A highly controversial topic about the nature of scientific discoveries is their ability to appear seemingly out of nowhere. These theories seem to come as a burst of inspiration attainable only by the brightest minds. However, a great discovery is not created in a vacuum and depends largely on both its acceptance within the scientific community and the dedication and training of the scientists themselves. Both elements are entirely driven not by inspiration, but by a dedication to learning that manifests itself through high levels of training and education. There is a great social tendency to romanticize the element of “genius” present in every discovery. This glorified image of the scientist as a hyperintelligent being is perpetuated by the media portrayal of scientific discoveries occurring as autonomous events, regardless of how much support or collaboration was present prior to the discovery. For example, Thomas Edison is often considered the single mind responsible for inventing the light bulb, but in reality he had a team of inventors working with him and building on the knowledge of many previous discoveries. Leadership researchers have a theory about the tendency to overattribute successes and shortcomings to the leader, called the romanticism of leadership. The romanticism of leadership means that society is inclined to give leaders credit for exciting victories or blame for painful defeats, even if they don't deserve it. However, discoveries are neither made in a vacuum nor by unattainably brilliant minds. Genius is not perfectly autonomous, as there are strategies and mindsets that can create the combination of discipline and intellectual curiosity commonly referred to as “genius.” Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayA spectacular scientific theory is considered so for two main reasons. An eventual wide acceptance of the discovery throughout the scientific community and the change or explanation of a pre-existing state of thought. Therefore, theories rely not only on the scientist, but also on the adoption of their arguments within the larger community, since “a single person can make claims and argue for them, but the transformation of claims into knowledge is carried out by communities” . . Consequently, the reasoning of an individual scientist and the reasoning of the scientific community are the major inputs towards a great discovery, with the unifying characteristic that one does not discover or accept this reasoning simply by inspiration, but through practice, preparation and training. Public adoption of a theory can be quite slow, as evidenced by the strong negative reaction to Darwin's original thesis in the years following its publication. It takes time to work and reason with new theories, as the community must learn the appropriate way to think about the problems that have been raised. Darwin's case was no exception and is an excellent example of how, through generations of being taught how to think about the theory of natural selection, science has come to not only widely accept it, but to become "more Darwinian than Darwin ” not only by assimilating the theory, but also by training yourself to think like Darwin about a wide variety of situations. How then does education and training create the ability to reason for both the community and the individual? One explanation is that through practice, repetition, and deliberate work, you can exponentially increase your skill level in any chosen field, and.