Humanities desk
< January 15	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 17 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 16

Darwin/Wallace & Newton/Lebniz

It is awfully strange to me that in the cases of both evolution and calculus, two massive discoveries, they were both developed by two separate people independently of each other (that is, Darwin/Wallace & Newton/Lebniz). I have two questions on the matter:

Are there any other cases of this?
Does it say something about what happens when two individuals are at the top of their field that they're able to reach the same conclusions? Could there perhaps be a reason for such impressive discoveries happening simultaneously?

Best - Aza24 (talk) 09:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem strange to me. In fact it would be strange if that didn't happen. See Simultaneous discovery.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For examples, see List of multiple discoveries. Alansplodge (talk) 12:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aza24 -- in the case of calculus, there's evidence that Leibniz knew about some of Newton's unpublished work, though he developed it at length in his own more general way. Darwin and Wallace were very different kinds of scientists, and mostly not in direct competition with each other. If there's some similarity between the two cases, it's that Newton and Darwin were both very slow to publish -- Darwin because he was anxious about exposing his ideas to public scrutiny without assembling massively irrefutable evidence to support them, and Newton because he mostly didn't care very much about publishing his work... AnonMoos (talk) 14:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the underlying reason for these apparent coincidences is that both innovators are relying on the same advances in their particular field; perhaps standing on the same shoulders of the same giants. It's the antithesis of the great man theory: "You must admit that the genesis of a great man depends on the long series of complex influences which has produced the race in which he appears" (Herbert Spencer). Alansplodge (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Fort called it "steam engine time" 20px. It applies in many cases, but I'm not sure how much to these two. There was little strong evidence that natural selection was the driving force in evolution until the 20th century (see Modern synthesis (20th century)). In the second half of the 19th century, many people accepted evolution, but not Darwinian natural selection (see Lamarckism). Darwin and Wallace had a dispute over whether sexual selection was a significant factor in evolution... AnonMoos (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Henry first, then Michael Faraday. Henry didn't publish his results.
Sleigh (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Edison and Joseph Swan invented practical and commercially useful incandescent light bulbs at the same time. There had been numerous prior efforts which only worked for minutes. The Sprengel vacuum pump, independently developed, was a key factor both needed for success. William Kelly and Sir Henry Bessemer invented the pneumatic process for converting iron to steel at about the same time. Alexander Graham Bell and Elisha Gray invented the telephone at the same time. Bell may have bribed an employee at the patent office for details on Gray’s device, but they were neck and neck, and Bell appears to have been the true inventor. Edison (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The steamer Olive May

There are strange things done in the midnight sun, as the poet tells us. According to our article The Cremation of Sam McGee the steamer Alice May in the poem was based on the derelict Olive May. Do we have a picture of her? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how reliable it is, but the last photo on this page is captioned "The Steamer Olive May, Upper Yukon River". CodeTalker (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] has the same photo (it takes a few minutes to load, "Made on a Mac" in the footer, and Wayback failed to grab it) has a fn:

The photograph, which is YA # 4900 in the H. C. Barley fonds of the Yukon Archives, was taken by H. C. Barley in July 1900. It shows the Red Line Transportation Company horses grouped together by the freight wagons and the railway tracks. In the background are the tents of Camp ‘H’ and the corrals. The sternwheeler Olive May is docked near the shore at the left margin.

From the link there is The Olive May, sinking in the Thirty Mile River and roped to shore. Not sure if you can get free use out of that or not. fiveby(zero) 21:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

YA# 4899 YA# 4900

three more of sinking, i don't know why these Canadians can't put the Yukon Archives all at one site. fiveby(zero) 21:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Downs, Art (1972). Paddlewheels on the Frontier. p. 152 (top).

Thank you Fiveby and CodeTalker, much appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Covid; will it be reduced to a cold eventually??

Asked and answered

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I'm sure all colds started out as coronavirus. Do you think the current coronavirus will turn into a mere cold or do you think it will stay coronavirus?? If the answer depends on the variant, please include which variant will do which. Georgia guy (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate." --184.144.97.125 (talk) 03:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most colds are caused by rhinoviruses, which are a different order from coronaviruses (Picornavirales vs. Nidovirales). It's not likely that any coronavirus "turned into" a rhinovirus. CodeTalker (talk) 05:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Colds are caused by a variety of viruses, which includes corona viruses. "Well over 200 virus strains are implicated in causing the common cold, with rhinoviruses, coronaviruses, adenoviruses and enteroviruses being the most common." It is entirely possible SARS CoV-2 will weaken into something that causes a common cold like disease, but too early to say. Fgf10 (talk) 08:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We also cannot rule out the possibility that this virus will develop into a number of varieties that are sufficiently different to be classified as distinct species. --Lambiam 10:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A historical precedent:

A mysterious flu-like illness that caused loss of taste and smell in the late 19th century was probably caused by a coronavirus that still causes the ‘common cold’ in people today, according to Professor Marc Van Ranst at KU Leuven in Belgium, an expert on coronaviruses. [2] Alansplodge (talk) 12:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And Beyond Omicron: what’s next for COVID’s viral evolution (Dec 2021) Alansplodge (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're asking about the somewhat groundless hope floating around that the covid virus will get less virulent over time. That unfortunately seems to be wishful thinking.[3] Omicron is less virulent than Delta, but Delta was *more* virulent than Alpha. Who knows what the next one will bring? It is true that extremely fast and fatal viruses like Ebola tend not to spread too much because the victims die before they can travel, but that takes an extreme combination. Smallpox iirc was around 30% fatal and was with us for thousands of years before being eradicated by a worldwide vaccination campaign that took decades. Almost every worsening of the covid pandemic since it started has been the result of misguided optimism and that doesn't seem to be letting up. It's quite possible for a pathogen to wipe out an entire species.[4] 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem! Please don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.144.97.125 (talk) 21:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What the IP is saying, in a verbose way, is that "we can't possibly know." --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But this is the Reference Desk and some references have been provided. Happy days. Alansplodge (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]