I don't know whether it's statistically more likely, but I do think I find the latter sentiment more often among scientists. Plenty of famous people in science will also refuse to admit luck had much to do with their success, of course, but many others will do so. A total guess as to why is that there's a recognition that "good science" is something you can control, but "science that gets famous" has much more of a sociological and good-timing component that's hard to control. Sometimes people know they're on the verge of a big breakthrough, but other times it's quite hard to know whether this interesting problem you're working on will turn out to be a solid but niche contribution, or a future 1000-citation paper. Sometimes you even have to wait 10 or 20 years to find out that what seemed like a minor contribution at the time was actually made retroactively important by a different advance.
I've read a bit on discovery. There are 3 main theories discussed on scientific discovery - the great genius, the cultural zeitgeist and just chance. The great genius without who history would be greatly changed was discounted on the commonality of multiple inventions and the existence of many sufficiently intelligent people at any given time. The cultural zeitgeist holds that there are many ideas in the air and one only has to look to pick it, that it is the intellectual backdrop that determines when and what gets discovered. That multiple inventions are often separated in time and not all discoverable items are found when they could be runs counter to this. The chance model suggests not all discoveries are found and scientific discovery is random as to who gets it and that it follows a Poisson distribution. In one article [1] , an example of a tree with 1000 ripe apples and 1000 apple pickers was given, how many apples are picked?How many people pick the same two or three?
A refinement of the stochastic model considers that geniuses exist but they are able to see and synthesize more than others not that they can see what others can't. They benefit from the cultural backdrop and do not innovate as islands. Their discoveries would eventually be replicated by a large number of individuals making blind turns with individual portions. In sum, not all ideas that are discoverable within a cultural zeitgeist are found, it is essentially random who discovers what but there are a few lucky individuals that tend to be over-represented [2].
How lucky? In numerous ways. In addition to having the right set of genes, epigenetic developments and beneficial stochastic fluctuations in neural development they also need the right set of skills and experiences, and then to not just pick a solvable problem but to pick one solvable by their particular mindset. Solving problems is not a deterministic process but more a sampling of a large combinatorial construction of possibilities acquired only through expertise. So there is an element of chance in fixing the right permutation of ideas. So run history twice and Einstein might not have found General Relativity. In getting recognized luck also plays a role in setting up a Matthew Effect. The only part in which luck is only partial is in being enthusiastic on a subject, the time and effort spent to gain expertise on it (base level of intelligence luck determined, 1 sigma sufficient) and the obsession to be able to think all the time on a subject.
If you are interested in this sort of thing I strongly suggest anything by Simonton (as an aside one of his papers argues that it is not what age you start that matters but how many years into your career that determines the drop off, so late starters get the same burst and drop just shifted in time).
[2] A small group of highly productive individuals is most likely to participate in multiples, including independent rediscoveries. These same persons are also unusually intimate with the "technoscientific" zeitgeist and perhaps equally gifted with an inordinate amount of good luck.
One other factor is that I think science encourages a certain humility and honesty. When you're trying novel things and checking against real data, you inevitably get your ass handed to you from time to time. I think that makes it harder to treat "because I am awesome" as a 100% reliable explanation.
because science focuses on repeatability and control. personal successes do not. Any thing that passes as science has been proven to a degree of certainity, by definition. Any science is good science because it's been proven, and then there is science that got famous.
