Ronald A. Brown The Polytechnic of North London Holloway London N7 8DB England
I
Creativity, Discovery, and Science
I f you were to ask an intelligent layman what he thought about scientists, his answer probably would be along the following lines: "A Scientist is a white-coa ted, completely logical thinking machine."
If you were to ask an archetypal intelligent layman what he thought about scientists his answer would probably he along the following lines. A Scientist (capitalized with a sense of awe) is a white-coated. comoletelv loeical thinkine machine. Oh" jective, precise, unbiased, free from prejudice, using inductive rather than deductive reasoning, he is as cold as an electronic computer. He deals in things you can handle, touch, measure in a quantitative manner and verify, not with ephemeral disembodied concepts. The scientist works meticulously, adding one irrefutable fact to another until the whole of reality is systematized and categorized. Intent on wresting secrets from an unwilling Nature, such a man is left devoid of the finer feelings which characterize a normal human being. In virtually all of these ideas our well-educated layman could be almost totallv wrong! ---~ The purpose of the present article is to outline some basic concrpis oiscience, from the viewpoint of developing the role of creativity in scientific innovation. With this object in mind, nn attemnt is made to mint out some common misconce~tions about scLence; to chaiacterize its basic suppositions, and to give an account of the nature of scientific discovery. Although emphasis is placed on t h e physical sciences, a similar treatment can he applied to sociological and other disciplines.
-
Common Mlsconceptlons
Let us examine in greater detail some of the popular fallacies associated with science and those who practice it. At the core of science is the experimental method, with the idea that it is possible to carry out carefully designed studies under controlled conditions in a repeatable manner. At one time it was thought axiomatic that the observer should be divorced completely from what he examined. Once you look at this couce~tin detail vou realize auicklv . . how far removed it is from actuality. For example, what you find in an experiment, or in life in general for that matter, is largely what you expect to find, and is conditioned to a great extent by your own background, experience and expectations. When we work in a laboratory our results are determined in large measure by previous schooling, and by years of rigorous training to develop a scientific bent-which teaches us to ignore findings that do not correspond with our preconceptions! There are manv cases of missed discoveries arisine from oeoole refusine to accept the validity of their own resulk ~ a r t b tbis f problem comes from the fallihilitv of our audio-visual and motor responses. A good deal of work has been carried out recently on mechanisms of perception. Apparently, our five senses are not as trustworthy as was once thought, for these also tend to read in a wav which is consistent with ~reviousschoolina and conditioning, as demonstrated in ~ i g & e1for visual response. To try to overcome the shortcomings of the only-too-fallible human observer there has been a movement towards more so~histicated,c o m ~ l e xinstrumentation. Yet the more complicated the instrument the further it is removed from the parameter being measured, so the more the results depend on 720 1 Journal of Chemical Education
concepts inherent in the design of the tool itself. Thus, in an immersion thermometer a connection between coefficient of thermal expansion of mercury and temperature appears fairly straichtforward. On the other hand,. output . from an autnmatic x-ray spectrometer requires a certain understanding and assumptions concerning detectionlrate meter systems; links between characteristic radiation and discrete electronic transitions in elements; computer/instrument interfaces, to mention just a few items. As yet, we have not even considered the possibility that the instrument may itself alter the outcome of an exoeriment. Bv " wav.of illustration. Werner ~ e i s e n b e rput' ~ forward his famous uncertainty principle, which states that it is not oossihle to determine simultaneously both position and mdmentum of an electron. In order to detect an electron accuratelv vou need a tool with high energy; some of this energy canb; imparted to the electron, thus changing its momentum. If you use a device that does not have high energy it will not possess sufficient resolution to locate an electron, and this will give uncertainty about position. Other difficulties are associated with the repeatibility of experiments. Often we cannot isolate completely, or in certain cases even characterize satisfarrorily, all of the important variables. Sometimes what was considered insignificant can prove crucial. Let us consider two representative cases. In sintering studies carried out a t temperatures up to 1900°C i t is customary to use recrystallized alumina equipment. Under certain conditions the alumina firine tube can become pervious to atmospheric oxygen a t hightemperature%thus providing a novel diffusion path for oxygen through the tube wall. This can negate a neutral or reducing atmosphere inside the furnace. Until i t was recognized, this effect led to some very strange and inexplicable results. Michael Polanyi ( I ) reports some work carried out at ICI on the rate of polymerization of a vinyl type monomer in a stream of nitrogen, using a persulfatehisulfite catalyst. After being left for a year the experiments were taken up by another worker, who obtained polymerization rates that were markedly slower than those reported originally. Eventually, the first polymer chemist and the second man carried out experiments side by side, using identical teagents. Still, the reaction rates were different. This anomaly was never explained satisfactorily. Anvone who has worked in a laboratow will be familiar with the pienomenon of that "odd" experiment. Occasionally, you obtain a single, unique result that is far better than anything that was anticipated, but you are unable to reproduce this wonderful effort! In industrial oroduction a similar, if somewhat more serious, occurrence is also known. EV& nowand-then a process which has been running smoothly for weeks or even months will break down. Often, such an epidemic will cure itself for no apparent reasons. Part of the explanation for this type ot'hrh&or may lie in the occurrence of a whole host of chemico-uhvsiral properties that depend on minute effects or changes. Thus, phosphors, semiconductors, superconductors, and similar electronically active ma-
At the basis o f the scientific system is the concept of an order and pattern existing throughout the universe. The purpose o f the scientist's efforts is to unravel this order, so as to obtain better understanding. terials, are very much affected by additives or impurities a t the nnm. or sometimes even the D D ~level. , On the other hand, nuci~ati'onlcrystallizationphen&ka, sintering and related solid state reactions. catalvsislsurface chemistrv, or electrodeposition are all processes where very small differences at the onset can lead to marked changes in the final effect. .Mechanical and electrical propertiesare controlled by minute defects, which have been investigated extensively, but are still not understood completely. There is another aspect of reproducibility which is more concerned with the logic or philosophy of the method, rather than with its practicality. We can illustrate this problem by means of an often-auoted examnle. If vou were to "eo out and see five white swans in succession, this would not necessarily iustifv the conclusion that "All swans are white". In a similar fashion, no matter how many times you carry out an experiment. it does not euarantee that it will alwavs occur in meciselithis manner.-~owadayswe have a clearer understanding of the interrelationshin between the svstem on which a measurement is made, the measuring instrument, the ohser\.er, and the logical constraints of experimental methods.
. .
Bask Concepts We mentioned above that Science has its own basic framework. What are some of the beliefs. orincinles and fundamental presuppositions that a man b i science must have? What factors mold and influence scientific opinion? In what manner and to what extent are these factors important? Notice that these questions are normally the province of the philosopher of science or the metaphysician, rather than the field of interest of an ordinary working chemist. Since the present author is in the latter category, this part of the presentation will, of necessity, be somewhat limited in scope. At the basis of the scientific system is the concept of an order and pattern existing throughout the universe. The purpose of the scientist's investigations is to unravel this order, so as to obtain a better understanding of the scheme of things, our place in this scheme, and in the process to learn something about ourselves. We assume this pattern is amenable to study, intellieible. and exists outside of our own mental constructs. ~ l t h o i at ~ htimes this latter point is hotly contested by the ohilosooher. it is seldom challeneed seriouslv hv the nracticine scientist. some people have thoight the idea 02a reality spar; from ourselves illusory. By way of example, it is claimed that the onset of relativity theory destroyed the oversimplified picture of the uniformity of events by showing an interrelationship between the space-time continuum and the manner in which it is observed. This was far from the view of Einstein himself, who held the laws of nature to be both universal, and independent of the frame of reference chosen. Einstein saw the cmstance of the speed of light as an absolute fundamental fact occurring alongside other natural events, yet completely outside the constraints of a human mind. Einstein put his own viewpoint as follows: "Belief in an external world, independent of the perceiving subject, is the basis of all natural science." We take as axiomatic that there is a uniformity, a unity and an essential simplicity about natural events. Scientific laws are held to be equally valid throughout the cosmos. We assume that nature is not capricious; there is a regularity and interconnectedness in the natural world; other scientists share much the same experiences we do, and that there are universal truths to he discovered or uncovered. Professor Coulson ( 2 ) seems to get very close to the core of scientificendeavor when he talks of "a common search for a common truth".
Other factors, whose influence is equally pervasive if perhaps less well documented, are instrumental in shaping the Drocess of scientific discoverv. Amone these are ideoloeical. - . political, and socio-economic considerations. We are not normally slow to point to the impact of dialectical materialism in this connection, or to cite the example of T. D. Lysenko and his s h a ~ i n eof hereditarv theories in the USSR. Another typical Easeis that of ~ h i l k Lenard, p a German physicist who worked on cathode raw and luminescent materials at the turn of the century. Lenard became enamored of National Socialism, to an extent that he refa aced a textbook on ~ h v s i c s with the remark: .'In reality science, like erer)lhing eiseman oroduces, is raciallv determined, determined by bluud." This man's refusal to lend credence to nuclear physics because it was "Jewish physics': impared the development of nuclear weapons in Germany in the 1940's. We might argue equally well that in a capitalist society the pressure to produce profits can be just as effective a molder of scientific opinion. Theistic or atheistic beliefs also play a part. For example, it is now eenerallv acceoted that the rise ~ ~ ~ of modern " science ~ in the sixteenth century occurred within a framework of the Protestant Christian faith (3).Many early scientists strove to learn more of the Creator by studying the created order. In more recent times it has been suggested (4) that the noted cosmologist Professor Sir Herman Bondi was inspired to produce a theory of the continuous creation of matter because this did not invoke the concept of a God who created the universes. In addition, some authorities point to the failure of the ancient Chinese to progress beyond the technical gadgetry stage as a shortcoming of theistic beliefs. With the early loss in Chinese religious concepts of a personal God who was rational came a failure to seek for the orderlv universe that such a God might create. At present we live in an era of telecommuuications, mass media, conurbations, the global community, cartels and conglomerates. Funds are controlled mainly by large Governmental or industrial institutions. All this has had its effect. We tend to emphasize interdisciplinary projects; group research efforts; multinational activities such as high energy physics a t CERNE, space exploration through joint USA1 USSR efforts or the Euronean Snace Aeencv. or climatic studies carried out during 'National ~ e o i h ~ s year. k d As a result we have started to de-emphasize the contribution of the individual, to diminish personal responsibility, and create conformitv. In addition. we have the unifvinrr. . -. if at times stultifying, influence of bther scientists. Evidentlv, the factors which control or mold scientific thinking ar; complex and still not understood completely. Hy listing these parameters it is not intended to question tht. honesty, integrity or capability of those who practiw science. Although these points mu?. not nlwass he stated formally by the phiiospher or metaphysician, their existence is real.
-
.
~
~
The Nature of Scientific Discovery
Often those outside science sunnose that scientific knowledge is certain, because i t is basehbn reason and logic rather than on beliefs and faith. Science advances by slowly and meticulously adding data to the already large storehouse of facts, until sufficient is uncovered to warrant making some change in the edifice. Consequently science is thought to be no more than the collection and filing into categories of factual information. In marked contrast, thehumanit&s deal with the much more noble concept of ideas, as opposed to mere facts. The basis of all this activity is held to be the inductive method, Volume 54. Number 12, December 1977 / 721
"These instruments have played me so many tricks that I have at last found them out in many of their humors, and have made them confess to me what they would have concealed i f Ihadnot with such perseverance and patience courted them."
by which is meant reasoning from singular statements, such as the result of an experiment, to universal truths. Let us examine the discovery process in more detail, to try to learn whether the above comments are valid ones. Although the collection of facts is an important first step, it is not the principal way that scientific breakthroughs occur. The most important aspect comes when disjointed facts are formed into a whole, so that a new pattern emerges. There is now almost overwhelming evidence that the moment when a new insight comes is a time when reason and logic must be left out. In fact, too close a concern with detail or facts, or even too much attention to what you are doing, can be severe hindrances. Each major advance in science involves an irrational, illogical element, a suspension of reason, together with a mental leap of creative insight. This moment of creativity often comes suddenly in a flash of inspiration. Perhaps flash of fruition might be a better term, since the thought may have germinated in the subconscious over a long period. Frequently it is highly imaginative, intuitive, and may be best described as a sort of inspired guesswork. Let us look a t some typical examples of scientific discovery t o try to obtain a better understanding of the creative process. Sometimes discoveries come when the mind is relaxed and not consciously concerned with technical problems at all. KekulB's contributions to chemistry are well known-his theory of atomic bonding and the ring structure of benzene. Yet these ideas came to Kekulb on two different occasions when he was half asleep. The first time he was on the upper deck of a bus late at night; the second occasion as he dozed by the fire. An even more remarkable occurrence is recorded by the pharmacologist Professor Loewi. After reading a novel Loewi fell asleep, only to awaken very suddenly in the middle of the night in order to jot down a brilliant idea that had come in his sleep. On waking the next morning he had the frustrating experience of not being able to decipher his own hurried notes, however much he tried during the day. The following night he went to sleep again, had the same experience, but, this time, woke to make very careful notes. On investigating the nature of this new breakthrough in the laboratory, he found he bad discovered that a chemical interaction occurs when nerve muscles are triggered. Subsequently the area of chemical agents and nerve, muscular or glandular reactions formed an important field of study for many workers. Alfred Werner was asleep when he had the insight which led to the foundation of coordination chemistry. Faraday worked tirelessly to find a relationship between electricity and magnetism. Finally, he had to take a holiday. On returning to the laboratory this worker found the connection immediately, almost without effort. Marquis de Laplace, mathematician and astronomer, made the comment: "I have often observed that, by ceasing to think for some days of some very complicated question, it became quite easy to me when I came to consider it afresh." Normally the inspiration is both sudden and unexpected. Some time ago Platt and Baker (5) published the results of a survey in which they asked chemists whether they had ever received these sudden flashes of insight, or 'hunches'. Over 80%of the respondents admitted having assistance from this source. The replies were very illuminating. "The idea came with such a shock that I can remember the exact position clearly." "Then the explanation, essentially complete, sprang into my head." Poincarb noted that "quite suddenly the decisive idea is presented to the mind". While strolling across 722 / Journal of Chemical Education
Glasgow Green James Watt had a sudden inspiration of how to make an effective steam engine. Helmholtz, Arrhenius! Max Planck, Einstein, Sir William Rowan Hamilton, Mendeleeff, Darwin, Newton, Edison, Gauss, all experienced discovery as a sudden enlightenment, or revelation. Nor would it be correct to imagine that this form of discovery is a cold, unemotionalaffair. Instead, it is frequently highly charged, and very memorable. Among the most prevalent - ~ - emotions ~ - ~ ~ seems to he one of iov. Faradav exhibited boyish glee a t some of his work; ~ a v i d a n c e dfor joy; Harvey talked of the pleasures of discovery; Scheele delighted in discovery; Pasteur felt his joy to be one of the greatest things ever felt. Or Darwin at the conception of evolution: "I can remember the very spot in the road, whilst in my carriage, when to mv iov the solution occurred to me." Kepler said of one of his %onomical finds "The intense pleasure I have received from this discoverv can never be told in words." Professor Oppenheimer talks of discipline, dedication, and devotion to science. Thomas Hobhe's first contact with geometry around 1630 had such an impact that from that moment on "This made him in love with geometry." An even more striking case is that of the biologist A. R. Wallace, who described his feelings in the following terms. "My heart began to beat violently, the blood rushed to my head, and I felt much more like fainting. . . . I had a headache the rest of the day, so great was the excitement." The object of all this concern was no more that a new species of butterfly! William Herschel wrote of the use of his telescopes in language that was far from uninvolved. "These instruments have played me so many tricks that I have at last found them out in many of their humours and have made them confess to me what they would have concealed if I had not with such perseverance and patiencecourted them. I h ~ v tortured e them with powers, fiattered them with attendance to find out the critical moments when they would act. . . it would he hard if they had not been kind to me at least." These are not isolated cases, hut instead typify the rreative process. Evidently, discovery is not the cold, unemotional exercise in logic that one might suppose. There IS another often underestimated factor which can be an important element in discovery. Many new phenumena have Eome about through chanre,&cidents, near accidents, or serendipity. A now classic example of this sort is the ratalytir action
