kaelcarp

I was reading about this in New Scientist the other day, and I found myself wondering what people at II would think of it. The author states that science is not the strictly logical discipline that it appears to be, but that breakthroughs have tended to be led by leaps of intuition rather than working through simple observation and logic, and the difference between a genius and a loony is relatively slim. It asks the question of what a reasonable level of faith is for a scientist.

Anyway, here's a link: http://www.newscientist.com/backpage...mg18725122.400

Just curious what people here think of the concept.

Schneibster

Well, I don't think much of New Scientist, so any article of theirs that tries to mix science and faith leaves me :rolling: at their latest attempt to prove that religion is "right."

I also think that the premise ignores or trivializes a very large and hard-working cadre of scientists who are not famous, who do deep research into the details of the theories of the famous ones, providing not only proof but details of the inner workings of the world around us, and our selves both physical and mental/nervous. The idea that science is made up of a few big theories with no regard to the enormous amount of detail that backs them up is a typical attack by fundamentalists against science, which is workable only because most of the public has no idea what real science is all about; all they ever hear about is what gets published in the newspaper, not what those thousands or millions of not-famous scientists poking and prying into the little details do. And that poking and prying is equally important to, if not more important than, the big theories that you read about in the newspaper. Without it, science is just another religion; with it, it is obvious that it describes our world and our selves with detail that cannot be denied by a book written by neolithic shepherds.

Plognark

Be wary of the mischaracterization of the "lone genius" being responsible for all of the big breakthroughs in science.

Those geniuses, few and far between, may be great for PR for science in general but in the grand scheme of things contribute only a tiny bit to our species' accumulated body of scientific knowledge.

It's the think tanks and large teams of researchers slaving away for very little recognition that have gotten us where we are today, by and large.

No, I'm not a researcher slaving away in anonymity either: no bias here

kaelcarp

I feel your pain. I spend my days plugging away at making databases for medical studies and have been a research assistant on a couple. The article didn't sit quite right with me, which is why I thought I'd share it here for opinions.

Are there any good examples of big, important theories that came about in a more traditional research setting?

Berthold

It greatly helps intuition when the person has had a good training in the subject. E. g. Darwin was a naturalist "body and soul", his theory took some time to form, and it happened in midlife. Well, physicists and mathematicians frequently are younger when they make great discoveries. But rare is the real outsider or beginner who finds something that is outstanding.
Anyway, a brilliant thought is just the beginning of the scientific process: It is conjecture AND refutation that make the scientific method.
A crank is someone who does not know (or admit) when he has been refuted.

Berthold

How about modern cosmology (starting with Hubble), plate tectonics, Neo - Darwinism ("Modern Synthesis"), astrophysics? I would say, quite a few of the things that I personally find most interesting in our age.

Plognark

Hmm...well, I'm not sure about general theories per se, but as far as I know pretty much everything related to computers, telecommunications, materials sciences, and medical advances have all been the result of think tanks or other groups, whether government funded, private companies, or university settings. :huh:

Every once in a while someone takes a stab at something, but very often they are part of a team or group that all collaborate together, it's just the person running the show who gets the credit or remembrance, usually.

loinburger

I'm given little to no direction in my research, which affords me the opportunity to daydream until a "leap of intuition" (or whatever) gives me an idea. The thing is, though, that 99% of these ideas are crap. I wouldn't classify the daydreaming part of my job as science -- I'd classify the ability to logically discern meritorious ideas from crap ideas as the part of my job that is science.

jonesg

He's right.

jayh

Is this controversial? Most of the big jumps are intuitive leaps, but the difference between science and religion or pseudo science is that the leaps are then validated and filled in by laborious research.

Sometimes brilliant intuition shares the same mind with irrational ideas (Newton, Tesla, Pauling)