Multiple Discovery
We're looking into scientific topics we find interesting!
The hypothesis of simultaneous discovery opposes the heroic theory. Heroic theory is the view that the principal authors of inventions and scientific discoveries are unique heroic individuals—i.e., "great scientists" or "geniuses".
A hypothesis is an assumption made before any research has been done. It is formed so that it can be tested to see if it might be true. A theory is a principle formed to explain the things already shown in data. Because of the rigors of experiment and control, it is much more likely that a theory will be true than a hypothesis.
Currently, multiple discovery is considered a hypothesis, and heroic theory is considered, as the name suggests a theory.
There are countless examples of identical “breakthroughs” being made at nearly the same time by independent researchers working in isolation, unaware of the others existence.
In 1879 both swan (UK) and Edison(US) patented the light bulb unaware of the other.
In academic circles, multiple discovery, or simultaneous invention. not rare, it’s incredibly common. Nobel Prizes are announced each year and in physics, chemistry, and physiology/medicine — there are often at least two or even three laureates who have independently made the same discovery.
In 2025, physics, chemistry, and medicine all had three laureates each credited with contributing to an identified central discovery.
A reason why this happens so often is that problem solvers are attracted to the same big problems. They will usually build on previously established known concepts and knowledge to take the next logical steps.
For example, steel corrosion led to numerous researchers finding rust-resistant alloys. Mine explosions from lamp fires led to many inventors developing safety lamps.
Problem solvers use the same pool of available technologies, materials, and scientific principles, it makes sense that there’s a natural convergence (define convergence the act of moving toward one point or union) around similar solutions. The problem constraints and the available tools create a funnel leading independent thinkers to the same conclusions.
We are Standing on the shoulders of giants. Past work has built up a structure of knowns and we take the next logical steps to reach greater heights of understanding.
Some people feel this theory of multiple discovery, challenges the idea of individual genius. Maybe are simply vessels, the right people in the right place at the right time, scribes rather than authors.
Do you believe in universal truths? A cosmic consciousness we all collectively tap into and pull from? Does the scientific method always lead us to an inevitability? Are we getting downloads from aliens? Should multiple discovery be a theory rather than a hypothesis?
How can we solve the biggest problems of our time?
