View source for History:Multiple discovery

{{short description|Hypothesis about scientific discoveries and inventions}}
The concept of '''multiple discovery''' (also known as '''simultaneous invention''')<ref>{{cite web | author = Griswold, Martin | date = 2012-11-25 | title = Are Inventions Inevitable? Simultaneous Invention and the Incremental Nature of Discovery | format = self-published blog | work = The Long Nose: Technology and the Economy | url = https://mgriz.wordpress.com/2012/11/25/are-inventions-inevitable-simultaneous-invention-and-the-incremental-nature-of-discovery/ | access-date = 17 April 2016 }}</ref>{{self-published inline | certain = yes|date=April 2016}} is the hypothesis that most scientific discoveries and inventions are made independently and more or less simultaneously by multiple scientists and inventors.<ref name=LambEaston84>{{cite book |first1=David |last1=Lamb |first2=S. M. |last2=Easton |title=Multiple Discovery: The Pattern of Scientific Progress | chapter = Originality in art and science [chap. 9] | location= Amersham  |publisher=Avebury Publishing |year=1984 |isbn=978-0861270255 }} {{full citation needed|date=April 2016}}</ref>{{page needed|date=April 2016}} The concept of multiple discovery opposes a traditional view—the [[History:Heroic theory of invention and scientific development|"heroic theory" of invention and discovery]].{{citation needed lead|date=April 2016}}  Multiple discovery is analogous to [[Biology:Convergent evolution|convergent evolution]] in biological evolution.{{says who|date = November 2023}}{{dubious|date = November 2023}}{{clarify|date=May 2021}}

==Multiples==
When Nobel laureates are announced annually—especially in physics, chemistry, physiology, medicine, and economics—increasingly, in the given field, rather than just a single laureate, there are two, or the maximally permissible three, who often have independently made the same discovery.{{according to whom|date=April 2016}}{{citation needed|date=April 2016}}
<!-- WP:NFCC violation: [[File:Robert K Merton.jpg|thumb|Robert K. Merton]] -->
Historians and sociologists have remarked the occurrence, in [[Science|science]], of "multiple independent discovery". [[Biography:Robert K. Merton|Robert K. Merton]] defined such "multiples" as instances in which similar [[Philosophy:Discovery (observation)|discoveries]] are made by scientists working independently of each other.<ref>{{cite book |first=Robert K. |last=Merton |title=Resistance to the Systematic Study of Multiple Discoveries in Science |journal=European Journal of Sociology |volume=4 |issue=2 |pages=237–282 |year=1963 |doi=10.1017/S0003975600000801 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=eprv7hMdO-IC&q=multiples&pg=PA305 |isbn=9780226520704 |s2cid=145650007 }} Reprinted in [[Biography:Robert K. Merton|Merton, Robert K.]], ''The Sociology of Science,'' op. cit., pp. 371–382.</ref><ref name=MertonSociology73>{{cite book | author = Merton, Robert K. | year = 1973 | title = The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations | url = https://archive.org/details/sociologyofscien0000mert | url-access = registration | place = Chicago, IL, USA | publisher = The University of Chicago Press | isbn = 9780226520919 | author-link = Robert K. Merton }} {{full citation needed|date=April 2016}}</ref> Merton contrasted a "multiple" with a "singleton"—a discovery that has been made uniquely by a single scientist or group of scientists working together.<ref name=MertonSocStruct96>{{cite book | author = Merton, Robert K. | year = 1996 | editor = Sztompka, Piotr | title = On Social Structure and Science | place = Chicago, IL, USA | publisher = The University of Chicago Press | page = 307 | author-link = Robert K. Merton }} {{full citation needed|date=April 2016}}</ref> As Merton said, "Sometimes the discoveries are simultaneous or almost so; sometimes a scientist will make a new discovery which, unknown to him, somebody else has made years before."<ref name = MertonSociology73/>{{page needed|date=April 2016}}<ref>Sommer has introduced the term "nulltiple" to describe a scientific discovery that is suppressed or blocked from publication or dissemination via normal scientific channels, see {{cite journal |first=Toby J. |last=Sommer |title=Bahramdipity and Nulltiple Scientific Discoveries |journal=Science and Engineering Ethics |year=2001 |volume=7 |issue=1 |pages=77–104 |url=http://www.bmartin.cc/dissent/documents/Sommer.pdf |doi=10.1007/s11948-001-0025-7|pmid=11214387 |s2cid=23807206 }}. Per Sommer, nulltiple discoveries are often made serendipitously as part of an otherwise directed research program.{{verification needed|date=April 2016}} As such, they are less likely to be re-discovered by others as is the case with many multiples. Sometimes nulltiples do eventually come to light, but often within circumstances of historical research rather than as a primary scientific disclosure.{{verification needed|date=April 2016}}</ref>

Commonly cited examples of multiple independent discovery are the 17th-century independent formulation of [[Calculus|calculus]] by [[Biography:Isaac Newton|Isaac Newton]], [[Biography:Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz|Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz]] and others, described by A. Rupert Hall;<ref>{{cite book |first=A. Rupert |last=Hall |title=Philosophers at War: The Quarrel between Newton and Leibniz |location=New York, NY |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=1980 |isbn=978-0521227322 }} {{full citation needed|date=April 2016}}</ref>{{page needed|date=April 2016}} the 18th-century discovery of [[Chemistry:Oxygen|oxygen]] by [[Biography:Carl Wilhelm Scheele|Carl Wilhelm Scheele]], [[Biography:Joseph Priestley|Joseph Priestley]], [[Biography:Antoine Lavoisier|Antoine Lavoisier]] and others;{{citation needed|date=April 2016}} and the theory of evolution of [[Biology:Species|species]], independently advanced in the 19th century by [[Biography:Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin]] and [[Biography:Alfred Russel Wallace|Alfred Russel Wallace]].<ref name = Reeve09>{{cite book | author = Reeve, Tori | year = 2009 | title = Down House: the Home of Charles Darwin | location = London, ENG | publisher = English Heritage | pages = 40–41}}</ref>{{better source needed|date=April 2016}}{{better source needed|date=April 2016}} What holds for discoveries, also goes for [[Invention|invention]]s.{{according to whom|date=April 2016}}{{citation needed|date=April 2016}} Examples are the [[Engineering:Blast furnace|blast furnace]] (invented independently in China, Europe and Africa),{{citation needed|date=April 2016}} the [[Engineering:Crossbow|crossbow]] (invented independently in China, Greece, Africa, northern Canada, and the Baltic countries),{{citation needed|date=April 2016}} and [[Physics:Magnetism|magnetism]] (discovered independently in Greece, China, and India).{{citation needed|date=April 2016}}

Multiple independent discovery, however, is not limited to only a few historic instances involving giants of scientific research. Merton believed that it is multiple discoveries, rather than unique ones, that represent the ''common'' pattern in science.<ref>Merton, Robert K., "Singletons and Multiples in Scientific Discovery: a Chapter in the Sociology of Science", ''Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society'', 105: 470–86, 1961. Reprinted in [[Biography:Robert K. Merton|Merton, Robert K.]], ''The Sociology of Science,'' op. cit., pp. 343–70.</ref>

==Mechanism==
Multiple discoveries in the history of science provide evidence for [[Biology:Evolution|evolution]]ary models of science and technology, such as [[Philosophy:Memetics|memetics]] (the study of self-replicating units of culture), [[Philosophy:Evolutionary epistemology|evolutionary epistemology]] (which applies the concepts of biological evolution to study of the growth of human knowledge), and [[Social:Cultural selection theory|cultural selection theory]] (which studies sociological and cultural evolution in a Darwinian manner).{{citation needed|date=April 2016}}

A [[Biology:Recombinant DNA|recombinant-DNA]]-inspired "[[Philosophy:Paradigm|paradigm]] of paradigms" has been posited, that describes a mechanism of "recombinant conceptualization".<ref name = Kasparek94>{{cite journal | author =  Kasparek, Christopher | year = 1994 | title = Prus' ''Pharaoh'': the Creation of a Historical Novel | format = article |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/25778765 | journal = The Polish Review | volume = 39 | issue = 1 | pages = 45–50 | jstor = 25778765 | author-link = Christopher Kasparek }}</ref> This paradigm predicates that a new [[Philosophy:Concept|concept]] arises through the crossing of pre-existing concepts and [[Philosophy:Fact|fact]]s.<ref name=Kasparek94/><ref>An example of a concept arising via the crossing of previously unrelated concepts may be epidemiologist Rob Wallace's conclusion, from studying concepts in [[History:History|history]], sociology, and [[Finance:Political economy|political economy]], that "The social sciences are utterly critical to understand[ing] how things [such as zoonotic [[Biology:Virus|virus]]es, e.g. the virus causing the COVID–19 pandemic] evolve at the molecular level." Eamon Whalen, "The Man Who Saw It Coming: Rob Wallace warned us that industrial agriculture could cause a deadly [[Finance:Pandemic|pandemic]], but no one listened. Until now." (article on Rob Wallace and his books, ''Big Farms Make Big Flu: Dispatches on Influenza, Agribusiness, and the Nature of Science'' and ''Dead Epidemiologists: On the Origins of COVID-19''), ''The Nation'', vol. 313, no. 5 (September 6/13, 2021), pp. 14–19. (p. 17.)</ref> This is what is meant when one says that a scientist or artist has been "influenced by" another—[[Social:Etymology|etymologically]], that a concept of the latter's has "flowed into" the mind of the former.<ref name=Kasparek94/>  Not every new concept so formed will be viable: adapting [[Social:Social Darwinism|social Darwinist]] [[Biography:Herbert Spencer|Herbert Spencer]]'s phrase, only the fittest concepts survive.<ref name=Kasparek94/>

Multiple independent discovery and invention, like discovery and invention generally, have been fostered by the evolution of means of [[Biology:Communication|communication]]: roads, vehicles, [[Engineering:Sailing ship|sailing vessel]]s, [[Social:Writing|writing]], printing, institutions of education, reliable postal services,<ref name="Soul Machine 2016 p. 68">[[Biography:Colin McGinn|Colin McGinn]], "Groping Toward the Mind" (review of George Makari, ''Soul Machine:  The Invention of the Modern Mind'', Norton, 656 pp.; and A.C. Grayling, ''The Age of Genius:  The Seventeenth Century and the Birth of the Modern Mind'', Bloomsbury, 351 pp.), ''The New York Review of Books'', vol. LXIII, no. 11 (June 23, 2016), p. 68.</ref> telegraphy, and [[Social:Mass media|mass media]], including the [[Internet|internet]].{{according to whom|date=April 2016}}{{citation needed|date=April 2016}}  Gutenberg's invention of printing (which itself involved a number of discrete inventions) substantially facilitated the transition from the [[History:Middle Ages|Middle Ages]] to [[History:Modern history|modern times]].{{citation needed|date=April 2016}} All these communication developments have catalyzed and accelerated the process of recombinant conceptualization,{{clarify|date=April 2016}} and thus also of multiple independent discovery.{{citation needed|date=April 2016}}

[[List of multiple discoveries|Multiple independent discoveries]] show an increased incidence beginning in the 17th century.  This may accord with the thesis of British philosopher A.C. Grayling that the 17th century was crucial in the creation of the modern  [[Philosophy:World view|world view]], freed from the shackles of religion, the occult, and uncritical faith in the authority of [[Biography:Aristotle|Aristotle]].  Grayling speculates that Europe's Thirty Years' War (1618–1648), with the concomitant breakdown of authority, made freedom of thought and open debate possible, so that "modern science... rests on the heads of millions of dead."  He also notes "the importance of the development of a reliable postal service... in enabling savants... to be in scholarly communication.... [T]he cooperative approach, first recommended by [[Biography:Francis Bacon|Francis Bacon]], was essential to making science open to peer review and public verification, and not just a matter of the lone [individual] issuing... idiosyncratic pronouncements."<ref name="Soul Machine 2016 p. 68"/>

==Humanities==
The [[Philosophy:Paradigm|paradigm]] of recombinant conceptualization (see above)—more broadly, of recombinant occurrences—that explains multiple discovery in science and the arts, also elucidates the phenomenon of [[Social:Historic recurrence|historic recurrence]], wherein similar events are noted in the [[History:History|histories]] of countries widely separated in time and geography. It is the recurrence of [[Philosophy:Pattern|pattern]]s that lends a degree of [[Prediction|prognostic]] power—and, thus, additional scientific validity—to the findings of [[History:History|history]].<ref name = Trompf79>{{cite book | author = Trompf, G.W. | year = 1979 | title = The Idea of Historical Recurrence in Western Thought, from Antiquity to the Reformation | url = https://archive.org/details/ideaofhistorical0000trom | url-access = registration | location = Berkeley, CA, USA | publisher = University of California Press | isbn = 978-0520034792 }}{{full citation needed|date=April 2016}}</ref>{{page needed|date=April 2016}}

==The arts==
Lamb and Easton, and others, have argued that science and [[Art|art]] are similar with regard to multiple discovery.<ref name=LambEaston84/>{{page needed|date=April 2016}}<ref name = Kasparek94/> When two scientists independently make the same discovery, their papers are not word-for-word identical, but the core ideas in the papers are the same; likewise, two novelists may independently write novels with the same core themes, though their novels are not identical word-for-word.<ref name=LambEaston84/>{{page needed|date=April 2016}}

==Civility==

After [[Biography:Isaac Newton|Isaac Newton]] and [[Biography:Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz|Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz]] had exchanged information on their respective systems of [[Calculus|calculus]] in the 1670s, Newton in the first edition of his ''[[Physics:Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica|Principia]]'' (1687), in a ''scholium'', apparently accepted Leibniz's independent discovery of calculus.  In 1699, however, a Swiss mathematician suggested to Britain's Royal Society that Leibniz had borrowed his calculus from Newton.  In 1705 Leibniz, in an anonymous review of Newton's ''[[Physics:Opticks|Opticks]]'', implied that Newton's ''fluxions'' (Newton's term for [[Differential calculus|differential calculus]]) were an adaptation of Leibniz's calculus.  In 1712 the Royal Society appointed a committee to examine the documents in question; the same year, the Society published a report, written by Newton himself, asserting his priority.  Soon after Leibniz died in 1716, Newton denied that his own 1687 ''Principia'' scholium "allowed [Leibniz] the invention of the ''calculus differentialis'' independently of my own"; and the third edition of Newton's ''Principia'' (1726) omitted the tell-tale scholium.  It is now accepted that Newton and Leibniz discovered calculus independently of each other.<ref>{{cite book |author1=[[Biography:Will Durant|Durant, Will]] |author2=Durant, Ariel | year = 1963 | title = The Age of Louis XIV: A History of European Civilization in the Period of Pascal, Molière, Cromwell, Milton, Peter the Great, Newton, and Spinoza, 1648-1715 | url = https://archive.org/details/ageoflouisxivhis00dura| url-access = registration| series = The Story of Civilization: Part VIII | location = New York, NY | publisher = Simon and Schuster | pages = [https://archive.org/details/ageoflouisxivhis00dura/page/532 532–34] }}</ref>

In another classic case of multiple discovery, the two discoverers showed more civility.  By June 1858 [[Biography:Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin]] had completed over two-thirds of his ''On the Origin of Species'' when he received a startling letter from a naturalist, [[Biography:Alfred Russel Wallace|Alfred Russel Wallace]], 13 years his junior, with whom he had corresponded.  The letter summarized Wallace's theory of natural selection, with conclusions identical to Darwin's own.  Darwin turned for advice to his friend Charles Lyell, the foremost geologist of the day.  Lyell proposed that Darwin and Wallace prepare a joint communication to the scientific community.  Darwin being preoccupied with his mortally ill youngest son, Lyell enlisted Darwin's closest friend, [[Biography:Joseph Dalton Hooker|Joseph Hooker]], director of [[Organization:Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew|Kew Gardens]], and together on 1 July 1858 they presented to the Linnean Society a joint paper that brought together Wallace's abstract with extracts from Darwin's earlier, 1844 essay on the subject.  The paper was also published that year in the Society's journal.  Neither the public reading of the joint paper nor its publication attracted interest; but Wallace, "admirably free from envy or jealousy," had been content to remain in Darwin's shadow.<ref name = Reeve09/>{{better source needed|date=April 2016}}

==See also==
{{div col|colwidth=22em}}
* [[Philosophy:Axial Age|Axial Age]]
* [[Philosophy:Coincidence|Coincidence]]
* [[Biology:Convergent evolution|Convergent evolution]]
* [[Philosophy:Discovery (observation)|Discovery (observation)]]
* Great minds think alike
* [[Social:Historic recurrence|Historic recurrence]]
* [[History:History of science|History of science]]
* [[Unsolved:Hundredth monkey effect|Hundredth monkey effect]]
* [[Invention]]
* [[List of multiple discoveries]]
* Logology (science of science)
* Matilda effect
* Matthew effect
* Opposing theories of discovery and invention:
**[[History:Great man theory|Great man theory]]
**[[History:Heroic theory of invention and scientific development|Heroic theory of invention and scientific development]]
* Reinventing the wheel
* [[Scientific priority]]
* [[Serendipity]]
* [[Stigler's law of eponymy]]
* [[Philosophy:Synchronicity|Synchronicity]]
* [[Engineering:Twin films|Twin films]]
* [[Philosophy:Zeitgeist|Zeitgeist]]
{{div col end}}

==References and notes==
{{Reflist|30em}}

==Further reading==
* Kasparek, Christopher, "Prus' ''Pharaoh'':  the Creation of a Historical Novel", ''The Polish Review'', vol. XXXIX, no. 1, 1994, pp.&nbsp;45–50.
* Lamb, David, and S.M. Easton, chapter 9:  Originality in art and science, ''Multiple Discovery: The Pattern of Scientific Progress'', Amersham, Avebury Publishing, 1984, {{ISBN|0861270258}}.   
* [[Biography:Colin McGinn|Colin McGinn]], "Groping Toward the Mind" (review of George Makari, ''Soul Machine:  The Invention of the Modern Mind'', Norton, 656 pp., $39.95; and A.C. Grayling, ''The Age of Genius:  The Seventeenth Century and the Birth of the Modern Mind'', Bloomsbury, 351 pp., $30.00), ''The New York Review of Books'', vol. LXIII, no. 11 (June 23, 2016), pp.&nbsp;67–68.
* {{cite book | author = Merton, Robert K. | year = 1996 | editor = Sztompka, Piotr | title = On Social Structure and Science | place = Chicago, IL, USA | publisher = The University of Chicago Press | isbn = 978-0-226-52070-4 | }}
* {{cite book | author = Merton, Robert K. | year = 1973 | title = The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations | url = https://archive.org/details/sociologyofscien0000mert | url-access = registration | place = Chicago, IL, USA | publisher = The University of Chicago Press | isbn = 9780226520919 | }}
* Whalen, Eamon, "The Man Who Saw It Coming: Rob Wallace warned us that industrial agriculture could cause a deadly [[Finance:Pandemic|pandemic]], but no one listened. Until now." (article on Rob Wallace and his books, ''Big Farms Make Big Flu: Dispatches on Influenza, Agribusiness, and the Nature of Science'' and ''Dead Epidemiologists: On the Origins of COVID-19''), ''The Nation'', vol. 313, no. 5 (September 6/13, 2021), pp.&nbsp;14–19.
* {{cite book | author = Zuckerman, Harriet | year = 1977 | title = Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States | url = https://archive.org/details/scientificeliten00zuck | url-access = registration | location =  New York, NY | publisher = The Free Press | isbn = 9780029357606 | }}

==External links==
* [http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/05/12/080512fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=1 "Annals of Innovation: In the Air: Who says big ideas are rare?"], Malcolm Gladwell, ''The New Yorker'', May 12, 2008
* [http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/05/simultaneous_in.php The Technium: Simultaneous Invention], Kevin Kelly, May 9, 2008
* {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080512050604/http://apperceptual.wordpress.com/2007/01/15/the-heroic-theory-of-scientific-development/ |date=May 12, 2008 |title=Apperceptual: The Heroic Theory of Scientific Development }}, Peter Turney, January 15, 2007

{{DEFAULTSORT:Multiple Discovery}}
[[Category:History of scientific method]]
[[Category:Theories of history]]

{{Sourceattribution|Multiple discovery}}