Originality In Science

Without some form of originality, one is inevitably at the mercy of other peoples' stupdity, and this is true regarding science as much as it is true of any other aspect of life or philosophy.  Both of its forms are vital in their own ways.  Originality of one kind is the discovery of something previously or largely unknown, while originality of a second kind is the autonomous discovery or confirmation of truths for oneself.  Even when the first kind is completely exhausted, there is always the need for and the possibility of living out the second.

The first form of originality in science involves the discovery of new information about perceived phenomena in the external world.  Historical examples would include the discovery of evidence pointing to the expansion of the universe, the power behind the splitting of an atom, or the usefulness of electrical power.  As with logical truths, there can only be a finite number of scientific discoveries that can be made--unless scientific laws were to continually change with the passage of time (which is certainly possible despite seeming unlikely).

However, logical truths are accessible to all people, whereas a great deal of scientific information is either not accessible without continuing someone else's work or cannot be accumulated without particular equipment.  There are still many logical and conceptual truths that have never been acknowledged by even a single figure in academia of historical or contemporary renown [1], but they could be autonomously discovered by anyone both intelligent and consistent enough to reason them out; when it comes to science, it is simply impossible to develop all modern scientific models within a single standard human lifetime.

The second form of originality in science involves the autonomous discovery of scientific information already documented or elaborated upon by others.  Every child that performs his or her own experiments out of curiosity is already practicing this kind of originality.  In other words, their scientific analyses are their own.  If a child engages in private experiments with the intent of personally learning about something like electricity or gravity, they are educating themselves about matters that have received a great deal of attention throughout recorded history, but they are expressing originality all the same.

There is also one other aspect to the second form of scientific originality.  It pertains to the analysis of scientific concepts, not to the conducting of one's own experiments.  While scientific premises cannot be truly verified, only supported by evidence, it is still necessary to reason out what conclusions follow from those premises (if the scientific laws the premises are based on were to remain constant indefinitely) even when they have been widely discussed or examined.  In some cases, another person might introduce one to a particular scientific concept, yet independently analyzing the concept and/or whatever the person claimed about it is still called for.

At the very least, the second form of originality is an ongoing necessity, but there are other benefits to originality as well.  Just as emphasizing originality of either sort in strict philosophy would likely inspire some people to contemplate reason and reality more than they otherwise would, emphasizing originality in science would likely inspire at least some people to contemplate science more than they otherwise would.  Originality is available to everyone, and yet it often goes unacknowledged.  The subjective empowerment of originality alone is rewarding enough as it is, but the stability that can only come from autonomy is needed by all, even though scientific certainty is limited to mere perceptions.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/12/a-list-of-neglected-truths.html