4 ms·

Such stories are entertaining, but there is usually no analysis of whether the outcome would have been materially different had the specific chain of circumstan

Such stories are entertaining, but there is usually no analysis of whether the outcome would have been materially different had the specific chain of circumstances not played out in the particular way they did... Hence the occurrence of weasel words like 'helped' in most such narratives (and my use of 'usually', 'materially' and 'most' here!)

throw0101a 6y ago
> Such stories are entertaining, but there is usually no analysis of whether the outcome would have been materially different had the specific chain of circumstances not played out in the particular way they did Well, most of these things are 'infotainment' for the lay public. I'm sure if you go into the academic literature then there may be a more robust examination: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_discovery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_discovery * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multiple_discoveries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multiple_discoveries Both Newton and Leibniz came up with calculus for example. Bell generally gets the credit for the telephone, but (a) he built past developments, and (b) there's Grey: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_telephone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_telephone I think the shows are useful in that they help people realize that history can be messy and convoluted.
- beerandt 6y ago
  It's much less messy if you accept that successful marketing is an essential component of (successful) invention. Which to me is just an extension of the fact that novel "concepts" are not patentable, except as novel inventions (a product, not an idea).
JKCalhoun 6y ago
I don't think that is the point though. Perhaps trying to show historic causality is a lost cause anyway, so instead showing cross-discipline progress at least portrays the co-dependent nature of history, progress, etc. A comment James Burke makes is that the non-interdisciplinary approach has been the norm for too long (and I think its shortcomings and flaws are worse).
dredmorbius 6y ago
Burkes thesis isn't the causality so much as relations, almost always crossing what we now see as typical boundaries; scientific or engineering disciplines, professions, regions, cultures. One thing influences numerous others. He's critiquing and offering an alternative to strict linear domain-respecting narratives. And "looking back to peer forward": by offerring an interdisciplinary narrative of the past, he proposes and suggests the same approach for describing, or more importantly, creating, the future.

throw0101a 6y ago

> Such stories are entertaining, but there is usually no analysis of whether the outcome would have been materially different had the specific chain of circumstances not played out in the particular way they did Well, most of these things are 'infotainment' for the lay public. I'm sure if you go into the academic literature then there may be a more robust examination: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_discovery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_discovery * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multiple_discoveries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multiple_discoveries Both Newton and Leibniz came up with calculus for example. Bell generally gets the credit for the telephone, but (a) he built past developments, and (b) there's Grey: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_telephone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_telephone I think the shows are useful in that they help people realize that history can be messy and convoluted.

beerandt 6y ago
It's much less messy if you accept that successful marketing is an essential component of (successful) invention. Which to me is just an extension of the fact that novel "concepts" are not patentable, except as novel inventions (a product, not an idea).

JKCalhoun 6y ago

I don't think that is the point though. Perhaps trying to show historic causality is a lost cause anyway, so instead showing cross-discipline progress at least portrays the co-dependent nature of history, progress, etc. A comment James Burke makes is that the non-interdisciplinary approach has been the norm for too long (and I think its shortcomings and flaws are worse).

dredmorbius 6y ago

Burkes thesis isn't the causality so much as relations, almost always crossing what we now see as typical boundaries; scientific or engineering disciplines, professions, regions, cultures. One thing influences numerous others. He's critiquing and offering an alternative to strict linear domain-respecting narratives. And "looking back to peer forward": by offerring an interdisciplinary narrative of the past, he proposes and suggests the same approach for describing, or more importantly, creating, the future.