So let's "challange" this view:"Our estimate of the importance of luck is inherently biased: we know when we benefit from luck, but in the nature of things cannot asses how often bad luck deprives us of the chance of making what might have been an important discovery."
Let's say we have on one hand a person who wins a prize in a lottery.
On the other hand, a person who, by chance, finds a lottery ticket that turns out to be the winning one.
Are both persons lucky? To what degree? One could say the first person PUTS herself in the way of the wnning prize, thus enlarging the candidacy for good fortune and and leting all the rest as a matter of mathematical probabilities.
SO anyway, do you guys believe in luck?"Nearly all successful scientists have emphasized the importance of preparedness of mind, and I want to emphasize that this preparedness of mind is worked for and paid for by a great deal of exertion and reflection. If these exertions lead to a discovery, then I think it would be inappropriate to credit such a discovery to luck ."
And if you do, then what is the opposite of luck? Merely the absence of it ? Or is it "bad luck"?