EDITORS' COLUMN which t h e "hypothesis" is introduced. I t is suggested t h a t most scientists propose hypotheses after having made only a minimum n u m ber of necessary observations, and even in empirical fields there are "ideas which initiate and control the direction of the investigation." In addition, t h e imaginative, intuitive, and creative factors and their role in scientific discovery are explored in detail. Madame C u rie's discovery of radium is cited as an example, in t h a t a t t h e time she had observed only a n amount of radioactivity t h a t was stronger than could have arisen from known r a dioactive elements, she was convinced t h a t the unknown radioactivity emanated from a new element. In this vein the author states t h a t " M o s t of t h e examples used to illustrate the inspirational factor are the major discoveries by men of genius. The vast majority of working scientists are not of comparable stature, their fields of study arc much more restricted, their advances less fundamental and their hypotheses more likely to be small scale extensions within an acceptable framework. T h e role of reason in t h e elucidation of such h y potheses is probably greater than in the major scientific discoveries and t h e p a r t played by insight less." D r . Morris then goes on t o explain t h a t scientific discovery depends to a great extent on t h e "ripeness" of the problem and of the mind of the scientist—and t h a t frequently major discoveries are not made by scientists trained in t h e field of discovery, because their minds a r e fettered b y lines of thought t h a t prevail in t h a t field. The entire article is as stimulating as these brief excerpts, and t h e editors heartily urge reading of this evaluation of the "scientific method." As D r . Morris h a s pointed out, he would like t o see the practice of science (or scientists) for what it is—"a complex paradoxical activity combining both imagination and inspiration with objectivity and rigorous logic."
