> To be clear, I don't think coming up with relativity was "in distribution" based on the results of the time.

This is difficult to infer from the context of the conversation.

  > only believe that (1) if it hadn't been Einstein, it would very soon have been someone else

I also agree, but am unsure of your point.

  > (2) "completely novel idea" is a stricter criterion than "not in distribution,"

Sorry, I used a looser word. If you have a strong definition of what "in distribution" means I'll be happy to adapt.

  > (3) better examples of completely novel ideas from history exist

Sure. Maybe? I can't judge. I think determining how novel something is really requires domain expertise. I only have an undergraduate degree in physics so I am not really qualified on determining the novelty of relativity, but it appears fairly novel to me fwiw. (And I am an enjoyer of scientific history. I'd really recommend Cropper's The Quantum Physicists: And an Introduction to Their Physics as it teaches QM in a more historical progression. I'd also recommend the An Opinionated History of Mathematics podcast which goes through a lot of interesting stuff, including Galileo)

  > I think ancestor worship is also an impediment to understanding our intellectual and cultural heritage

I'm in full agreement here (I have past comments on HN to support this too tbh. Probably best to search for things related to Schmidhuber since that's when ancestor worship frequently happens in those topics). It's good to recognize people, but we over emphasize some and entirely forget most. I don't think this is malicious but more logistical. Even Cropper's work misses many people but I think it is still a good balance considering the audience.

I think the best way to avoid the problem is to remember "my understanding is limited" and always will be. At least until we somehow become omniscient, but I'm not counting on that ever happening.