historical inventions there could have been many geniuses making the realization around the same time and the one we credit in the history books was just a little faster/better at self promotion.
I think 1 and 2 are both true. That lasting innovations come from technology bases becoming robust and broadly available, enabling the next advance. That while not everyone is a genius 1 in 100 at least could be, and the world therefore has millions who could fill the role.
That if you sent assassins back in time to kill key innovators you would delay things only a little, from weeks to a few years depending.
Commented above but relevant here: one thing to consider—there is some added value in getting discoveries sooner (e.g. something with medical implications, like PCR). I also wonder about the contingency/path-dependence of science/tech on large scales—if it had been discovered at another time by another person would science (and history) have followed the same path?
On a broader level, I wonder how science/tech contingency interacts with the contingency of culture and history as these set what people value and care about in the first place, in turn affecting what people study/build. I think about how the history of science and biology would be different over the last 150 years if we only had Wallace and not Darwin. Wallace was not nearly as respected as Darwin, didn’t have nearly as much evidence behind as theory, and had a more theological framing on Natural Selection. I wonder how what what the ripple effects would be today if we only had Wallace and not Darwin
Well, the hypothesis above says if you assassinate Darwin then someone else will make a similar discovery. The Voyage of the Beagle gave Darwin the information needed to reach this hypothesis. Other people alive then knew the same facts and were about as intelligent, therefore someone else would have advanced the theory.
That the underlying technology and infrastructure that allowed for a 5 year scientific voyage made this conclusion possible.
Maybe it would have taken until the introduction of cameras but the important thing is that evolution is a force you can see in the data. It’s as “real” as an electron is.
Two things can be true at the same time:
(1) geniuses exist—individuals with statistically rare brains and knowledge bases able to make advances
(2) for major historical inventions there could have been many geniuses making the realization around the same time and the one we credit in the history books was just a little faster/better at self promotion.
I think 1 and 2 are both true. That lasting innovations come from technology bases becoming robust and broadly available, enabling the next advance. That while not everyone is a genius 1 in 100 at least could be, and the world therefore has millions who could fill the role.
That if you sent assassins back in time to kill key innovators you would delay things only a little, from weeks to a few years depending.
Commented above but relevant here: one thing to consider—there is some added value in getting discoveries sooner (e.g. something with medical implications, like PCR). I also wonder about the contingency/path-dependence of science/tech on large scales—if it had been discovered at another time by another person would science (and history) have followed the same path?
On a broader level, I wonder how science/tech contingency interacts with the contingency of culture and history as these set what people value and care about in the first place, in turn affecting what people study/build. I think about how the history of science and biology would be different over the last 150 years if we only had Wallace and not Darwin. Wallace was not nearly as respected as Darwin, didn’t have nearly as much evidence behind as theory, and had a more theological framing on Natural Selection. I wonder how what what the ripple effects would be today if we only had Wallace and not Darwin
Reply
Well, the hypothesis above says if you assassinate Darwin then someone else will make a similar discovery. The Voyage of the Beagle gave Darwin the information needed to reach this hypothesis. Other people alive then knew the same facts and were about as intelligent, therefore someone else would have advanced the theory.
That the underlying technology and infrastructure that allowed for a 5 year scientific voyage made this conclusion possible.
Maybe it would have taken until the introduction of cameras but the important thing is that evolution is a force you can see in the data. It’s as “real” as an electron is.