There is a pervasive idea that scientific advancement consists of "discovery," but that doesn't need to be how we conceptualize science. In this essay, I analyze the implications of science viewed as a process of discovery, and the limitations of thinking of science as exploring the unknown to find hidden information. I point out that information is rarely hidden, the correctness of a scientist's theory is no guarantee of their future success, and science flourishes more when tended to indirectly than incentivized. I propose some alternate ways of conceptualizing the scientific process, and tie them to more pragmatic analysis of why modern science struggles and what the scientific community can do to improve it.
Science Without Discovery
5 days later
Very nice essay. I enjoyed reading it and completely subscribe to the content. Perhaps the title is a bit misleading (after all, discovery in science is still important) and the suggested "pragmatic steps" at the end are not very pragmatic according to my taste, but that doesn't change the important message of the essay in my view.
4 days later
quote
There is a pervasive idea that scientific advancement consists of "discovery," but that doesn't need to be how we conceptualize science. In this essay, I analyze the implications of science viewed as a process of discovery, and the limitations of thinking of science as exploring the unknown to find hidden information. I point out that information is rarely hidden, the correctness of a scientist's theory is no guarantee of their future success, and science flourishes more when tended to indirectly than incentivized.
end of quote
This is why I object to this essay'
quote
Scientific Discovery
First published Thu Mar 6, 2014; substantive revision Mon Oct 31, 2022
Scientific discovery is the process or product of successful scientific inquiry. Objects of discovery can be things, events, processes, causes, and properties as well as theories and hypotheses and their features (their explanatory power, for example). Most philosophical discussions of scientific discoveries focus on the generation of new hypotheses that fit or explain given data sets or allow for the derivation of testable consequences. Philosophical discussions of scientific discovery have been intricate and complex because the term “discovery” has been used in many different ways, both to refer to the outcome and to the procedure of inquiry. In the narrowest sense, the term “discovery” refers to the purported “eureka moment” of having a new insight. In the broadest sense, “discovery” is a synonym for “successful scientific endeavor” tout court. Some philosophical disputes about the nature of scientific discovery reflect these terminological variations.
Philosophical issues related to scientific discovery arise about the nature of human creativity, specifically about whether the “eureka moment” can be analyzed and about whether there are rules (algorithms, guidelines, or heuristics) according to which such a novel insight can be brought about. Philosophical issues also arise about the analysis and evaluation of heuristics, about the characteristics of hypotheses worthy of articulation and testing, and, on the meta-level, about the nature and scope of philosophical analysis itself. This essay describes the emergence and development of the philosophical problem of scientific discovery and surveys different philosophical approaches to understanding scientific discovery. In doing so, it also illuminates the meta-philosophical problems surrounding the debates, and, incidentally, the changing nature of philosophy of science.
end of quote
If we do not have discovery linked to Science then where does the "Eureka" moment come from ? This is the bottom line, if one does not do exploration, the chance of future "Eureka" moments drops dramatically.
7 days later
Philipp Strasberg Thank you! I do regret not fleshing out the suggested steps at the end a bit more. While researching and writing, it struck me that a lot of the proposed ways to improve or "fix" the process of science are sort of agreed upon among scientists: it's not very controversial, for instance, to say that there should be more funding and attention to replication studies, that it distorts the field to not publish or de-emphasize negative findings, and that collaborators and reviewers should be better-compensated, rather than focusing all the attention, prestige, and eventual funding on lead authors. Given what feels like wide agreement on these goals, but also a lack of movement in that direction, I thought it made sense to focus the essay on the philosophical foundations of why, deep down, those goals aren't being achieved.
7 days later
There are some lovely ideas in this essay that really struck me - that scientists should be explainers rather than discoverers - that we cannot make ourselves understand; the most we can do is to foster a state of mind, in which understanding may come to us - that we cannot know where new discoveries come from, we can’t know who’ll provide them or what paradigm they’ll use: the most we can do is foster a general environment of creativity and communication, and hope for the best.
Just excellent stuff!
I love thinking about science and making up theories i.e., trying to explain things and solve mysteries and puzzles (and reading other people's ideas too). I do it because I really enjoy it. I'm not part of an academic community, I will never have a paper published and I'm not interested in winning prizes. I can make the world a better place, but I don't think it will be through some great discovery but rather (perhaps) by helping others discover the joy of thinking for themselves - or maybe it's all just my excuse for lying on the sofa! So, going back to the title of your essay, science for me is not about discovery in the sense of a some breakthrough finding for the scientific community, but more about personal discovery and fun (and I hope that doesn't sound too selfish).
Also thanks for your comments on my essay and I will try to post a reply that is helpful.
All the best,
AzureFlyingfish
11 days later
Hi LilacPig.
Totally agree with you!
You have to think big!
It is known that Newton determined the gravitational coefficient through the parameters of the orbits of the planets of the solar system. If the gravitational coefficient is determined in a similar way from the parameters of the orbits of electrons in the Hydrogen atom, then the gravitational coefficient of the planetary system of the Hydrogen atom becomes 40 orders of magnitude greater than in the solar system. Then the Planck parameters of the Hydrogen atom are the parameters of an electron with its radius equal to the radius of the Compton wave of the electron. Those. each level of fractal matter has its own “Planck parameters”, and the generally accepted Planck parameters are an abstract delusion and have no real meaning at all. Indeed, what relation does the gravitational coefficient from the parameters of the Solar system have to the parameters of the planetary system of the Hydrogen atom? None!!!
You have to think big!
The fine structure constant can be easily calculated with an accuracy of up to 7 digits, assuming that all elements of matter have a fractal structure. Then, therefore, "black holes" do not exist, and there is no event horizon. Those. inside putative "black holes", there is deterministic matter that obeys the simple quantum laws of fractal matter, which unify gravity and quantum phenomena of the deterministic functioning of matter on all scales of the universe [ appendix: https://s3.amazonaws.com/fqxi.data/data/essay-contest-files/16/reference_id_2304.pdf
https://qspace.fqxi.org/competitions/entry/2304#control_panel ].
Hi Lilac Pig,
thanks a lot for these interesting suggestions to improve scientific progress without discovery.
As you also sketch but rather briefly in your essay, I am wondering whether we are really that much discovery-driven in science. It depends on the field one is focussing, but I think that there are also a lot of attempts to foster knowledge gain by developing methods and honouring people for finding more efficient ways to tackle tasks. For instance, discovery of penicilline happened by chance but by now, we have built on that to systematically develop drug synthesis approaches which are also deemed highly valuable.
Nevertheless, I agree that there is still a big part of science worshipping people who "got lucky", for instance by discovering a new planet out in space or a new species of life on earth.
It was quite an interesting read, as my essay deals with the question how to systematically sort our knowledge and I came to the conclusion that abductive reasoning, i.e. the way humans get a first idea to explain a phenomenon they observe, plays a decisive role in scientific knowledge gain and that is what distinguishes "artificial stupidity" from human intelligent thinking, as AI does not seem to be able to perform any kind of abductive reasoning.
While abductive reasoning also implies some sort of "discovery", "getting a serendipitous idea", it is more related to model building and making sense out of data. Contrary to that, I assumed, your term "discovery" is actually concerned with finding these data?! Would you say so or would you also extend "discovery" to a broader term?
Best wishes,
BeigeBandicoot.