My pet peeve, Science is everything

Tai Goo said:
Where's the transcendence in science?
Click to expand...

There’s an old formulation describing the creative process: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity

Preparation
Incubation
Inspiration
Verification

You have a problem you want to solve. First you work at it like a dog. Think about it, try different things, fail again and again. Keep working and working. Tough problems can require years of concentration.

During that time, outside of quotidian awareness, the problem and its elements quietly steep. What actually happens during incubation is a mystery.

Inspiration gives you an answer. Out of the blue. Unanticipated by the conscious mind.

Just because it is inspiration doesn’t mean its right. You must test your results against reality. Be it by physical experiment or by trying the solution against mental maps. Does that solution solve enough of the issues you needed to solve? If not, return to step one.

The process is the same, no matter what the question. It works when creating a painting. It works improving your pole vault. It works solving a scientific question.

One famous instance of scientific inspiration was Kekule's discovery of the benzene ring. Here is his description.

"I was sitting writing on my textbook, but the work did not progress; my thoughts were elsewhere. I turned my chair to the fire and dozed. Again the atoms were gamboling before my eyes...My mental eye, rendered more acute by the repeated visions of the kind, could now distinguish larger structures of manifold conformation; long rows sometimes more closely fitted together all twining and twisting in snake-like motion. But look! What was that? One of the snakes had seized hold of its own tail, and the form whirled mockingly before my eyes. As if by a flash of lightning I awoke..." And tested the idea, and found it worked. The benzene molecule had a circular structure

The linked article includes this quote: To elaborate on one example, Einstein, after years of fruitless calculations, suddenly had the solution to the general theory of relativity revealed in a dream "like a giant die making an indelible impress, a huge map of the universe outlined itself in one clear vision."

Another example, paraphrased from memory: Isaac Singer tried and failed to design a mechanical sewing device. Finally he dreamed he was captured by cannibals. They stuck Singer in a pot. They were having him for dinner unless he could invent his sewing machine. Singer noticed that the tribal spears had holes through their blades. He woke knowing he could make his machine work if he put a hole at the front end of the needle. So the Singer Sewing Machine was born.

That time of inspiration is a spiritual experience. Creative solutions come from a source which is smarter…larger…beyond…the conscious mind. The solution is transcendent in the sense that it is outside the intellectual categories used to frame the question. It is transcendent because that source is outside of and beyond normal mental processes. It is transcendent because the seeker is touched by the unknowable numinous mystery which gives the answer.

That is the transcendence of science.
 
Yeah, that's one way to solve a problem.

Another way is to do something just because you like the way it looks and then, quite without any focus on the problem itself, you solve another problem just because the look you liked ended up being more than a look.

We need to remember that not all discoveries are made because someone sought to make a discovery.
 
Raymond1000 said:
There’s an old formulation describing the creative process: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity

Preparation
Incubation
Inspiration
Verification

You have a problem you want to solve. First you work at it like a dog. Think about it, try different things, fail again and again. Keep working and working. Tough problems can require years of concentration.

During that time, outside of quotidian awareness, the problem and its elements quietly steep. What actually happens during incubation is a mystery.

Inspiration gives you an answer. Out of the blue. Unanticipated by the conscious mind.

Just because it is inspiration doesn’t mean its right. You must test your results against reality. Be it by physical experiment or by trying the solution against mental maps. Does that solution solve enough of the issues you needed to solve? If not, return to step one.

The process is the same, no matter what the question. It works when creating a painting. It works improving your pole vault. It works solving a scientific question.

One famous instance of scientific inspiration was Kekule's discovery of the benzene ring. Here is his description.

"I was sitting writing on my textbook, but the work did not progress; my thoughts were elsewhere. I turned my chair to the fire and dozed. Again the atoms were gamboling before my eyes...My mental eye, rendered more acute by the repeated visions of the kind, could now distinguish larger structures of manifold conformation; long rows sometimes more closely fitted together all twining and twisting in snake-like motion. But look! What was that? One of the snakes had seized hold of its own tail, and the form whirled mockingly before my eyes. As if by a flash of lightning I awoke..." And tested the idea, and found it worked. The benzene molecule had a circular structure

The linked article includes this quote: To elaborate on one example, Einstein, after years of fruitless calculations, suddenly had the solution to the general theory of relativity revealed in a dream "like a giant die making an indelible impress, a huge map of the universe outlined itself in one clear vision."

Another example, paraphrased from memory: Isaac Singer tried and failed to design a mechanical sewing device. Finally he dreamed he was captured by cannibals. They stuck Singer in a pot. They were having him for dinner unless he could invent his sewing machine. Singer noticed that the tribal spears had holes through their blades. He woke knowing he could make his machine work if he put a hole at the front end of the needle. So the Singer Sewing Machine was born.

That time of inspiration is a spiritual experience. Creative solutions come from a source which is smarter…larger…beyond…the conscious mind. The solution is transcendent in the sense that it is outside the intellectual categories used to frame the question. It is transcendent because that source is outside of and beyond normal mental processes. It is transcendent because the seeker is touched by the unknowable numinous mystery which gives the answer.

That is the transcendence of science.
Click to expand...


I like that, but it's not normally how we are taught to think about science, or the scientific method. I think it's true though. Science isn't as pure as we've been led to believe, which goes back to the type of pseudohistory of science that is so prevalent. The process of art, science, history, philosophy etc., are all essentially the same. They involve higher functions of the brain and the spirit. Science is no different than anything else...

It's the vitue of transcendence found in every field... in humans. Some might even call it mysticism or intuition.

We're finally learning the "truth" about science... what it is, how it really works.

Not sure if those stories are true or not, but...

Great post! :)
 
Last edited:
tryppyr said:
We need to remember that not all discoveries are made because someone sought to make a discovery.
Click to expand...

I think accident, chance and luck do account for a lot of it. We just have to be smart enough to recognize it when it happens. Good point!

I think the bottom line is,... it doesn’t matter where “knowledge” comes from, how we acquire it or how we explain it,… as long as it works.
 
There is a flip side to all this though...

If we look at the Character Strengths and Virtues, those are for healthy normal people. Most healthy people show all those traits to some degree, but the flip side is there are a lot of whackos out there. People who are missing one or more virtues, are mentally or emotionally ill, sociologically impaired, deficient, unbalanced,... or just plain nuts.! So, I think it's fairly safe to assume that science can be and has been abused by,... "mad scientists".

It's not all necessarily good. But,… hopefully if we have a more clear vision of what science is and how it works, we'll be able to recognize bad science and who the quacks, whackos and jokers really are.

http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/joker-2.jpg

Science apart from "humanity" can get ugly.

I think “green technology” is a good example of "science plus humanity", but it seems to get a lot of criticism in the knife making community… let's get with it!
 
Last edited:
tryppyr said:
Yeah, that's one way to solve a problem.

Another way is to do something just because you like the way it looks and then, quite without any focus on the problem itself, you solve another problem just because the look you liked ended up being more than a look.

We need to remember that not all discoveries are made because someone sought to make a discovery.
Click to expand...

Like Goodyear dropping rubber on a hot stove.

But he had to recognize what had happened. And do a lot of work to develop the vulcanization process.
 
Tai Goo said:
I like that, but it's not normally how we are taught to think about science, or the scientific method. I think it's true though. Science isn't as pure as we've been led to believe, which goes back to the type of pseudohistory of science that is so prevalent. The process of art, science, history, philosophy etc., are all essentially the same. They involve higher functions of the brain and the spirit. Science is no different than anything else...

It's the vitue of transcendence found in every field... in humans. Some might even call it mysticism or intuition.

We're finally learning the "truth" about science... what it is, how it really works.

Not sure if those stories are true or not, but...

Great post! :)
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzene

The new understanding of benzene, and hence of all aromatic compounds, proved to be so important for both pure and applied chemistry that in 1890 the German Chemical Society organized an elaborate appreciation in Kekulé's honor, celebrating the twenty-fifth anniversary of his first benzene paper. Here Kekulé spoke of the creation of the theory. He said that he had discovered the ring shape of the benzene molecule after having a reverie or day-dream of a snake seizing its own tail (this is a common symbol in many ancient cultures known as the Ouroboros or Endless knot).

http://inventing.askdefine.com/

Einstein also said, “To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old questions from a new angle, requires creative imagination and marks real advance.” and “Imagination is more important than knowledge.” Inventors often envision a new idea, seeing it in their mind. New ideas often come when the conscious mind turns away from the subject or problem, when you are focusing on something else, relaxing, at rest or sleeping. A novel idea may come in a flash -Eureka! For example, after years of working to figure out the general theory of relativity, the solution came to Einstein suddenly in a dream “like a giant die making an indelible impress, a huge map of the universe outlined itself in one clear vision.”

I got the inventor wrong, but still...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dreams#The_sewing_machine

Elias Howe invented the sewing machine in 1845. He had the idea of a machine with a needle which would go through a piece of cloth but he couldn't figure out exactly how it would work. In his dream cannibals were preparing to cook him and they were dancing around the fire waving their spears. Howe noticed at the head of each spear there was a small hole through the shaft and the up and down motion of the spears and the hole remained with him when he woke. The idea of passing the thread through the needle close to the point, not at the other end was a major innovation in making mechanical sewing possible.
 
O.K. Thanks Raymond. I think I've heard some of those stories before, but didn't have any sources right off hand. You seem to know quite a bit about the history of science. Thanks for tagging on. I think we’re on the same page.


I know from my own experience with knifemaking, that's often how it happens, and by accident etc.
 
Last edited:
I guess this thread's about run it's course. ;)

Thanks to all who participated, and for entertaining my pet peeve. :)
 
Well - maybe, but I would like to add one thought. No scientific advance, no matter how simple it may seem, stands alone but is dependent upon many antecedent events, knowledge and conditions many of which are individually fairly simplistic still provide the foundation for the new insight.

Rather than start attempting to duplicate the event by starting in the middle without benefit of understanding the entire step by step evolution of the end product - success will be unlikely and the final construct considered false.

Yes Tai - good thread and thanks.
 
Thanks Ed.

Always a pleasure. :)

Until next time...

"Long live Jonathan Livingston Seagull".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Livingston_Seagull

Jonathan_Livingston_Seagull_taken_by_Mom_for_Dad.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top