Additionally, I think the "inevitability of discovery" is more true now than it has ever been. In the early 1830s there were relatively few young naturalists and geologists looking at the islands and species of the south Pacific that were well positioned to develop a theory of evolution by natural selection. Today, looking at comparable questions, there are a great deal more young scientists competing to answer those questions.
One thing that I think the original comment and this response both point out is that we as a society could still do a much better job of encouraging young thinkers towards challenging and meaningful problems, despite the fact that we do a much better job of it relative to the early 1830s. This encouragement influences not whether the problems get solved, but how quickly.
The funny thing is that the theory of evolution is an instance of multiple discoverers, one is just much more famous than the other. Alfred Russel Wallace is "the other guy." There are a few examples of truly heroic discoveries, but often they aren't recognized in their lifetime, the discovery needs other supporting discoveries to be identified. Mendel and Bayes are examples of people who should have revolutionized their field, but their importance wasn't recognized u til after their deaths. The progress of society is based on a lot of little discoveries over a few big ones. I agree that we need to be encouraging people to make those little discoveries.
Not exactly. Steam Engine time doesn't come on its own; it's created by people.
It's like any job -- we don't need all of the available workers, but we do need some. And in creative work, we need multiple perspectives to help improve the idea.
Additionally, I think the "inevitability of discovery" is more true now than it has ever been. In the early 1830s there were relatively few young naturalists and geologists looking at the islands and species of the south Pacific that were well positioned to develop a theory of evolution by natural selection. Today, looking at comparable questions, there are a great deal more young scientists competing to answer those questions.
One thing that I think the original comment and this response both point out is that we as a society could still do a much better job of encouraging young thinkers towards challenging and meaningful problems, despite the fact that we do a much better job of it relative to the early 1830s. This encouragement influences not whether the problems get solved, but how quickly.