Abstract
Two major interpretations of multiples have been offered, the traditional one based on the scientific zeitgeist, the more recent one based on chance processes. To clarify the issues involved in any plausible explanation, six successive Monte Carlo simulations were developed. Though all models started with the same underlying probabilistic mechanism, several elaborations were introduced, including exhaustion, communication of both successes and failures, and variation in success probability. The models yield the same probability distribution for multiple grades, but they disagree on the frequency of nulltons. Additional Gedanken experiments dealt with the zeitgeist notions of a causal link between potential contributions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes and references
R. K. MERTON, Singletons and multiples in scientific discovery: A chapter in the Sociology of Science,Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 105 (1961) 470.
See, e.g., W. F. OGBURN, D. THOMAS, Are inventions inevitable? A note or social evolution,Political Science Quarterly, 37 (1922) 83, and A. L. KROEBER, The superorganic,American Anthropologist, 19 (1917) 163.
A. bRANNIGAN, R. A. WANNER, Historical distributions of multiple discoveries and theories of scientific change,Social Studies of Science, 13 (1983) 417.
J. SCHMOOKLER,Inventions and Economic Growth, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1966, p. 189–195.
D. de SOLLA PRICE,Little Science, Big Science, Columbia University Press, New York, 1963, p. 65–68.
D. K. SIMONTON, Independent discovery in science and technology: A closer look at the Poisson distribution,Social Studies of Science, 8 (1978) 521; SIMONTON, Multiple discovery and invention: Zeitgeist, genius, or chance?,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 (1979) 1603.
For example, MERTON, op. cif. note 1,, 477–82.
For instance, see SCHMOOKLER, op. cit. note 4,, p. 191, E. CONSTANT, On the diversity and co-evolution of technological multiples: Steam turbines and Pelton water wheels,Social Studies of Science, 8 (1978) 183, and D. PATINKIN, Multiple discoveries and the central message,American Journal of Sociology, 89 (1983) 306.
SIMONTON (1978), op. cit. note 6,, 527–30.
BRANNIGAN and WANNER, op. cit. note 3,.
D. K. SIMONTON,Genius, Creativity, and Leadership, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1984, p. 205. Also see SIMONTON (1979), op. cit. note 6, Independent discovery in science and technology: A closer look at the Poisson distribution,Social Studies of Science, 8 (1978), 1604–5.
D. K. SIMONTON, Multiples, Poisson distributions, and chance: An analysis of the Brannigan-Wanner model,Scientometrics, 9 (1986) 129
PRICE, op. cit. note 5,, 66.
MERTON, op. cit. note 1, 483.
SIMONTON (1978), op. cit. note 6, 531.
PRICE, op. cit. note 5,, 67.
SIMONTON (1978), op. cit. note 6, 523–30.
BRANNIGAN and WANNER, op. cit. note 3, ; also see A. BRANNIGAN, R. A. WANNER, Multiple discoveries in science: A test of communication theory,Canadian Journal of Sociology, 8 (1983) 135.
BRANNIGAN and WANNER (1983), op. cit. note 3,, and BRANNIGAN and WANNER (1983), op. cit. note 18. Multiple discoveries in science: A test of communication theory,Canadian Journal of Sociology, 8 (1983) 135.
SIMONTON (1984), op. cit. note 12,.
SIMONTON (1978), op. cit. note 6,.
SIMONTON (1984), op. cit. note 11..
MERTON, op. cit. note 1, 484. For evidence see SIMONTON (1979), op. cit. note 6. Independent discovery in science and technology: A closer look at the Poisson distribution,Social Studies of Science, 8 (1978) 521.
See PRICE, op. cit. note 5,, 33–61.
BRANNIGAN and WANNER (1983), op. cit. note 20..
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Simonton, D.K. Multiple discovery: Some Monte Carlo simulations and Gedanken experiments. Scientometrics 9, 269–280 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017248
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017248