Singletons and Multiples in Scientific Discovery¶
Merton, R. K. (1961). Singletons and Multiples in Scientific Discovery: A Chapter in the Sociology of Science. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 105(5), 470-486.
Cited by¶
2 citations across 2 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Convergent Evolution
- In mathematics and science, independent discovery is the same pattern: calculus was developed independently by Newton and Leibniz, non-Euclidean geometry by Bolyai, Lobachevsky, and Gauss, natural selection by Darwin and Wallace, and the same theorem is often proved independently by separate groups — the recurrence indicating that the mathematical or empirical landscape funnels independent inquiry toward the same result, the phenomenon Merton catalogued as "multiple discovery."
This sourceDocuments the prevalence of independent multiple discovery (calculus, natural selection, non-Euclidean geometry) and argues discoveries are 'ripe,' driven by the state of the field rather than solitary genius.
- In mathematics and science, independent discovery is the same pattern: calculus was developed independently by Newton and Leibniz, non-Euclidean geometry by Bolyai, Lobachevsky, and Gauss, natural selection by Darwin and Wallace, and the same theorem is often proved independently by separate groups — the recurrence indicating that the mathematical or empirical landscape funnels independent inquiry toward the same result, the phenomenon Merton catalogued as "multiple discovery."
Mechanisms¶
- Lineage Independence Audit
- It is the modern instance of a very old phenomenon: the same discovery surfacing in more than one place at nearly the same time.
This sourceDefines scientific multiples as the same discovery arising independently in more than one place, sometimes simultaneously or nearly so.
- It is the modern instance of a very old phenomenon: the same discovery surfacing in more than one place at nearly the same time.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Not recorded. Neither this nor any other of the 2 citations of this work carries a recorded support check.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:0eeb32584564 · see in the full table