The System of entitlement to credit for a breakthrough

What is the degree/extent of the decision criteria, as to who all are entitled to receive a due credit for an invention/discovery/breakthrough?
Here’s a statement – Every matter in this world is related to one another. Our actions affect the very presence of another life-form;
“ is not uncommon for one philosopher to accuse another’s arguments of entailing solipsism as an unwanted consequence, in a kind of reductio ad absurdum..” #metaphysics

For example: lets talk about Alan Turing, if it were not for the Enigma Machine, and the German naval cryptanalysis, Alan would’ve never tried to break the codes and invent the Turing Machine, and be the pioneer for Artificial Intelligence and modern computers.

If it were not for his father’s lessons on explosives, Alfred Nobel would’ve never got interested in explosives, thus the possibility of perhaps a late discovery of dynamite or maybe something else.

So is it that the credit is decided only on basis of who presented the output and seems to be the strongest contender?  Why not a system of credit developed to give some amount of recognition to those who affected the path to success?
Because the same applies to the law. When a crime is committed, the laws consider all those who were involved and are asked to give an explanation..

so going back to the question, who decided this credit-giving extent or is it just the idea implanted and carried-on from generations? (Consider the Sorites paradox – here solution depends on our way of comprehension)

PS: I’ve asked this on Quora too. Lets wait for answers now..



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s