>Do people generally understand that there's almost never a single inventor? The best description of this I have heard is Charles Fort's, adapted by the scienc

>Do people generally understand that there's almost never a single inventor? The best description of this I have heard is Charles Fort's, adapted by the science fiction community into an idea called 'Steam Engine Time'. >"There’s an idea in the science-fiction community called steam-engine time, which is what people call it when suddenly twenty or thirty different writers produce stories about the same idea. It’s called steam-engine time ­because nobody knows why the steam engine happened when it did. Ptolemy demonstrated the mechanics of the steam engine, and there was nothing technically stopping the Romans from building big steam engines. They had little toy steam engines, and they had enough metalworking skill to build big steam tractors. It just never occurred to them to do it. When I came up with my cyberspace idea, I thought, I bet it’s steam-engine time for this one, because I can’t be the only person noticing these various things. And I wasn’t. I was just the first person who put it together in that particular way, and I had a logo for it, I had my neologism." William Gibson, 'The Art of Fiction' - https://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/6089/william-gibson-the-art-of-fiction-no-211-william-gibson https://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/6089/william-gibso... --- >"If human thought is a growth, like all other growths, its logic is without foundation of its own, and is only the adjusting constructiveness of all other growing things. A tree can not find out, as it were, how to blossom, until comes blossom-time. A social growth cannot find out the use of steam engines, until comes steam-engine-time. For whatever is supposed to be meant by progress, there is no need in human minds for standards of their own: this is in the sense that no part of a growing plant needs guidance of its own devising, nor special knowledge of its own as to how to become a leaf or a root. It needs no base of its own, because the relative wholeness of the plant is relative baseness to its parts. At the same time, in the midst of this theory of submergence, I do not accept that human minds are absolute nonentities, just as I do not accept that a leaf, or a root, of a plant, though so dependent upon a main body, and so clearly only a part, is absolutely without something of an individualizing touch of its own." Charles Fort, 'Lo!' Chapter 4 - http://www.resologist.net/lo104.htm http://www.resologist.net/lo104.htm http://www.resologist.net/loei.htm http://www.resologist.net/loei.htm