The Newton hypothesis: Is science done by a small elite?
This is a fascinating question that does a great job of bringing realism and idealism head to head. If we&#x27;re realistic, obviously a lot of people have great potential, but only a very few will both have enough potential and enough drive to realistically hit it big; but can we tell who they are? Idealistically, it&#x27;s not entirely fair to give a select few all the support; but is it fair to deprive all of humanity of the advances an elite few could make, just to make the elite few&#x27;s contemporaneous peers feel equally attended to?<p>Personally, I think when you stack the probabilities of potential * interest * means * drive * luck, progress _is_ led by an elite few. The elite few are sometimes bolstered by a massive support system, but part of being the elite, successful few is being able to garner that support, whether through personality, luck, etc.<p>For levity, I&#x27;ll also add that one thing I love about history in general is finding a tidbit like this:<p>&gt; It is fitting that a pair of Coles gets a reply by a pair of MacRoberts (1986) who argue that bibliographies are incomplete.