Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Balto/Togo theory of scientific development

acesounderglass.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 37 posts

Re: The Balto/Togo theory of scientific development

#2

Post by ZeroGravitas »

Cool name for the concept, and I think making it about dogs helps take the political angle out of it.

I think of this in terms of the 'great man' theory of history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_man_theory

And feel that it's obvious that science works the same way, and we should focus on the "science from below" a lot more than we do.

Charles Fort talked about "Steam Engine Time" and it gets referenced in Discworld:

https://fancyclopedia.org/Steam_Engine_Time_(concept)

There's similarly the book that talks about all the 'genius' people that Einstien was surrounded by who we don't generally hear about, but I can't recall the name right now.

There's the concept of 'scenius':

https://www.wired.com/2008/06/scenius-or-comm/

And in music/art there's the concept of "The Secret to Creativity Is Knowing How to Hide Your Sources" which (appositely) is often mis-credited to Einstien.

Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigler%27s_law_of_eponymy

Basically, I don't think you can look seriously into anything and come away with thinking that one individual did it all themselves unless you are very prone to that conclusion. And it seems human's generally are prone to that bias.

Re: The Balto/Togo theory of scientific development

#4

Post by qikInNdOutReply »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #2

Cool name for the concept, and I think making it about dogs helps take the political angle out of it. I think of this in terms of the 'great man' theory of history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_man_theory And feel that it's obvious that science works the same way, and we should focus on the "science from below" a lot more than we do. Charles Fort talked about "Steam Engine Time" and it gets referenced in Discw…

Im oppossed to the great man theory. In my mind the better analog is a damn across a river. Knowledge piles up, that goes unexplained, the pressure on the explenation rises, strange "subvertive" theories gain traction bypassing the dogma, but still deformed by the shape of the dogma. Finally one break through is made and the whole of knowledge tears through the old dogma, taking material with it for the next "hold-up".

Inkremental research flourishes again, exploring every nook and crevice of the newly discovered basin.

How to get the personal that does the final break through? Hire exotic characters who are uninfluenced by societys dogmatic powers. Heretics, Insane Prophets and Grifters, force them to be days filled with the material, so it fills the subconcious. Finally add some dogmatic priests to the mix, stand clear of the explosion.

Re: The Balto/Togo theory of scientific development

#6

Post by c7b »

> I was pretty sure Alfred Wegener (...) is a Balto.

> Jasen would go so far as to argue that [some difficult achievements] makes [Wegener] the Togo

The more apt conclusion from the article is probably that the Balto/Togo theory simply isn't as good a model for the scientific discovery process as the author was hoping.

Re: The Balto/Togo theory of scientific development

#9

Post by bulatb »

I've been thinking about something similar. Maybe somebody can shoot it down.

For many achievements, most credit belongs to the role, not the person. In other words, the counterfactual of "if we didn't all agree that somebody will do this" would better prevent the achievement than "if one specific person didn't have their talent." We have phrases like "the time is ripe" because we know this. When conditions are in place, things happen.

The person in the role is who society has given the permission and the means to do the thing, whose doing of the thing is accepted and even expected, so it's mostly unremarkable when that specific person is the one who does it. That's who we supported in getting it done.

No one is surprised when every major fire was put out by firefighters, every touchdown pass was thrown by the quarterback, or every US law was passed by Congress and signed by the President.

Maybe Alice is uniquely qualified to be the president, and President Bob is a stooge. He's still the one to sign the law, though, and the law still gets signed. No amount of merit Alice has can change this. Society has still arranged itself to have a person in this role and Bob is just the person.

The arrangement (and the unavoidable path-dependence of history) is what magnifies the tiny contribution of the individual's abilities and makes them seem so necessary to the outcome. Given the prerequisites we've hidden in the role are met, the individual is all that's left.

Newton was a genius who invented calculus—but so did Leibniz. Einstein was a genius who invented relativity, but arguably so did others whose work we lump in with his; it makes a better story. They all had social institutions to support them achieving whatever they could. Their ability to get it done provided that support was clearly not unique.

It's more important that the roles to do the work have people in them, the conditions are in place for someone to do it, than exactly who is in which role.

Post reply on HN