Simultaneity in the Scientific Enterprise

By Sarafoglou, Nikias; Kafatos, Menas et al. | Studies in Sociology of Science, September 1, 2012 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Simultaneity in the Scientific Enterprise

Sarafoglou, Nikias, Kafatos, Menas, Beall, James H., Studies in Sociology of Science

"We are inclined to think that, with respect to every great addition which has been made to the stock of human knowledge, the case has been similar: that without Copernicus we should have been Copernicans--that without Columbus America would have been discovered--that without Locke we should have possessed a just theory of the origin of human ideas."

--Lord Macaulay, 1880 (cited in Merton, 1961)


It is remarkable to note that ideas which advance the state of human scientific knowledge seem to not to be limited to one individual at a particular moment in history. Thus, Newton and Leibniz both invented the calculus, thought in stunningly different ways. Newton's method for the calculus, which is certainly understood today to be equivalent to Leibniz's, uses a geometric conception, while Leibniz's work is more purely analytical, albeit with geometric analogs. Neither man admitted the other's contribution as original.

This bears on one of the most important subjects in the sociology of knowledge, and one might add of our conception of history: the theory of "multiples". Merton (1973) comments on these phenomena, by noting that

   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.

Merton develops this "multiples' hypothesis" in his paper, opining that multiple discoveries are the most common pattern in science, and that unique discoveries are rarer. Zuckerman (1977) and Lamp and Easton (1984) have brought forward similar ideas on this theory of multiples, and the reader can certainly bring to mind other examples, including the works of Descartes and Bacon, who many consider the actual authors of modernity.

If we look at the history of the Nobel Prize in the sciences, a general useful indicator of the most important discoveries in science, we can find that the majority of the Nobel prizes are occasions where "multiples" have occurred: That is, there are similar threads of investigation which lead to independent discoveries of similar import. Cole (2004) suggests that "great men or women of science might speed the rate of intellectual advance, but they are not necessary for that advance." The question of priority would seem with this gloss to be one that is at least in some small part arbitrary.

There are certainly what should be called "single" discoveries in the Nobel Pantheon. For example, the winners of the Nobel in Physics 2010, which was awarded to two scientists from Manchester University working together to produce a new material named "graphene".

The concept of truly new ideas being brought forth has indeed been questioned. Stigler (1980)5 in characterizing his "law of eponymy," suggests that "science accepts ideas only when they fit into the then-current state of the science." But this is clearly not the case for radically new conceptions.

New conceptions actually seem to change the paradigm of scientific thought. In Kuhn's (1962) nowclassic work, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," Kuhn posits what might be called an Hegelian reformation of thought. It has not escaped our notice that supposing such a "revolution" does in fact have as one of its underlying assumptions a particular theory of history that is essentially Hegelian.

One can hypothesize different modes for the origination of genuinely new ideas. Following the classification system of Brannigan and Wanner (1983), the scientific discoveries can be classified into three types of models:

The genius models (de Sola Price, 1961)

The cultural maturation models or zeitgeist (Merton, 1973; Hegel, 1979)

The chance models (Simonton, 1979)

In the cultural maturation models, the evolution of research programs is more important than the input of individual workers.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Simultaneity in the Scientific Enterprise


Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?