More Neglected Elements of Scientific Discovery
by MikeGeneIn previous essays, I highlighted the role that personality and serendipity has played in scientific discovery [1,2]. What's most significant is the relationship between these variables and the population size of the investigative community. A large population of investigators will likely display more diversity of personalities and more often reap the benefits of serendipity. This explains why science functions best as a community.
Yet there are other benefits that come from a community.
[Tell me More]
September 24th, 2007 at 7:52 am
Another neglected element, perhaps, is the role of beauty.
Beauty, Providence, and the Biophilia Hypothesis
Comment by stunney — September 24, 2007 @ 7:52 am
September 24th, 2007 at 8:53 am
Science is *necessarily* a social activity. It is entailed in the notion of an objective observation. People's individual senses vary considerably. But an objective observation is one which has a consistency across a community of observers. This is the concept of scientific verification. A result should be replicable by others. We can all drop a pencil and a book and see them hit the floor at the same time, while just thinking about it might lead to an invalid conclusion. (Of course, in modern science, we use instruments to make accurate, objective measurements. But the reliability of these instruments was determined based on previous observations, and theories derived from those observations.)
Science is a cumulative enterprise which stretches across time and generations. We submit our work to our peers so that they might verify and extend our results; our hope being to add our efforts to the cumulative scientific knowledge of humanity. (A good practice for any scientist is to research the literature before embarking on a new project.)
The scientific community forms an evolving scale-free network: lots of little advances (and reverses), a few ah-ha's (and oh-well's) and the occasional revolution. And if a hypothesis has merit, it will cause ripples in neighboring nodes, and perhaps across the network and beyond.
Comment by Zachriel — September 24, 2007 @ 8:53 am
September 24th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Not only do we submit our ideas to our peers for verification, we also do so with the full expectation that they will (with the greatest of politesse and discretion) rip them to shreds…but always in a nice way. That's the only way we can be reasonably sure that we're on the right track. Always talking with people who uncritically agree with us is like participating in a circle jerk; interesting only to adolescents, and ultimately "without issue."
–Allen*********************************
Allen D. MacNeill, Senior Lecturer
The Biology Learning Skills Center
G-24 Stimson Hall, Cornell University
Ithaca, New York 14853
*********************************
phone: 607-255-3357 (Allen's office)
email: adm6@cornell.edu
website: http://evolutionlist.blogspot....
*********************************
"I had at last got a theory by which to work"
-The Autobiography of Charles Darwin
*********************************
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — September 24, 2007 @ 9:31 pm