I think it's useful to decompose this dialectical into "material" and a "social" dimensions. The material dimension is about change in the world[1]: places are

I think it's useful to decompose this dialectical into "material" and a "social" dimensions. The material dimension is about change in the world[1]: places are conquered, techniques are developed. We can acknowledge and think about these changes without assigning them a cause. The social dimension is all about assigning causes to those changes. The idea that one person invents something or that it is "in the air" is ultimately a social judgement[2]. People can believe whichever narrative they want and will frequently fight about which narrative is correct. So, to me, it is 100% true that there is no final word on the social question. We both have highly ambiguous historical examples and every reason to question if the historical examples that appear unambiguous are simply shaped by the social consensus of their time. I do not think we need to accept that there is no final world on the material question. It seems very possible for us to improve our techniques for fostering discoveries. That's not to say it's easy to see clearly (obviously our social ties mess with us here), but I don't think they are the same. > At this point I think it's best to simply acknowledge that there's truth to both sides, and that therefore the debate is ultimately artificial By this standard, isn't nearly all debate "artificial"? Two opposite sides can both have points, but how we weigh them can have enormous real world consequences. [1] Of course, social changes are also changes in the world but let's not tie ourselves in knots too much. [2] There is also obviously a material element here - someone does something, but I think that material action is irretrievably obscured by the social consensus layer.