[TeMPOraL]

That's the case with all scientific discoveries - pieces of prior work get accumulated, until it eventually becomes obvious[0] how they connect, at which point someone[1] connects the dots, making a discovery... and putting it on the table, for the cycle to repeat anew. This is, in a nutshell, the history of all scientific and technological progress. Accumulation of tiny increments.

--

[0] - To people who happen to have the right background and skill set, and are in the right place.

[1] - Almost always multiple someones, independently, within short time of each other. People usually remember only one or two because, for better or worse, history is much like patent law: first to file wins.

[famouswaffles]

Science often advances by accumulation, and it’s true that multiple people frequently converge on similar ideas once the surrounding toolkit exists. But “it becomes obvious” is doing a lot of work here, and the history around relativity (special and general) is a pretty good demonstration that it often doesn’t become obvious at all, even to very smart people with front-row seats.

Take Michelson in 1894: after doing (and inspiring) the kind of precision work that should have set off alarm bells, he’s still talking like the fundamentals are basically done and progress is just “sixth decimal place” refinement.

"While it is never safe to affirm that the future of Physical Science has no marvels in store even more astonishing than those of the past, it seems probable that most of the grand underlying principles have been firmly established and that further advances are to be sought chiefly in the rigorous application of these principles to all the phenomena which come under our notice. It is here that the science of measurement shows its importance — where quantitative work is more to be desired than qualitative work. An eminent physicist remarked that the future truths of physical science are to be looked for in the sixth place of decimals." - Michelson 1894

The Michelson-Morley experiments weren't obscure, they were famous, discussed widely, and their null result was well-known. Yet for nearly two decades, the greatest physicists of the era proposed increasingly baroque modifications to existing theory rather than question the foundational assumption of absolute time. These weren't failures of data availability or technical skill, they were failures of imagination constrained by what seemed obviously true about the nature of time itself.

Einstein's insight wasn't just "connecting dots" here, it was recognizing that a dot everyone thought was fixed (the absoluteness of simultaneity) could be moved, and that doing so made everything else fall into place.

People scorn the 'Great Man Hypothesis' so much they sometimes swing too much in the other direction. The 'multiple discovery' pattern you cite is real but often overstated. For Special Relativity, Poincaré came close, but didn't make the full conceptual break. Lorentz had the mathematics but retained the aether. The gap between 'almost there' and 'there' can be enormous when it requires abandoning what seems like common sense itself.

[mannykannot]

Sure - and climbing a mountain is just putting one foot down higher than it was before and repeating, once you abstract away all the hard parts.

[TeMPOraL]

It is. If you're at the mountain, on the right trail, and have the right clothing and equipment for the task.

That's why those tiny steps of scientific and technological progress aren't made by just any randos - they're made by people who happen to be at the right place and time, and equipped correctly to be able to take the step.

The important corollary to this is that you can't generally predict this ahead of time. Someone like Einstein was needed to nail down relativity, but standing there few years earlier, you couldn't have predicted it was Einstein who would make a breakthrough, nor what would that be about. Conversely, if Einstein lived 50 years earlier, he wouldn't have come up with relativity, because necessary prerequisites - knowledge, people, environment - weren't there yet.

[mannykannot]

You are describing hiking in the mountains, which doesn’t generalize to mountaineering and rock-climbing when it gets difficult, and the difficulties this view is abstracting away are real.

Your second and third paragraphs are entirely consistent with the original point I was trying to make, which was not that it took Einstein specifically to come up with relativity, but that it took someone with uncommon skills, as evidenced by the fact that it blindsided even a good many of the people who were qualified to be contenders for being the one to figure it out first. It does not amount to proof, but one does not expect people who are closing in on the solution to be blindsided by it.

I am well aware of the problems with “great man” hagiography, but dismissing individual contributions, which is what the person I was replying to seemed to be doing, is a distortion in its own way.