With the exception of a handful of famous historic events that happen once every few centuries, this is literally and demonstrably NOT how science progresses.
🇳🇱
@deonandan every si gle new idea starts with a si gle scientist being right, at least before the idea spreads (which may hapoen very rapidly)... so id say not only is this accurate but it is true for virtually every step along the way.
@freemo Respectfully, I think this is the Hollywood view of the history of science. Especially in the past 200 years, almost all science advancement has been small groups of people asking questions of the dominant paradigm, collecting data, then reaching consensus with larger groups of people. Rarely does it start with someone "being right." It starts with asking questions about weak points in the dominant paradigm. In other words, it starts with uncertainty, not certainty.
@deonandan I think it is fundemntally impossible for it to be any other way.. yes small groups of people usually do work on innovations, but each leap is not a single step but many smaller steps along the way. Each and every one of those steps start with an idea and a breakthrough from one person in the group, at first they are the only one who knows it (before sharing witht he group) and thus at a fundemental level every advancement, every step, starts with one scientist.
the difference is in a group setting with lots of scientists the steps are smaller and all the scientists are participating by contributing those steps.. but they are still, iun the end, singular realizations.
@deonandan By the way I am speaking partly from my expiernce spending a lifetime in R&D and having invented quite a few small breakthroughs myself throughout the years.
@freemo Oh I don't doubt it. I checked out your profile :)