There's a rather fun sort of paradox here. For example, I just finished reading a book on Maxwell and Faraday, and they were both ambitious individuals who pursued their own view of things with little regard for the consensus of their day. It was to some extent due to their radical individualism that they were so revolutionary.
On the other hand, they were both built up by other people. They had their influences, their sponsors, their teachers and their friends. They lived in a society that put value on and supported individuals doing science.
So I think I agree with you, but with the addition that there needs to be a group that nurtures individuals for them to be effective. This is, I believe, the reason there was no scientific revolution in China despite the high level of development there for so long: individual accomplishments were inevitably done in service to the emperor, so revolutionary changes were discouraged, even feared, in favor of technology to maintain the harmony of society.
On the other hand, they were both built up by other people. They had their influences, their sponsors, their teachers and their friends. They lived in a society that put value on and supported individuals doing science.
So I think I agree with you, but with the addition that there needs to be a group that nurtures individuals for them to be effective. This is, I believe, the reason there was no scientific revolution in China despite the high level of development there for so long: individual accomplishments were inevitably done in service to the emperor, so revolutionary changes were discouraged, even feared, in favor of technology to maintain the harmony of society.