Talk:Multiple discovery

Add Higgs (Englert, Brout, Higgs, Guralnik, Hagen, Kibble) Boson?
The wikipedia discussion of the Higgs Boson mentions the almost simultaneous proposal coming from three independent groups. Add this to the list? And also to the list at List of multiple discoveries? AdderUser (talk) 13:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * AdderUser, it was added to the "List of multiple discoveries", for the year 1964.
 * Thanks.
 * Nihil novi (talk) 06:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Add "Nulltiple Discovery"
Is it possible to add something about NULLTIPLE discoveries? See Serendipity, reference 11b: Sommer, Toby J. "Bahramdipity and Nulltiple Scientific Discoveries," Science and Engineering Ethics, 2001, 7(1), 77–104. There's a link to a free PDF download at the Serendipity entry: http://www.bmartin.cc/dissent/documents/Sommer.pdf

I suggest an amendment to the current article, maybe to something like:


 * "...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.[5] Merton contrasted a "multiple" with a "singleton"—a discovery that has been made uniquely by a single scientist or group of scientists working together.[6]


 * Sommer introduced the term "nulltiple" to describe a scientific discovery that is suppressed or blocked from publication or dissemination via normal scientific channels.[reference: Science and Engineering Ethics, 2001] Nulltiple discoveries are often made serendipitously as part an otherwise directed research program. 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 under historical rather than scientific circumstances.


 * Merton's hypothesis is also discussed extensively in Harriet Zuckerman's Scientific Elite.[7]…"

Just to explain the concept further, in "normal" research, different groups might be researching similar topics using their own favorite techniques. Something new is found (e.g., oxygen or ribozymes) because there are enough things common to the programs that they find the same answer and discover the same thing (a multiple). If one group is using specialized methods on a particular problem and no one else studying that problem is using those methods, a serendipitous "glitch" will only be discovered by that one group. The other groups researching that problem will get the "expected" incremental bit of knowledge and no one else will make the same serendipitous discovery, at least not for a long time. If the "glitch" is suppressed, it is a nulltiple. (A near example: The Albrecht 4+2 Cycloaddition mentioned in the paper. There are many others but they are unpublished!) AdderUser (talk) 05:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note, no secondary sources, and the phrase "There may be many others but they are unpublished!" This is nonsense. Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding the information about "nulltiples." Could you expand that contribution with the material in your last paragraph just above?  It would help clarify some of the actual mechanisms leading to nulltiples.  Indeed, I would encourage importing into "Multiple discovery" a generous sampling of instances described by Sommer.  Nihil novi (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You might even open a new section, "Nulltiples," following the "Multiples" section.
 * No, no, no. See below. Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * For that matter, it might be worth also considering an independent "Nulltiple" article…
 * Sure, at least then there will be a requirement of substantial sourcing to establish notability. Bonne chance. Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * …to showcase findings such as Sommer's. Nihil novi (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have moved the foregoing added content, to make it a footnote. This author is a minor organic chemist, writing in an engineering ethics journal, proposing new terminology related to original conceptual contributions to the philosophy of science. It is in a clear lessor journal (check impact factors), and more than that, by my estimation, a philosophical and historical hypothesis appearing in a journal unrelated to the Merton work. And, critically, I can find no significant stream of later articles citing Sommer, or using this term. Hence, it likely does not belong in the article at all. Until secondary sources are found, from important books and journals, establishing its notability, it should not be elevated above a footnote.   Our finding it, and finding it intriguing, does not make it of encyclopedic importance. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Quotations paragraph moved here
See relevant edit summary. Quotations must be associated with the title subject, by published experts, and not chosen by WP editors, expressing expertise in interpretation, associating the quotes, in violation of WP:OR. Here is the section. State the published authors that have quoted them in relation to the title subject, and integrate them into the text, not as a separate section.

Quotations
Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Relation to Kuhn, 1962?
The same idea is touched on in "The structure of scientific revolutions" - (Thomas S. Kuhn, 1962, University of Chicago Press Ltd): He does not (as far as I can tell) explicitly discuss multiple people discovering the same things. It is a broader discussion which questions the notion of individual discovery. Stuff about how the questions that seem pertinent are informed by the reigning paradigm, and so many people work on the same problem and discover similar things. Many of the examples used to evidence this theory are also discussed by Kuhn.

For example:
 * "To see how closely factual and theoretical novelty are intertwined in scientific discovery, examine a particularly famous example, the discovery of oxygen. At least three different men have a legitimate claim to it, and several other chemists must, in the early 1770's have had enriched air in a laboratory vessel without knowing it. The progress of normal science, in this case of pneumonic chemistry, prepared the way to a breakthrough quite thoroughly. The earliest of the claimants to prepare a relatively pure sample of the gas was the Swedish apothecary, C. W. Scheele. We may, however, ignore his work since it was not published until oxygen's discovery had repeatedly been announced elsewhere and thus had no effect upon the historical pattern that most concerns us here. The second time in time to establish a claim was the British scientist and divine, Joseph Priestley, who collected the gas released by heated red oxide of mercury as one item in a prolonged normal investigation of the "airs" evolved by a large number of solid substances. In 1774 he identified the gas thus produced as nitrous oxide and in 1775, led by further tests, as common air with less than its usual quantity of phlogiston. The third claimant, Lavoisier, started the work that led him to oxygen after Priestly's experiments of 1774 and possibly as a result of a hint from Priestly. Early in 1775 Lavoisier reported that the gas obtained by heating the red oxide of mercury was "air itself entire without alteration [except that]... it comes out more pure, more respirable." By 1777, probably with the assistance of a second hint from Priestley, Lavoisier had concluded that the gas was a distinct species, one of the two main constituents of the atmosphere, a conclusion that Priestley was never able to accept


 * This pattern of discovery raises a question that can be asked about every novel phenomenon that has ever entered the consciousness of scientists. Was it Priestley or Lavoisier, if either, who first discovered oxygen".

or:
 * "In recent years, however, a few historians of science have been finding it more and more difficult to fulfil the functions that the concept of development-by-accumulation assigns to them. As chroniclers of an incremental process, they discover that additional research makes it harder, not easier, to answer questions like: When was oxygen discovered?"

It would be great to have a discussion about how these ideas are related! Tomahawk Tasmania (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Wild anachronisms
The Thirty Years War is credited with being responsible for multiple discovery, by A. C. Grayling. We hear about "the heads of millions of dead", apparently from Grayling. Pythagoras and Babylonians were making a multiple discovery about right-angled triangles. This was before 1618. The ancient Egyptians were using calculus thousands of years before Newton or Leibnitz. A. C. Grayling and Nihil novi are trying to turn this article into an atheist sermon. There is already a box put up, complaining about a personal essay. It has been there since 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:4E9F:D101:9432:FFC:AAA9:84 (talk) 12:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Please provide sources, with quotations, concerning ancient Egyptians' use of calculus.
 * Nihil novi (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The "Multiple discovery" article's "Mechanism" section, which you have been deleting, does not claim that multiple discoveries first began appearing in the 17th century, with the Thirty Years' War (1618–1648). The quotation is: "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 world view..."
 * Please see "List of multiple discoveries", which provides pre-17th-century examples of multiple discoveries. That list also shows a substantially increased incidence of multiple discoveries beginning in the 17th century, as suggested by Grayling.
 * There is no "anachronism" in the "Multiple discovery" article.
 * Nihil novi (talk) 17:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The call for sources for Ancient Egyptian calculus makes me think that Nihil novi is not familiar with mathematics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7996:B900:BC68:9EA2:525D:4338 (talk) 15:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What makes you think that? When may we expect to see your evidence for Egyptians' use of calculus? Nihil novi (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Mathematical_Papyrus .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7996:B900:BC68:9EA2:525D:4338 (talk) 15:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting, but what's the connection with calculus? Nihil novi (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A.C.Grayling must think that modern science was caused by the millions killed by Ghengis Khan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7996:B900:BC68:9EA2:525D:4338 (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Nonsequitur. Nihil novi (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The Zulu leader Shaka also founded science, according to Grayling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7996:B900:BC68:9EA2:525D:4338 (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you provide documentation for that assertion? Nihil novi (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)