4 ms·
"Does it diminish Einstein's accomplishments to say that other people could have done what he did and achieved the same things he did, but that he was the one w
by stupidcar 9y ago
"Does it diminish Einstein's accomplishments to say that other people could have done what he did and achieved the same things he did, but that he was the one who happened to do it?"
Well, yes it does. That's the paradox. Greatness must surely be, no pun intended, relative to something. If other people not only could, but would have achieved the same feat, how can it not diminish the special-ness of a particular person doing it? And yet, many people feel, instinctively, that what Einstein, Newton, etc. did is, in some sense, special.
You argue that the resolution to this is to recognise the importance of the results themselves. I would argue that is missing the point. The historical importance of the theory is a different thing from the achievement of the person who discovered it, although the more impact theories will, inevitably, draw more attention to the accomplishments of their discoverers.
My resolution to this paradox is to recognise that the standards of greatness for an individual's achievements cannot be fairly compared with those of a group. They can only be fairly compared with what could be expected of the average individual human in the same circumstances.
When judged against the abilities and achievements of the average, or even above-average, human, what Einstein achieved was incredible. Likewise, we instinctively respond positively to any story of success against adversity, even if the actual achievement isn't special out of a particular context. A person injured in a car accident, who spends a year obstinately
learning to walk again, isn't achieving anything that most children don't do, but we applaud their determination, and the outcome in the context of their individual situation.
Great scientists present us with achievements on the opposite end of this spectrum. They are gifted individuals who did even more than could have been expected, and in the context of what the average individual human achieves in their lifetime, there's no doubt that they are something special.
- mannykannot 9y agoI am not concerned for Einstein's status - he's firmly among the greats as far as I am concerned - but Great Men historiography diminishes the role of all the other contributors to the progress of science. Most importantly, this gives a false impression of how science works. From popular expositions of Einstein's work, you would think he came up with the profoundly counter-intuitive ideas of spatial contraction and time dilation single-handedly and out of the blue, yet the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction hypothesis was already well established within the field. This short article gives an idea of how the relevant ideas developed through collaboration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation#History
- geofft 9y ago> Greatness must surely be, no pun intended, relative to something. Why? In particular, does Einstein become less great if we realize that all his college classmates wrote papers about really interesting and important things that were too ahead of his time to be understood until today? I guess you could argue that. Or maybe we should back up a bit. What is the purpose of declaring someone "great"? Are we responding to our inherent desire to praise good humans for its own sake? Or are we seeking to inspire some behavior / incentivize a particular change in society, or something else? I think there are decent arguments for both, but correlating "great" with "unique" makes more sense to me if we just want to respond to our desire to praise people who seem special.