Two questions about science

[Lynx]

1. How important are studies of 'deviations from the norm' to science? For example, studies of autism, brain injury, movement disorders, or genetic disorders such as Angelman syndrome?

2. To what extent have serendipitous events or 'eureka' moments contributed to the advancement of science?

[MarxSchmarx]

1. How important are studies of 'deviations from the norm' to science? For example, studies of autism, brain injury, movement disorders, or genetic disorders such as Angelman syndrome?Quite. If one accepts the Kuhnian notion that anomolies create crises in prevailing paradigms, which in turn lead to new paradigms, then they are crucial to the development of science. Kuhn's historical evidence is very persuasive, and I think this is an accurate assessment of how the foundations of most modern sciences have developed.



2. To what extent have serendipitous events or 'eureka' moments contributed to the advancement of science?They have been a mixed bag. Consider evolution by natural selection. For Wallace, it was most likely a "Eureka" moment forged in the midst of boredom in the Malaysian jungle. For Darwin, it was a gradual thing, a hunch that needed convincing and much thought.

Apart from this example, famous, documented "Eureka" moments are few and far between.

Having said this, to some extent they operate on every day science, when, for example, a scientist ponders why an experiment didn't work out for months, and then one day, suddenly, figures out what the problem was. Then there is a burst of creativity and the problem is, bang, resolved. But this was preceded by months of failure and dead ends. So Edison's addage about "1% inspiration, 99% perspiration" is very correct in science. Only to those unfamiliar with the context does it appear as a "Eureka" moment.

The natural sciences aren't unique in this. When did Marx have his "eureka" moment about the surplus value of labor? When did Kant have his "eureka" moment about the categorical imperative? Hell, when does my mechanic have a "eureka" moment about why my car isn't starting? Or when I figure out the chess move that will lead to mate in 5? "Eureka" moments are as etherial in science as they are in other fields.

[Jazzratt]

2. To what extent have serendipitous events or 'eureka' moments contributed to the advancement of science?

I recommend that, if you're able to, you find a (fairly) old radio programme by the BBC entitled "the serendipity of science" which illustrates what has been serendipitously discovered (although I believe they tend to belabour the point that most science isn't done serendipitously, pretty much after every description).

[Lynx]

There's going to be a documentary on the CBC on this subject, perhaps after Christmas, your answers are helping me gain some background, thanks :)

[mikelepore]

A eureka story that I like -- in 1890 Friedrich Kekule explained in a speech how he realized that the way to account for the carbon-hydrogen ratio of the benzene molecule is to realize that the molecule has a ring shape. He said he realized this after waking up from a dream about a snake biting its own tail.

[Dean]

1. How important are studies of 'deviations from the norm' to science? For example, studies of autism, brain injury, movement disorders, or genetic disorders such as Angelman syndrome?

The study of pathology is fundamental to most psychology and medicine. Almost all other sciences rely on deviation, though not necessary in the context of repeated, characteristic or malignant deviation, which is what you are describing above.


2. To what extent have serendipitous events or 'eureka' moments contributed to the advancement of science?
Epiphanies are pf cpurse important as a step in scientific progress. But they almost always come as a catalyst in a long, exhaustive research cycle - which could span thousands of years. It is important to understand science as the social phenomenon that it is; disproportionate focus on individual steps is bad for the scientific community.

[Lynx]

The study of pathology is fundamental to most psychology and medicine. Almost all other sciences rely on deviation, though not necessary in the context of repeated, characteristic or malignant deviation, which is what you are describing above.
Most of these deviations are already categorized, except for brain injuries, some of which remain as unique incidents.


Epiphanies are pf cpurse important as a step in scientific progress. But they almost always come as a catalyst in a long, exhaustive research cycle - which could span thousands of years. It is important to understand science as the social phenomenon that it is; disproportionate focus on individual steps is bad for the scientific community.
It may be that solving lots of little mysteries over time contributes more than solving a big mystery all of a sudden out of the blue.
Still waiting for the doc, it will be on The Nature of Things.

[Lynx]

I watched the documentary, it defined serendipity as unexpectedly finding something you weren't looking for and pseudo-serendipity as unexpectedly finding something you were looking for.
They also examined the pro's and con's of systematic versus integral approach to problem solving. The pitfalls of orthodoxy were mentioned.
Based on what I saw, I constructed a conceptual pyramid. The left slope is meant to describe an integral approach; the right slope, a systematic one. Both slopes contain 'strengths' (grip surfaces) and 'weaknesses' (slippery surfaces). The pyramid itself consists of levels, ranging from the 'dungeon' to the 'attic'. You can imagine people living inside the pyramid, venturing from level to level, or climbing the pyramid from outside.
:blushing: