question about the conception of new ideas in science

[RJT]

Is there any idea in science that was not based on at least some part of man’s previous knowledge of science? Did any discover in science come out of the air so to speak. ( I know we use the apple and Newton, but would he have been able to connect the apple to gravity/motion of the Earth with no prior knowledge of science?)

Is that anything in science that isn’t a “logical” progression of previous knowledge in science?

Maybe it is exactly the opposite of this?

I’ll try to give another example -this particular example might not hold to my question - but by the example you might be able to better understand what I am asking.

The first concept of the idea if DNA. Did the notion of DNA that popped into what’s -his-name’s head have to originate with some other knowledge of science. Or was that a totally new idea. (The proof of it afterwards can be based on our prior knowledge of science. )

Sklansky said, if I understood him correctly, that calculus most assuredly would have been discovered by someone else. Is that because it was a logically progression on man’s knowledge to date? Whether it was 50 years after or 500 years after, it would have been discovered, eventually. Is all (most) of are knowledge of science to day a progression in some form or the other? Or is it because it was so “simple” that someone would have thought of it?

[David Sklansky]

Along the lines of what I said before, I believe from what others have told me that The GENERAL theory of relativaty was not destined to be discovered. Other things, such as antibiotics or Viagra would probably not be discovered if humans weren't built like they are.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
The first concept of the idea if DNA. Did the notion of DNA that popped into what’s -his-name’s head have to originate with some other knowledge of science. Or was that a totally new idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

Francis Crick was 'inspired' somewhat by Erwin Schrödinger and his concept of the 'aperiodic crystal'. See the book What is life? by Erwin Schrödinger, which is based on a series of lectures given at Trinity College, Dublin, in 1943.

Calculus was discovered independently by both Newton and Leibniz (Newton was earlier). A friend informed Newton of leibniz’s discovery, so Newton published his notes that had been sitting about in a draw (I think this is the correct version of what happened, the details you can look up if you wish).

Science is, partly, a progression, a building up of a structure depended on previous discoveries. It is also a logical method or ‘the scientific method’. But that is only the technical side. Science is much more than formula. It is a religion. The best one invented so far by man. And until you understand that, you understand nothing at all. /images/graemlins/wink.gif


-Zeno

[Maddog121]

Most of science is a march as opposed to leaps. It appears to leap because the general population isn't interested in the baby steps that don't tend to greatly impact their lives. (an aside from Newton: "if I have seen further,it is by standing on the shoulders of giants).

The idea of a mechanism for passing traits from parents to offspring received a strong foundation from Darwin and Mendel.
Thomas Morgan gave us the chromosome as the mechanism by which these traits are passed and showed changes in the chromosomes as a pathway to some mutations (the fruit fly experiments).

Frederick Griffith in 1928 gave us DNA as the chemical in chromosomes that carried the genetic information.

Watson and Crick gave us the structure of DNA and didn't discover it.

and on and on and on til we get the state we are in now with genetic engineering and the human genome project.

Even Einstein wasn't working with a blank slate. He was building on knowledge that came before and was trying to reconcile inconsistencies. However, physics is not an interest of mine, and, thus, I have not studied it to a great extent and my gaps are greater than with the ones I have with biology.

Overall, one would be hard pressed to find genuine thin-air "Eureka" moments.

[goofball]

[ QUOTE ]
Along the lines of what I said before, I believe from what others have told me that The GENERAL theory of relativaty was not destined to be discovered. Other things, such as antibiotics or Viagra would probably not be discovered if humans weren't built like they are.

[/ QUOTE ]

The latter is obvious but I don't understand how you can claim the former. I mean, general relativity is of course not complete, but certainly if we ever reach teh point of completely understanding the physical universe we would have had to incorporate some form of general relativity along the way. Are you claiming that we will never fully understand the physical universe?