The Concept of “Father” in History and the Modern World

1. Introduction

The history of science and technology is filled with figures known as the “father of a discipline”—a term that carries connotations of centrality, spiritual authority, and conceptual sanctity. From the “Father of the Internet” to the “Father of Artificial Intelligence,” all have been defined within a system that prioritizes individual identity and exclusive legitimacy over collective contribution and procedural development.

However, with the emergence of Web3, the metaverse, blockchain, and the decentralized world, these traditional concepts are beginning to collapse. In Web3, identity no longer belongs to a father figure, but to founding nodes, equal participants, and mechanisms of distributed intelligence.

2. The Semantics of “Father” in the History of Science: A Myth for Legitimacy, Not a Description of Reality

In the language of science, the concept of “father” is not a neutral term—it is an ideological construct born from discourses of power, domination, and the centralization of legitimacy. When we refer to someone as the “father of a science,” “father of a technology,” or “father of an invention,” we are essentially reinforcing a central point of authority that reduces all the origins and processes of knowledge creation to a single figure—silencing the rest.

This term is not merely a description of someone who initiated something; it is a symbolic tool used for myth-making and institutionalizing a form of dominance—one that is often gendered, centralized, Western-centric, and media-manufactured. The word “father” does not arise from the complex realities of scientific participation, but from the needs of academic, industrial, and media systems to produce heroes around whom simple, attractive, and controllable narratives can be built.

As a result, what is labeled as a “father” is often not the actual creator of a science or technology, but rather the chosen figure of a system—one that silences others to amplify his voice. This term turns the history of science into a glamorous fiction in which the collective is suppressed in favor of the individual, and processes are overshadowed by final products. That is precisely why science, in order to remain scientific, must distance itself from patriarchal metaphors—because these terms are not just reflections of history, they are tools that engineer the future. When we center the definition of knowledge around a “father,” we not only distort the past but also close the door to possible futures. Language shapes thought; and a language rooted in patriarchy produces knowledge that is unequal, hierarchical, and anti-distributional both in narrative and structure.

 

3. The Making of Heroes and the Monopoly of Knowledge: How Father-Centered Narratives Erase Collaborators

Despite its democratic slogans, modern science has remained deeply elitist, hierarchical, and monopolistic. One of the key tools of this monopoly is the creation of hero-centered narratives—stories that reduce the history of science to a series of “great men” (often marked by specific traits such as skin color, nationality, or academic pedigree) who “suddenly” discover a concept or “invent” a technology.

In these narratives, there is no room for the simultaneity of efforts, the complexity of research processes, or the contributions of individuals outside formal structures. Just take a look at the histories of the internet, artificial intelligence, or even the theory of relativity: wherever a “father” figure is constructed, you will also find traces of the systematic erasure of hundreds of other contributors.

The hero-making model in science not only ignores the roles of women, Indigenous people, collaborators, and non-academic researchers, but also institutionalizes a false centrality that blocks ideas from outside the official framework. When knowledge is identified with a single face, access to it becomes monitored, controlled, and approved by that individual or the institution behind them. This is precisely the point where science becomes contaminated with authority and one-dimensional thinking.

Science that aims to remain public, open, collaborative, and innovative must distance itself from outdated, singular-figure and myth-making models. These must be replaced with decentralized, process-oriented, and egalitarian vocabularies. Old concepts like “father of science” are not only unscientific but anti-scientific, as they obscure the full reality of what builds science: mistakes, collective experience, failure, and participation.

Throughout the history of science and technology, we have repeatedly seen major achievements attributed to a single individual, while the actual process is far more complex than what official or media narratives reflect. For example, Thomas Edison is often credited with inventing the light bulb, even though inventors like Joseph Swan in Britain had already developed filament bulbs. In reality, the light bulb was the result of a large team effort at Edison’s company, with Edison himself playing more of a project manager and coordinator role. Similarly, the invention of the iPhone in the modern era is attributed to Steve Jobs, although thousands at Apple—from industrial designers like Jony Ive to software engineers—contributed to the development of the technology. Yet it is only Jobs’ charismatic image that is preserved in historical memory.

The field of cryptography offers a similar example. During World War II, the decryption of the Enigma machine is largely attributed to Alan Turing, yet it was the product of a large team of analysts, mathematicians, and engineers, including people like Joan Clarke and Bill Tutte, whose names remained in the shadows for years.

Likewise, in the field of fundamental sciences, the case of Marie and Pierre Curie shows that even in instances of joint work between spouses, assistants and other contributors—such as André Debierne—are often completely forgotten. All these examples reflect a centralized structure in the production and recording of knowledge, a structure that marginalizes the networked and collective nature of science by focusing on a single face. Web3, as a decentralized system and the antithesis of individualism, directly challenges this approach. It aims to distribute credit equally and transparently among all participants through node-based networks, smart contracts, and blockchain—without the need for a central figure or a “father.”

 

4. Gendered Structures in the History of Science: “Father of Science” vs. “Mother of Science”

In dominant scientific narratives, we constantly hear terms like “Father of the Internet,” “Father of Modern Physics,” or “Father of Artificial Intelligence.” But the absence of titles such as “Mother of the Internet” or “Mother of AI” is glaring. This linguistic and symbolic gap reflects a deeper structural issue in the history of science, where the contributions of women have either been overlooked or overshadowed by more prominent men.

In many cases, women not only participated but laid the foundations of major scientific breakthroughs:

• Ada Lovelace, who wrote an algorithm for Charles Babbage’s Analytical Engine, is effectively the first programmer in history. Yet Babbage is known as the “father of the computer,” while Ada is rarely recognized as the “mother.”
• In the discovery of the DNA structure, Rosalind Franklin’s crystallographic images were crucial to the Watson-Crick model, but her name only received significant attention years later and posthumously.
• In computational linguistics and the foundation of Natural Language Processing (NLP), Karen Spärck Jones, co-founder of the TF-IDF method that underpins modern search engines, is seldom mentioned alongside figures like Chomsky or Turing.

Even in the modern era, with systems like GPT and ChatGPT, although their development involves large teams, media often highlight figures like Sam Altman or Elon Musk, not the female researchers involved in the design, training, and evaluation of these models. While some informal reports have mentioned the roles of certain women scientists, they have never been given symbolic titles.

This demonstrates that the creation and reinforcement of symbolic titles like “father of science” are often shaped not by historical accuracy but by media influence, power, and symbolic politics.

Ultimately, this pattern raises an important question: isn’t it time to liberate science from male-dominated narratives and focus instead on a genderless ecosystem of scientific participation?

 

 

 

5. Why Decentralized Models of Science Are More Future-Oriented, Ethical, and Accurate

Centralized models in science, which typically place a “father figure” at the top of the pyramid, are flawed on multiple levels—ethical, methodological, and futurist. This is precisely where decentralized models like Web3, blockchain, and the metaverse not only serve as technological alternatives but also offer a foundational critique of the traditional scientific structure.

First, the ethical dimension:

When credit and social capital are concentrated on one person, others are sidelined or entirely erased. True participatory systems inherently conflict with centralization. An ethics-centered system must allow every node—every active contributor—to have a voice, not just the node chosen by media or formal institutions.

Second, methodology:

Science grows out of trial, error, and collective feedback—not from the “momentary inspiration of a genius.” Decentralized models promote methodological collectivism. When knowledge is distributed among thousands of nodes, the outcome is often more precise than if it came from a single mind.

Third, the futurist perspective:

The future is being designed not based on names or faces but on participation. Blockchains, DAOs, metaverses, and other decentralized tools all carry the same message: “This is the end of the hero era and the beginning of the network era.” A system that still seeks a “father” to validate its existence has already fallen behind in understanding how the future works.

 

6. How Does the Metaphor of the “Father” Inhibit Innovation?

The metaphor of the “father” in the history of science is not just a figure of speech; it is a mental framework—one that unconsciously limits the path of creativity and innovation. When someone is recorded in history and remembered as the “father” of a field, it implies that the correct path is the one he took—no more, no less. In this view, other paths—past efforts, future possibilities—are considered peripheral, irrelevant, or even mistaken.

The father metaphor implies absolute authority, and absolute authority means stagnation. Anyone who aims to move beyond the father’s path must either affirm him or ultimately become a new “father” themselves. This closed loop suppresses radical innovation. If someone presents a different vision of the future that does not follow the father’s narrative, they are either ignored or marginalized.

The father metaphor personalizes knowledge. It shifts focus from the process of knowledge creation to the individual to whom that knowledge is attributed. As a result, science becomes a museum of faces rather than a network of ideas. Anyone who wants to build a new path must first negotiate with the statues.

Ultimately, the father metaphor leads to unconscious censorship.

When human language systems are filled with “fathers” and “founders,” they subconsciously prevent individuals from moving against the current. Anyone with a new idea abandons it before facing rejection, simply because it contradicts the absolutism and doctrines of the founding fathers of science.

 

7. Redefining Knowledge Ownership: From Person-Centric to Process-Centric

In a world where knowledge is reproduced daily, continuing to repeat person-centric models like the “fathers of science” is not only inefficient but dangerous. In an era of collaboration, rapid change, and systemic complexity, no individual can claim full ownership of an idea that emerges from a web of nodes, collaborations, and circulating data.

Knowledge ownership in Web3: a flow, not a property.

Knowledge is a river—constantly moving and being nourished—not a registered estate in someone’s name. Every innovation must be traceable to a collective development process, not a personal biography.

It’s time to replace memorials with mechanisms.

The history of science should not be a gallery of great figures, but a structural analysis of the mechanisms of scientific creation. The key question is not who proposed the idea, but how, in what context, with what tools, and through what relationships that idea was formed and disseminated.

 

 

 

8. From “Fathers of Technology” to Genesis Nodes: The Problem of Centralized Naming

The use of the word “father” in technological sciences is not merely a linguistic metaphor; it reflects a mental structure of power in the modern world—a world that needs icons and centralized credit to legitimize a technology.

But Web3, by eliminating intermediaries and redistributing power, calls on us to move beyond this model. In this new world, if someone initiates a project, they are not a “father,” but a Genesis Node or an Initial Architect—terms that are not only decentralized in nature, but also smartly bypass the sanctification of individuals.

Diagnosing the Structure of Scientific Authority: An Indirect Critique of Global Icons

Many global figures labeled as the “fathers” of various fields have, in truth, had limited creative or operational roles. Instead, they are often products of PR structures, corporate symbolic investments, and Western academic bureaucracy. They are not “concept coders” but rather narrative-driven personalities shaped by media.

For example, many individuals recognized by the media today as founders of the internet or AI were merely parts of a vast collaborative ecosystem—where the names of other contributors have been deliberately or unintentionally sidelined. Their “fatherhood” is more a symbolic contract than a historical fact.

Redefining Concepts in the Language of Web3: Words for the Future

Below are some suggested alternative terms to replace the “father” metaphor in science and technology:

Meaning and Role	Suggested Term
Early contributor to a decentralized project	Genesis Node
Conceptual designer of a technical or semantic structure	Initial Architect
Someone who paved a mental path	Conceptual Inspirer
Member of the first layer of collaboration in a technological shift	Zero Generation Contributor
Someone who links the future to a participatory ecosystem	Connected Visionary

Depersonalizing science does not mean removing humans—it means removing myths.

By using terms like “Genesis Node” or “Conceptual Architect,” we place humans within the network of knowledge—not on the throne of scientific authority. This is a redefinition of the human role, not a removal of it from the process.

9. Web3: The End of the “Fathers” Era

Web3 is not merely a technological shift—it’s an epistemological uprising. A network built on decentralization, transparency, and horizontal participation not only eliminates the need for a “father” figure, but fundamentally makes such emergence impossible.

Because:

• In Web3, collective ownership replaces centralized authority. No one owns the project; everyone contributes. In such a structure, no one can claim to be the sole creator or “father” because the network itself is the creator.
• Network nodes exist at all levels. Unlike hierarchical models, there is no central node that can proclaim, “I was the initiator, therefore I am the father.” Even the initial node is just one among the starting points—not the master of the entire path.
• Decentralized projects follow collaborative growth trajectories. No single figure can monopolize the credibility of an entire ecosystem or be the sole technological authority. Every update, fork, and decision requires consensus—making patriarchy meaningless in a consensus-driven environment.
• Web3, through smart contracts and on-chain provenance, has taken history out of the monopoly of media narratives. No one can be called a “father” anymore, because the data is transparent and everything is traceable.

In fact, Web3 not only frees us from artificial idol-making, it forges a new language—one in which, instead of “the father of the internet,” we can speak of the “genesis node of the decentralized communications ecosystem.” Instead of a “founder,” we say “mechanism designer.”

In the Web3 era, science is advanced not by heroes, but by system architecture. This marks the end of paternal dominance.

Traditional Concept	Web3’s Decentralized Structure	Explanation
Father	Genesis Node	Decentralization of Initiation
Founder	Initial Contributor	Neutralizing Individual Ownership
Master Authority	Validation Algorithm	Replacing Personal Authority with Verifiable Mechanisms

 

 

10. The Structure of Web3 and Node Functionality: From Centralization to Horizontal Layers

As the third generation of the internet, Web3 is a decentralized network that, unlike Web2, no longer requires intermediaries or central servers. In this structure, nodes dispersed across the network interact on an equal footing, with no hierarchy. This forms the basis for a fundamental redefinition of power and credibility.

• Nodes as Independent Units: In Web3, each node is an autonomous unit that communicates directly with other nodes. These nodes can be users, devices, or servers responsible for data processing and transaction validation. No node alone can claim to be the “father” or ultimate authority—because no one has monopoly over the network.
• Decentralized Decision-Making: Instead of having all information and decisions in the hands of one person or group, Web3 employs collective consensus protocols. In blockchain, for example, this consensus is reached via algorithms like Proof of Work or Proof of Stake, where all nodes must agree for a transaction to be validated. This is called distributed decision-making, which effectively removes the concept of a single “father” figure, as no one individual can oversee or control the process alone.
• Dispersing Authority Through Distributed Credibility: In decentralized networks like Web3, credibility is distributed through collective performance and node synergy. No single node can be recognized as the “father of science or technology,” because no one owns all the data or decisions. Even if a project was initially started by an individual, that person is no longer recognized as the father, but as a “genesis node” or “initial architect”—terms that imply a distributed and equal role, unlike the centralized authority of a “father.”
• Blockchain Chains and Transparent Certifications: In Web3, particularly blockchain, the entire history of transactions is recorded transparently and immutably. Every node—from genesis to subsequent ones—can verify data equally. No one can claim to have started the entire process, because all data is recorded on a public ledger and accessible to everyone.

 

11. How Does Web3’s Structure Eliminate the “Father” Concept?

• Distributing Power and Credibility: In a decentralized structure, no one can monopolize power. Whereas Web2 was based on hierarchical systems and concentrated authority in the hands of a few companies or individuals, Web3 distributes power across the network and all its nodes. This makes it impossible for anyone to claim the title of “father” of a technology, as technical and scientific credibility is constantly circulated among thousands or even millions of nodes.
• Collaborative Networks: Web3 leverages open-source projects and smart contracts, which operate collectively in a transparent and verifiable environment. These projects don’t need a leader or father figure, because every individual is directly involved in their development and progress. Instead of one person at the top, all participants contribute equally to the advancement of science and technology.
• The Flattening of Scientific Structure: In the decentralized world, science no longer flows vertically from the top down; instead, it moves horizontally through collective participation. Every node in Web3 plays an equal role in shaping scientific and technological processes. Thus, the concept of a “father” who is solely responsible for all decisions has no place in this structure.

 

12. Reengineering Authority in Web3: The Collapse of Hero-Centric Systems and Centralization Through a Technical and Conceptual Lens

• Decentralized Architecture:
  Unlike the hierarchical structures of Web2—where a central server or decision-maker exists (similar to a “father”)—in Web3, data is distributed across nodes. This means there is no central point of authority or control. Eliminating the center means eliminating the “father.”
• Nodes and Functional Equality:
  In blockchain structures, nodes are computers that hold a full copy of the network’s data and can participate in block validation and production. Each node stores the complete data and can verify, validate, and even propose blocks. Thus, each node is equally valued—not subordinate or obedient. Power is not only decentralized, but also transparent and open.
  Anti-centrality role: Every node holds equal value, and none is superior.
  Response to patriarchal models: Instead of obeying a central figure, nodes follow algorithms—a structure that horizontally distributes authority.
• Consensus Mechanisms:
  Cryptographic Democracy
  Mechanisms like Proof of Work or Proof of Stake replace individual decision-making and determine who writes the next block. No single person decides anymore—rather, a distributed majority reaches consensus via cryptographic algorithms. The metaphor of paternal authority becomes meaningless.
  Technical meaning: Consensus means no decision can be executed without collective approval.
  Blow to hero-centrism: There’s no ultimate decision-maker. Authority is distributed, not individualized.
• Verifiable and Equal Identities:
  In Web3, identity is defined not by personal reputation, résumé, or background but through cryptography, public keys, digital wallets, smart contracts, and identity NFTs. No individual is granted inherent sanctity or status—each person derives meaning from their participation.
  Technical feature: Ownership of identity is cryptographic, not institutional.
  Rejection of idolization: Users are defined by actions, not names or fame.
• Smart Contracts: Automating Trust
  Smart contracts execute automatically when certain conditions are met, removing the need for intermediaries or authorities. The traditional roles of the state, banks, or father-figures as overseers and controllers are replaced by transparent and neutral code and algorithms.
  Technical explanation: Smart contracts don’t feel or prefer—they only follow logic.
  Shattering paternal symbols: No room remains for personal oversight.
• Collective Interactions in DAOs: The End of Hierarchies
  Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) operate based on public voting, capital distribution, and transparency—without CEOs, presidents, or boards of directors. Decision-making is not attributed to any individual. All members decide together, independent of hierarchy.
  Technical function: Utilization of voting tokens and decentralized treasuries.
  Structural defiance of paternal power: No one has special power; every vote counts equally.
• The Metaverse and the Decentralized Digital Economy: A Future Without Shadows
  Blockchain-based metaverses like ALFANOVA, Decentraland, or The Sandbox operate on fully decentralized structures:
  Land ownership through NFTs, capital control via DAO tokens, and policymaking through collective voting.
  This marks a complete collapse of the notion of a central institution or developer as “father.” Developer, user, and investor are all on equal footing.
• Tokenomics: Fair Resource Distribution
  Token-based economics in Web3 is designed from the ground up to ensure rewards and investments are fairly distributed among participants.
  Technical detail: Token issuance and allocation are governed by transparent algorithms.
  Disruption of structure: Initial capital or inherited wealth is no longer the determining factor.

 

13. Web3 and Non-Patriarchal Structures in Knowledge Production

A fundamental aspect of Web3 in relation to knowledge production is its ability to dismantle patriarchal structures that have long overshadowed academic systems. Through platforms like DAOs, smart contracts, and NFTs, the relationship between contributors and knowledge outputs is redefined. These models do away with hierarchical structures based on individual authority or central institutions. Credibility is distributed based on participation, transparency, and on-chain traceability—not positional power.

In DeSci (Decentralized Science) projects, data, articles, experiments, and results can be recorded peer-to-peer on blockchain, ensuring that no individual or organization can unilaterally control or censor content. In such an ecosystem, the concept of “knowledge ownership” transforms into “knowledge-based participation.” Every network member can contribute to the creation, review, and validation of data—without needing approval from a central authority. These structures use participatory gateways and on-chain voting to enable the formation of science communities based on cognitive justice and horizontal participation. In this environment, legitimacy arises not from the top down, but from within the network and collective interactions.

14. Case Study: VitaDAO and Decentralized Bioscience

To better understand the non-patriarchal functions of Web3 in knowledge production, VitaDAO serves as a clear case of a decentralized scientific initiative focused on bioscience research (specifically aging and longevity).
VitaDAO functions not as a traditional academic institution, but as a DAO where scientists, investors, and enthusiasts from around the world collaborate.

Members use the $VITA governance token to vote on funding decisions for research projects, with no final authority resting in the hands of a manager, professor, or central institution. Smart contracts define how resources are allocated and how resulting data is published and recorded on the blockchain.

In this model, data ownership shifts from academic institutions to the network itself, and NFTs can even be used to share intellectual ownership of research findings. This approach not only enhances transparency and open access to knowledge, but also enables equal participation by researchers outside traditional academic systems. VitaDAO shows that science can be structured around collective participation, democratic decision-making, and shared ownership—a framework where “knowledge” is redefined as a public asset of the network rather than an exclusive resource of elites.

 

 

15. Conclusion: Return to the System, Transcending the Father, and Redefining Legitimacy in the Digital Age

Web3 invites us to rethink concepts such as credibility, creativity, and leadership. The future no longer centers on individualism in the history of technology but seeks to understand the networks that construct knowledge — the variables that collectively shape an ecosystem, not just the name on the cover. This marks the end of myths and the beginning of systems — the arrangement of next-generation infrastructure instead of the making of gods. In the world of Web3, there is no longer a need for exclusive leaders or dominant figures.

As we transition from patriarchal orders to decentralized mechanisms, what changes most profoundly is the notion of legitimacy. In traditional scientific structures, the legitimacy of knowledge depended on the approval of central institutions, academic hierarchies, and authoritative figures. In a Web3 and metaverse-based world, legitimacy becomes networked, open, and collective.

Now, we can speak of a new concept: the “network of legitimacy” — a structure in which the value of knowledge is defined by collective participation, transparency, and traceability via blockchain infrastructure. The endorsement of a professor, a journal, or a university institution is no longer the final benchmark. Instead, collective voting based on databases, open data, and peer-to-peer feedback determines credibility.

In this new framework, the “father” no longer appears as a central authority figure but is removed from the scene as a mechanism from initiator to controller. He is replaced by a set of transparent contracts, broad participation, and collective intelligence. This redefinition is not the end of scientific authority but the beginning of a new era of shared legitimacy, collective responsibility, and knowledge production rooted in community, not in hierarchical peaks.

The decentralized world is one of peer nodes, collective participants, and transparent architectures. Web3 is not merely a technological shift; it is a fundamental redefinition of power and identity. In this world, the institution of the “father” has no place, because decisions emerge from algorithms, consensus, and participation, and children possess greater creative power than fathers. In this realm, names are irrelevant — only maps, code, participation, and decentralized mechanisms hold meaning, and distributed intelligence, peer nodes, and genesis tokens will redefine the future.

Here, no individual can claim to be the father of a domain. The future lies in the hands of networks, processes, and distributed systems. The world is no longer monopolizable. Knowledge becomes a platform — participatory, decentralized, and dependent on nodes, each carrying a share of the legitimacy.