don´t know how to name this topic...

[aleks]

anyway, i need your help.

i have to do this paper about certain structures on how some people succeed and others don´t. e.g. if you take a look at the industrial revolution, you will always come across people like watts, stephenson etc. but there were loads of other guys inventing/working on certain steam technologies, but only a few names are well-known. why is this?


any links, literature or suggestions are much appreciated. basically, i am looking for links on the web. thanks ...

[Virus]

the best case of this in recent times is the 'discovery' of the structure of DNA by watson and crick. their work heavily borrowed on data generated the the uncredited ( by the nobel commitee ) Rosalind franklin. the data was passed on to them in an quite underhand manner and helped them crystalise their ideas.

the truth is that most major scientific and technological discoveries build upon whole bodes of work by many other workers and so the persons held as responsibel for them at the time, often were just in the right place at the right time to utilise ideas that were kicking around

i think this years nobel for medicine was also quite contensious, a fourth person ( the prize was shard by three ) feels uncredited for his contribution,

i would defiently check these two examples out

[Mirsha]

One thing I would write about perhaps is how this in some sense mimics survival of the fittest used in gene replication. It seems very similair to the way a small gene pool containing fit genes can eventualy overcome the weaker ones in the pool.

Both the well know and less well known one have increased their presence in the gene pool over time but it's the fact that the bigger names have been fitter at what they've done (not just in terms of discovery an science, other things like showmanship and presentation which helps continue their names survival) which means they have eventual killed off the smaller names like they did the inconsequential ones of their own time.

[Orang Utan]

Bill Bryson's A Short History Of Nearly Everything documents quite a few of the uncredited genii of science - the Crick/Watson/W ilkins/Franklin fiasco is included. Tis a good book actually, despite being written by a bumbling Yank with a penchant for unsourced anecdotes (he sources everything in this book though).

[pille'ocheoni]

you know aleks i cant help you but i want to point out how fucking cool this is.

helping each other, and having the greatest resource ever. this board. i know you can find shit on the internet, but when you come here and ask for help, you can ussually get it. and that rocks. good luck on that buddy!

ellip/p'

[aleks]

Originally posted by Virus
the truth is that most major scientific and technological discoveries build upon whole bodes of work by many other workers and so the persons held as responsibel for them at the time, often were just in the right place at the right time to utilise ideas that were kicking around



but why is this? is the right time right place explanation everything? or is there a certain structure that made that possible? that´s what i am after...

[thesnailsshow]

http://www.ieee.org

You may find there the way new technologies in the Electronic field are developed.

The same in

http://www.computermusic.org
http://www.icma.org
http://www.bio.org

hope this works !

[aleks]

thanks, but that´s not what i am looking for...i am not interested in how things are developed, but rather why some people succeed, although there are others who did the same.

[Virus]

Originally posted by aleks



but why is this? is the right time right place explanation everything? or is there a certain structure that made that possible? that´s what i am after...

sounds like you need to check thomas kuhn's "on the structure of scientific revolutions"

in which in my mind he described how i feel science generally progresses. basically you could look at the whole thing as a series of waves. either you ride the crest of other peoples work, or you are at the trough with new ideas and start a whole new wave.

science generally only remebers those at the wave peak, taking full advantage of all that is out there, or those who had exceptional ideas that kick started whole new fields/waves, those in between are forgotten despite what may be useful work

[mr franks]

i dont know if this angle is relevent, but history always simplifies and reduces itself. maybe its a perspective thing.

[Virus]

Originally posted by mr franks
i dont know if this angle is relevent, but history always simplifies and reduces itself. maybe its a perspective thing.

i think you have hit the nail in the head, what has been a complicated story becomes one simple fact

this is why the discovery of the strucutre of DNA is an interesitng example, there were more than 2 players, but all 'the man in the street' may know is watson and crick who wrote the 'nature' paper and got a nobel prize

[goone]

im readin a book called "a brief history of nearly everything"
by bill bryson
there are loads of these things in it


did your history teacher never tell you
history was written by rich people and also the winners of batles
and loads more of these shitty sayings

[goone]

mine did

and an awful pompous dicksnacker he was too

[aleks]

Originally posted by mr franks
i dont know if this angle is relevent, but history always simplifies and reduces itself. maybe its a perspective thing.


but how and why does this reduction happen?

[mr franks]

maybe we can only take so much information! we have to simplify info so we can process it - you can only teach so much at school so a decision has to be made on what to leave out and what to put in...makes sense no?

how many govenments have rewritten history books? or at least looked at history from a certain perspective that is always going to be biased, so therefore alters history... there is the how and why.

[aleks]

thanks mr. franks... it makes sense.