Skip to main content

Coincidences in Science

 



Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz both invented the application of mathematics known as calculus. When I say they both did, I don’t mean to imply they worked on it together. They both independently invented calculus. Newton began working on calculus in 1666 but didn’t publish anything about it until 1693. Leibniz began working on it in 1674 but didn’t publish anything about it until 1684. Most people today believe that the two men developed their ideas separately.

Charles Darwin had been working on his theory of evolution for years. He developed the theory in the 1830s but knew it would be controversial so he didn’t tell anyone about it and continued to gather evidence to support his theory. In 1858 Alfred Russell Wallace, an acquaintance of Darwin, sent Darwin a letter outlining a theory of evolution that Russell had come up with. Darwin was shocked. Reportedly some passages were almost word for word the same as Darwin’s. The two men had come up with the same idea.

The reason these things happen are because scientific hypotheses are based on previous knowledge and the latest methods. As methods and equipment evolve and data increases, all scientists who have access to that data could reasonably come to a similar conclusion. Indeed, Newton and Leibniz built on the work of Kepler, Descartes, Pascal, and many others.

Priority is an important concept in science. Priority means: who thought of it first? Who gets the credit? There can be controversy when there are competing claims for a discovery. It can be difficult to determine when each of the competing scientists is responsible for discovering a portion of the puzzle. Both Giovanni Battista Grassi and Ronald Ross discovered important facts about the life cycle of the malarial parasites. There was an ugly fight over who should win the 1902 Nobel prize in Medicine. The Nobel committee was originally going to give it to both scientists, but then Ross engaged in a discrediting campaign against Grassi. He won (scientists can be just as petty and mean-spirited as the rest of us). And though Newton himself, at least initially, did not have a problem sharing the credit for calculus with Leibniz; his friends did, and started a campaign to discredit Leibniz. On the other hand, Darwin and Russell shared in the announcement about evolution, and neither man made a claim of theft from the other.

Sometimes there is a discovery that everyone knows is out there ripe for the plucking, but no one has found it yet. By 1953 many scientists were trying to discover the structure of DNA. Lots of pieces of the puzzle had been published. They all knew what components went into DNA, just not how it was put together. James Watson and Francis Crick came up with a model that worked, that ticked all the boxes. They along with Maurice Wilkins eventually shared the Nobel prize for the discovery. But that discovery might just as easily have been made by Rosalind Franklin, Erwin Chargaff, Linus Pauling, or others. Or it is even possible that two different groups might have come up with the same answer at the same time. It just happened that Watson and Crick were the ones with the eureka moment. Not that scholarship and hard work aren't involved, but luck also plays a part. 

Coincidental discoveries may seem odd. They might seem like they should be the basis for a conspiracy theory. But when you look at the way science is done; it is not odd at all.

 

(My science fiction novel Star Liner, is now available in paperback or as an e-book through Amazon and other online sources).

link to Star Liner

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Trip Home

  My wife and I recently returned from a trip to New York to visit my son and his wife. What follows is an excerpt of my notes from that trip. Departure day. So we and the kids (adult kids) leave by 5:30 AM. These “kids” are night owls. They rarely wake before 10:00 if they don’t have to, so we appreciate the sacrifice. Daughter-in-Law (DIL) drove us the 30 minutes to the train station. Hugs and good-byes for her (we love DIL. DIL is an irresistible force). Son navigates us a route to the platform with fewer stairs than the way we came. We get a ticket and get on the train headed for the big city and Grand Central Station. I soon realize that this train is not an express train like the one we took coming out. Instead of taking a little over an hour like we did before, this one would take a little over an hour and a half. We stop at places with names like Cold Springs and Peekskill (on this trip we saw a lot of place names that ended in “kill” including Kaatskill, i.e. Catskill, and

That 70's Decade

  Can a decade become a caricature? My teen years were in the 1970’s and none of us who lived through the 70’s thought our decade was going to be a figure of fun. When you are a part of it, you don’t realize what people are going to make fun of later. I think there are two reasons why people snicker when the 70’s are mentioned: clothing styles and Disco. Both things could be called extensions of trends that started in the 60’s. When the hippy styles of the 60’s became more formalized for the dance floor, the result was (in hindsight) rather bizarre. They did not seem bizarre at the time. People following present fashion trends never understand that they are wearing something that will be laughed at in ten years. Yes, I did have a pair of bell-bottom blue jeans (are they making a comeback?) The mere mention of the 1970’s conjures up someone in a ridiculous pose wearing a disco suit. We who lived through the 70’s just went about our normal life. There were quite a lot of things that ha

Tyranny of the Masses

  I was listening to Benjamin Netanyahu on the radio. He was justifying his change in the law that removed power from the Israeli Supreme Court, saying that it was the will of the people. Majority rules. This made me think of “Tyranny of the masses,” a concept that notes: just because a majority of people are for something, that doesn’t make it right. I am sure you can think of historical examples where the people of a country supported a policy that was demonstrably wrong. When everything is completely governed by majority rule, the rights of the minority can be subverted by the majority. The framers of our American Constitution knew this, and tried to put in some checks and balances into our system of government. This was to guard against all forms of tyranny whether from a dictator, or from tyranny of the masses. One of those checks is that we have a representative government. The people themselves don’t pass laws, but instead elect representatives at the federal and local level t