Reaction Paper Series - Paper 7

The Lone Genius vs. The Collective

Eureka! The famous word associated with history’s legendary naked epiphany. However, once the image of a streaking Sicilian leaves the mind’s stage, the meaning behind the word and the awe of the legend are present. Whether it is true or not that a law of buoyancy was discovered in a bath tub, the fact remains that in ancient times a law that still holds true today (and always will on the planet we inhabit) was recorded in very clear terms by Archimedes. Its discoverer is so obvious that his law of buoyancy is commonly known as Archimedes’ principle. 

Archimedes’s principle is ingenious, but whether or not he can be described as a scientific genius is debated. In Melvyn Bragg’s book, On Giants’ Shoulders, the argument of the “lone genius” versus “the collective” is presented. On one side of the argument is the idea that there are rare human beings that have such brilliance that they are able to see the world or a problem in a very unique way. They can have completely original thoughts that influence vast amounts of people. These are the “lone geniuses.” On the other side of the argument is the counter idea that all scientific development comes from a group. Along with this idea is the notion that if the credited scientist had not made the discovery or invention, someone else would have. In “the collective” view there are not a few geniuses, but instead, a series of brilliant men and women.

If Archimedes was a “lone genius,” then he alone could have discovered this law of buoyancy during his time and it is rightly named after him. The recorded history of Archimedes illustrates that he was indeed a unique thinker. He made many more discoveries and invented many more things than just Archimedes’ principle. He seems that he does deserve the title of a genius. It doesn’t take a genius, however, to understand that history is often biased. The recorded history of Archimedes also shows that he was a man of prominence. “The collective” side of the argument presents the possibility that another unique thinker could have come up with the same buoyancy law. Imagine if instead a science student is taught Spandecles’ principle. There is the possibility that this imaginary Spandecles could have independently discovered the same buoyancy law before, at the same time, or after Archimedes. If Spandecles made his discovery before or at the same time as Archimedes his discovery could have gone unnoticed if he wasn’t as prominent as Archimedes. If he made his discovery after Archimedes, he could have realized that Archimedes had beaten him to the punch. As a side note, would Spandecles also have incorporated streaking into his publication of the buoyancy law?  The streaking could have contributed to Archimedes being known for this law of buoyancy discovery.

            There is strong support for both sides of the debate. Since the list of historical prominent scientists is fairly short (Bragg only discusses 12), it is reasonable to accept that there were “lone geniuses.” We have profound scientific developments because there were and still are today unique individuals who can think in a way that others cannot. Although, the existence of scientific journals and other means of communication of scientific knowledge demonstrate the power of “the collective” in scientific development as well. It is most likely that both sides of the debate are in harmony with each other. The discoveries made by ”lone geniuses” coupled with the work of other brilliant people working collectively can result in at least genius moments for any scientist.