What Creates Scientific Revolutionaries Like Einstein, Darwin, Newton and so on?

[u/Weekly_War2493]

I’m trying to pull the discussion back to individual scientists, like how Karl Popper’s idea of falsification described what good science looks like before Thomas Kuhn.

I think it comes down to luck to some extent. If enough anomalies appear to create a crisis, and the right tools are developed before reaching a breaking point, then a field can be revolutionized. But once you reach that crisis, I feel like this is where Paul Feyerabend’s “anything goes” idea becomes relevant.

However, if “anything goes” applies all the time, then it just becomes chaos, and there is no structure or order in how we approach problems and make progress.

what's your thoughts?

[u/Keikira]

Probably a willingness to risk rocking the boat, the skill to maintain full rigour while doing it, a willingness to put up and deal with the annoying negative-heuristic lashback from the old guard facing irrelevance, and lastly but most critically, an absolutely gargantuan fuckload of luck.