There is a difference between being the first, being original, and being innovative that is often missed.
A temporal test is used to figure out who or what came first. It should answer at least three questions: what was done, when was it done, and has this been done before?
A test of substance must be used to figure out if someone or something is original. It should answer at least the following questions: what was done, when was it done, and has this been done before?
A practical test needs to be done to see if someone or something is innovative. It should answer at least the following questions: what was done, how was it done, and has this been done exactly the same way before?
When we look at the above tests, we can draw two conclusions:
- The tests are the same, but the way they are used is different. To figure out if someone or something is the first, we mostly ask "when," but to figure out if something is original, we mostly ask "what."
- Being first and being original go together better than being first and being innovative or being original and being innovative. The same tests are used to decide whether something is "first" or "original."
Innovation helps keep resources from running out and, by extension, helps people stay alive. Being first shows that it can be done ("it is possible"). By being original, you can explain what needs to be done or what can be done. And coming up with new ideas shows the practical side: how should it be done?
Society gives these trailblazers status and other tangible and intangible benefits, especially the Originators and Innovators. People often don't pay attention to the Firsts because they don't directly open a new path. Instead, they just show that there is a path. Originators and innovators are the people who find, expose, invent, put together, or describe something in a way that makes it possible for others to do the same thing (recreate the process) with less time and money.
You can be First without being Original. This is because Being First changes based on the situation. For example, if I went to a tribe in the Amazon rainforest and quoted a speech by John F. Kennedy to them, I wouldn't have been the first person to do so, but I would have been the first person to do so in that setting (of that particular tribe at that particular time). Popularizers of modern science and religious missionaries are the first people to do what they do, but they are not the first people to do anything. Their "First-ness" is based on the people who listen to them, and their (lack of) originality is shown by history.
We often do things over again. We can't possibly know everything that has been written or done before us. We apply for patents, make "discoveries" in science, and use (not so) "new" themes in the arts, but we don't know that we're not the first, original, or innovative.
Society may see us as less original and creative than we think we are. This may be the cause of the "misunderstood genius" syndrome. Things are easier for those of us who work with words because there are so many ways to use them that it's almost impossible not to be the first or come up with something new. So, there are laws about copying.
But since originality is based on the content of the idea, it is hard to be first and original at the same time. At best, we just restate or reword old ideas. Any person who has tried to get a patent can tell you that the situation is worse and the tests are harder in non-verbal fields.
But then, this must be too harsh! Don't we all learn from the people who came before us? Can someone be the first, original, or even innovative without learning from the past? Can innovation happen in a vacuum, all at once, and in a way that shakes things up? Shouldn't there be intellectual continuity?
True, a scientist comes up with new ideas, explores, and makes discoveries based on a small number of (sometimes random) previous explorations and research. He even uses measuring tools and other tools that were made by people who came before him. But it is possible to make progress and move forward without having access to the treasures of the past. Again, this is true. The very idea of progress requires a comparison to the past. But in this case, language goes against what is true. Some new ideas come "out of the blue" and have never been done before.
Scientific revolutions are not gradual changes over time (even biological evolution is no longer considered a smooth affair). They are more like phase changes, paradigm shifts, jumps, and stops and starts than syllogisms that build on each other in a logical way (Kuhn: "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions").
Quantum mechanics has very little continuity (or even in the Relativity Theories). Even less is known about genetics and immunology these days. The history of human knowledge does not support the idea that science can be built like a tower out of building blocks. And what about the first person who had an idea or made something? Where did he get his ideas from, and whose work did he continue?
New contexts are born from new ideas. Original ideas shape the human community, and those who do things for the first time set the rules. The processes called invention and revolution are very different from each other. But how we react to new things and how we adapt to the new world after them are mostly the same. There, you can find a sense of continuity.
