Essay Three by Karilyn
The definition of scientific creativity can be challenging to
pinpoint. An examination of three scientists’ essays, Asimov,
Kuhn, and Goodall, will help unravel what characteristics are
necessary to achieve a creative idea. While Asimov and Goodall
share particularly strong arguments for their beliefs, Kuhn’s
arguments are weakened by his inflexible and limited definition.
Goodall and Asimov understand the power of a self-education and
do not limit the contribution of what one can do without being
formally educated. They also indirectly reflect each other’s
criteria as Goodall mirrors Asimov’s creative characteristics
in her narrative. Kuhn, on the other hand, has a limited view on
the education process of a scientist, which brings up questions
about self-education not addressed by Kuhn. Perhaps Kuhn could
further develop his definition and make it more complete and
acceptable like the definitions of Asimov and Goodall.
In his article “Those Crazy Ideas,” Isaac Asimov
succinctly identifies and qualifies five qualities an individual
must possess to be considered creative. It is conceivable that
the most important point in his essay is that education plays a
significant role in the creative process. However, education is
not solely responsible for all the creative minds, as Asimov
outlines for his readers. As discussed thoroughly throughout the
essay, the characteristics of intelligence, intuition, courage,
and luck also contribute to the ingenious ideas which have
shaped history. While all five characteristics presented by
Asimov are important to examine when analyzing from where
creativity comes, Asimov’s explanation of education,
intuition, and luck strengthen and make acceptable his
definition of scientific creativity.
Upon reading Asimov’s essay, one might readily agree with
his interpretation of what defines scientific creativity; after
all, he is an accomplished writer with an education at which no
one can scoff. And no one in their right mind would argue
possessing “as many ‘bits’ as possible” due to a broad
education would not be advantageous when developing an
innovative thought (p.148). So, perhaps the most impressive
passage in the essay is when Asimov acknowledges that one does
not have to be educated in the traditional sense of formal
education, but can collect bits of information that accumulate
in the form of self-education. He points out that, “It often
happens that ‘self-educated’ is confused with ‘uneducated.’
This is an error to be avoided” (p. 146). Such a statement
serves as a warning to individuals, especially those of the
scholarly type, who believe only in the traditional method of
education. Conversely, Asimov does point out that “The
self-educated genius is therefore becoming rarer, though he has
still not vanished,” which may lead some to believe he does
not value the “self-educated” as he does the formally
educated (p. 146). This statement does cast a shadow of doubt on
the overall sincerity of Asimov’s previous statement, unless
the reader examines why he says it. The bits of information that
can be absorbed in self-education have indeed become “more
complex over the year and the absorption of the necessary number
of ‘bits’ has become more and more difficult without the
guidance of someone who has already absorbed them” (p. 146).
Therefore, while it is not impossible for individuals today to
educate themselves, it is rather difficult to accomplish this
education without assistance. So, by acknowledging that a
self-educated individual can contribute in an equally effective
manner as that of a traditionally educated individual, Asimov
demonstrates his open-mindedness to the broad ways of becoming
educated.
An individual possessing scientific creativity must certainly
be intuitive. Asimov fully explains the importance of this
characteristic by stating, “It is more likely that none of the
group will be intuitive than that none will be intelligent or
none educated” (p. 149). He establishes the powerful argument
that intuition cannot be learned rather it is innate. He uses
the scientists Darwin and Wallace as examples and explains their
ability “…of seeing the consequences [of the cause of
evolution] ‘in a flash’…” as a result of the “gift”
of intuition (p. 147). It cannot be argued that intuition is a
gift that everyone possesses; furthermore, it cannot be argued
that intuition can be learned. In defining intuition so
precisely, Asimov is effective in influencing his readers to
recognize the creative person is one who possesses such a gift.
While some scientists may ignore the proposal that luck
influences the outcome of every paradigm, Asimov embraces the
idea. His defense of including the quality of luck as a
necessity for the scientifically creative is summed up with,
“…it is quite possible that a person may possess all four of
the criteria [education, intelligence, intuition, courage] I
have mentioned in superabundance and yet may never happen to
make the necessary combination” needed to create a new idea
(p. 150). Because luck is not scientifically explained, some may
have difficulty accepting this characteristic’s influence in
the creative process until they read Asimov’s “what if”
questions regarding the luck that permitted Darwin his theory of
evolution.
Asimov is effective in defining the characteristics
influencing scientific creativity. He provides clear examples
that the layperson can understand and agree with when examining
the qualities which produce inventiveness. Such insight into the
creative process from a scientist develops a sound base for
acceptance of what is responsible for “Those Crazy Ideas.”
Kuhn is another scientist who attempts to identify the
contributing factors of scientific creativity. In “The Route
to Normal Science,” he identifies the characteristics of
innovative thought by explaining the stages of paradigm
development. Like Asimov, Kuhn uses the familiarity of science
to explain the components that influence new ideas, in this case
how paradigms are created. While some may accept Kuhn’s
rationale of the creation of paradigms, others may find it
difficult to agree with his beliefs because his explanation of
education is limited, bringing further questions rather than
resounding agreement from the reader. Furthermore, his writing
style is more technical, making it more difficult for the reader
to identify with the rational he presents as evidence for
scientific creativity. Finally, Kuhn’s definition of the
creation of paradigms lacks the personal quality which plays
into the creativity of a person. Kuhn’s definition of
scientific creativity is inflexible when considering education’s
role in the creative process, his stylistic approach to the
subject holds the reader at bay, and he fails to address the
intrinsic motivations that drive the other qualities of
creativity making it difficult to agree with his analysis of the
creative mind.
Education is theoretically supposed to allow one to think
more open-mindedly with a broad outlook on the subject at hand.
Kuhn, as educated as he is, fails to see the numerous ways in
which one can be educated. His statement, “The study of
paradigms…is what mainly prepares the student for membership
in the particular scientific community with which he will later
practice” represents his restricted view about how one becomes
educated (p.194). Clearly, Kuhn believes in the formal education
process in order to become knowledgeable in a particular field.
Then, it can be assumed by the reader that Kuhn would not
consider self-education as a legitimate form of schooling. In
this deduction, one would have to conclude Kuhn is very limited
in his view of education, minimizing the possibility that one
can be self-educated and contribute to new paradigms.
Kuhn’s educational resumè is quite impressive; however, he
tends to forget his readers may lack the experience he has when
writing his article. The unfamiliar content Kuhn uses to explain
the evolution of paradigms hinders the reading experience. For
example, Kuhn’s references to “Aristotle’s Physica,
Ptolemy’s Almagest, Newton’s Principia and Opticks,
Franklin’s Electricity, Lavoisier’s Chemistry,
and Lyell’s Geology…” can be quite intimidating to
the reader who is searching for a familiar experience to relate
the information presented by the author (pp. 193-94). Moreover,
the examples he uses to explain the historical development of
paradigms are relatively threatening to the reader. Take for
instance his illustration of physical optics, “Today’s
physics textbooks tell the students that light is photons, i.e.,
quantum-mechanical entities that exhibit some characteristics of
waves and some of particles. Research proceeds accordingly, or
rather according to the more elaborate and mathematical
characterization from which this usual verbalization is derived”
(pp.194-95). A reader not familiar with the science of light may
not readily relate to this explanation and become so caught up
in the struggle to understand the illustration, he may miss Kuhn’s
point on the historical development of patterns as they relate
to forming a foundation in the pre-paradigm stage of paradigm
development.
Furthermore, Kuhn does not account for the intrinsic
motivation which proves inspirational to the scientist’s
creativity. In his analysis of the paradigm development, he
recognizes the historical and scientific aspects which influence
the creation of new ideas, but he does not suggest any
motivating factor within the scientist himself contributing to
the creation of a new idea. He describes “…in the early
stages of the development of any science different men
confronting the same range of phenomena, but not usually all the
same particular phenomena, describe and interpret them in
different ways,” but he does not address what motivates the
scientists to continue studying the phenomena when they all come
up with different interpretations of the same idea (p. 198).
What is it that provokes the Franklins and Newtons of the
science community to further investigate their causes, what
keeps them from giving up when others think them crazy? Kuhn
should address such questions to allow for a complete
understanding of paradigm development.
While Kuhn is very educated and accomplished in his field, he
lacks the ability to effectively communicate the development of
paradigms to the layperson. He appears close-minded as he
professes membership into a specific scientific community is
contingent on formal education. Additionally, the examples he
uses to explain the progress of scientific creativity are
ineffective and difficult for the amateur scientist to
comprehend. Also contributing to the unapproachable style of
Kuhn’s writing is the lack of consideration he gives to the
influence of the scientist’s intrinsic power of creativity.
Ignoring such an important qualities of creative science
demonstrates Kuhn’s inability to relate to his readers on many
levels. Jane Goodall, on the other hand, is much more effective
in her communication with amateurs when relating the
characteristics of creative science.
Jane Goodall’s “First Observations” essay clearly
identifies the qualities necessary for scientific creativity.
Goodall is a scientist with a humanistic touch who draws her
readers to the subject matter she has made her life’s work.
Her effective writing style is based on personal experience in
Gombe, Africa where she chronicles her scientific creativity.
Although all odds were against her, Goodall’s courage to
contribute to her field resulted in new paradigms which support
the scientific community in understanding human origins. A true
scientist, Goodall collects research using her intuitive gifts
to guide her decision-making process and gain the trust of her
subjects. The narrative reflection of her Gombe experience,
combined with the courage it took Goodall to confront a wildlife
environment with no formal training and her intuition to
effectively study the chimpanzees all contribute to the valuable
characteristics possessed by a creative scientist.
Goodall effectively uses a narrative writing style to capture
her audience’s attention and to relate her experience with the
chimpanzees in a way her readers understand. She describes the
setting using figurative language to aid the reader in
comprehending the place she calls home, “Soon I could find my
way around the sheer ravines and up and down the steep slopes of
three valleys-the home valley, the Pocket, and Mlinda Valley-as
well as a taxi driver finds his way about in the main streets
and byways of London” (pp.179-180). Goodall also reveals the
chimpanzees and their behavior with the same logical
descriptions. Here she describes the chimpanzee community she
observes as if she is watching humans interact, “I saw one
female, newly arrived in a group, hurry up to a big male and
hold her hand toward him. Almost regally he reached out, clasped
her hand in his, drew it toward him, and kissed it with his lips”
(p. 179). Moreover, Goodall names each of her subjects according
to their behaviors or physical characteristics because she has
“always been interested in the differences between
individuals, and a name is not only more individual than a
number but also far easier to remember” (p.181). Such an
approach to science relates the logical view Goodall takes in
her scientific creativity and helps the reader see the
commonsensical manner in which she studies the chimpanzees.
The courage Goodall displays in presenting her findings is
also present in her chronicle “First Observations.” Having
no formal college education, Goodall relied on her experiences
to make inferences from her observations. In fact, she was
harshly criticized by professors and classmates when writing her
doctorate without first possessing a bachelor’s degree. “The
animals should be given numbers. Jane also used descriptive,
narrative writing in her observations and calculations. She
anthropomorphized her animals. Her colleagues and classmates
thought she was ‘doing all wrong.’ Robert Hinde did approve
her thesis, even though she returned with all of his corrections
with the original names and anthropomorphizing” (Women’s
Contributions…). Goodall’s courage stands out as a committed
scientist when she refused to revise the names she had given the
chimpanzees to numbers at the recommendation of her professor.
The intuitiveness Goodall displays throughout her writing is
another characteristic necessary in depicting a scientifically
creative person. She intuitively recognized the most
approachable chimpanzees were David Graybeard and Goliath.
Because “David Graybeard was less afraid of me from the start
than were any of the other chimps,” she knew she “…had a
better chance of approaching to observe them more closely”
(p.182). This demonstration of intuition helped Goodall gain the
trust of the chimpanzees and led to the invaluable paradigms
that changed her field of science forever. Goodall’s intuition
also protected her from dangerous situations she encountered in
the wild. “…I saw a leopard coming toward me, his tail held
up straight” (p.180). As Goodall contemplated an escape she
realized running was not the answer. “So I uttered a sort of
halfhearted squawk. The leopard, my logical mind told me, would
be just as frightened of me if he knew I was there. Sure enough,
there was a thudding of startled feet and then silence”
(p.181). Again, Goodall’s intuition helps her maintain safety
while pursuing her study of the chimpanzees.
It is evident in Goodall’s writing that she possesses a
clear understanding of the characteristics contributing to the
creative scientist. She is able to captivate her audience by
relating her findings to things they are familiar with, instead
of talking over their heads, as other scientific writers tend to
do. Goodall’s courage and intuition are also evident and
support the necessity of these characteristics in the
development of creativity.
When comparing Goodall’s scientific pattern to that of
Asimov’s and Kuhn’s, it is obvious that Goodall and Asimov
share more of the same qualities in their definitions. Asimov
identifies five qualities inherent in scientific creativity:
education, intelligence, intuition, courage and luck. When
examining Goodall’s methods of conducting research on the
chimpanzees in Gombe, one can see she utilizes all five
characteristics to gather her data.
In the first characteristic, Asimov acknowledges education
can be that of traditional or innovative, and one should not
discount those who have been self-educated. Goodall is a primary
example of a scientist who is self-educated; and as Asimov
states, “…it is an error to be avoided” to mistake
self-educated as uneducated (p.146). Not having any college
background prior to uprooting from Europe to Africa, Goodall did
not let those who dismissed her primitive ways of conducting
research influence her decision to study chimpanzees. She
educated herself in the wildlife she called her home and was
able to introduce new paradigms into her branch of science.
Goodall also possesses intelligence, which Asimov asserts is
necessary when possessing scientific creativity. His definition
supports Goodall’s demonstration of intelligence, “The
ability to combine ‘bits’ [information] with facility and to
grow consciously aware of the new combinations is…the measure
of what we call ‘intelligence’” (p.146). In other words,
Goodall takes the “bits” from her observations, combines
them, and uses the product to make decisions about the
usefulness of the information. For example, Goodall may have
never discovered that chimpanzees eat meat if she had not
recognized the trust she had gained with David Graybeard,
continued to build the trust, and eventually witnessed David and
a few other chimps eating a piglet. Goodall also possesses
Asimov’s third characteristic of creativity, intuition.
Because Goodall is able to see, as Asimov puts it, “…with
little delay as possible, the consequences of the new
combinations of ‘bits’ which [s]he has formed,” she is
able to make breakthroughs in her field of research. She took
the knowledge she possessed about chimps using objects as tools
and immediately recognized this behavior exhibited by David and
his companion Goliath on a termite mound. As she observed for
several days, she was able to make note of the chimps using
blades of grass to gain access to the termite mound. She pieced
together the information and realized they were “…actually
modifying an object and thus showing the crude beginnings of
toolmaking” to fish the termites out from the earth (p.184).
Goodall also possesses Asimov’s fourth characteristic,
courage. Had Jane Goodall been intimidated by her lack of a
formal education, she would not have contributed to her field,
possibly putting it decades behind in discovering the meat
eating, toolmaking chimpanzees. However, she was able to endure
the criticism and “announce the results of your [her]
creativity” to those who possessed higher degrees of education
and years more experience in the field (p.149). Finally, Goodall
is lucky. Asimov describes “that combinations of ‘bits’
take place quite at random…” and if luck is not present, it
really does not matter if all previous four criteria are met
(p.150). For instance, Goodall could have been sick the day
David and his companions killed and ate the piglet, completely
missing the event. Or, perhaps there would have been inclement
weather the day David and Goliath were making tools to collect
termites, forcing Goodall to stay in her camp and miss the
episode. Goodall was lucky to be in the right place at the right
time to observe such important discoveries about chimpanzees.
Unlike Asimov, when comparing Kuhn to Goodall there is a huge
conflict in the description Kuhn has for education, which might
all but eliminate Goodall’s findings in Gombe.
Kuhn believes formal education “prepares the student” for
later practice with “men who learned the bases of their field
from the same concrete models,” promoting “commitment” and
“an apparent consensus,” which are “prerequisites for
normal science” (p.194). Although scholarly, this view of how
one is educated is rather limited. Goodall was completely
untrained when she entered the unknown of Gombe to study
chimpanzees. Nonetheless, she proved to be competent at
observing, recording and defining new paradigms for her field of
science. What made Goodall so productive even though she was not
aware of the “concrete models” or “consensus” of her
field? She possessed determination to overcome her lack of
formal education and used self-education to assist her. The
characteristic of self-education is one that Kuhn has failed to
recognize in his definition of scientific creativity. Kuhn not
only ignores the effectiveness of self-education, he pays no
attention to the determination it takes one to contribute to a
paradigm without an education. Should Kuhn ever wish to revise
“The Route to Normal Science,” he might examine how many
contributions have been made to the sciences by those
individuals who have not been “students” trained under the
“concrete models” and question what other characteristic
could contribute to the development of a paradigm.
While it is difficult to identify the exact composition of
scientific creativity, Asimov, Kuhn and Goodall endeavor to
explain the structure in their essays. Asimov and Goodall
replicate similar ideas, one through scientific examples, and
the other in a narrative illustration. Their approaches,
although different, are acceptable to the reader because their
definitions are realistic and appropriate. They each take into
consideration different degrees of education and how these
levels can be different, but should not be disregarded. On the
contrary, Kuhn dismisses the possibility of self-education by
failing to mention its potential. Such a dismissal makes it
difficult for one to accept Kuhn’s definition of scientific
creativity and instead embrace the characteristics defined by
Asimov and embodied by Goodall.
