The Science of Discovery: How Creative Thought Shapes New Ideas and Scientific Inquiry
Why are many people skeptical of ideas and opinions that are not backed by science or facts when most if not all new discoveries start out as creative thought, a crazy idea, a contradictory opinion, or a single observation? Well, Henrik, simply because of all sorts of fanciful discoveries we as a society must guard against. Or maybe you'd prefer some kind of higher force to do that work for us rather than our organization.
It all comes down to reality trumping all. And if something is real, there should not be any difficulty in finding evidence for it. If you have difficulty finding evidence, it is either not real, you are looking in the wrong place, or you are using improper assumptions. If someone is hiding the evidence, then it likely falls under the 2nd and 3rd cases—looking in the wrong place and using improper assumptions. Researching is hard work and very time-consuming. To be scientific, you must not only have a theory but also produce evidence, and the results must be repeatable.
From Creative Thought to Scientific Fact
The question is flawed. Most new discoveries, including those which are initially guesses like the Schr?dinger equation, begin as ideas that have a reasonable background. If they happen to be contradictory or just a creative thought, they tend to have a reasonable basis. Most such ideas, like General Relativity or quantum mechanics, become scientific facts when checked against reality. People are skeptical of ideas and opinions that are not backed by science because, to them, science is about testing and verifying these ideas. When properly scrutinized and verified, new ideas can form the foundation of groundbreaking discoveries.
From Analytical to Non-Analytical Thinking
I believe it is because most people think analytically rather than non-anallytically. Even though I have an Electrical Engineering degree and have worked as a software/hardware engineer for many years, I am naturally more non-analytical in my thinking. In a nutshell, analytical thinking starts with seemingly detached facts and, upon a certain amount of analysis, comes up with a theory. Non-analytical thinking, on the other hand, starts with a theory and then goes about trying to test that theory.
The definition of the scientific method is inherently more non-analytical than analytical. Non-analytical thinking is often associated with “gut feelings,” intuition, or strictly artistic endeavors. Such thinking is indeed associated with such things. Non-analytical thinkers are able to “see” patterns where analytical thinkers may not. Thus, I would argue that the assumption in the question is correct: most if not all new discoveries start out as creative thought, a crazy idea, a contradictory opinion, or a single observation.
Since I consider myself now both an analytical and non-analytical thinker, I believe I understand why most non-analytical thinkers are not interested in “science” as many analytical thinkers are. Non-analytical thinkers are bored with the simple patterns that “science” has observed, compared to the enormous complexity of patterns they see in art, whether it be music, visual art, or any of the other senses.
For example, the analytical person sees “love” as a simplistic chemical process. The non-analytical person might see an amazing complexity of patterns that can only be expressed through the arts. This might explain why many of the great scientific “discoveries” were made by scientists who were just relaxing while on vacation. They slipped into a temporary state of non-analytical thinking and were thus able to creatively come up with something that had not existed before. These insights often arise from acontextual thinking, where the mind is freed from the confines of rigid analytical frameworks, leading to breakthroughs.
Conclusion
Scientific inquiry is a continuous process of testing and verification, while new ideas often emerge from creative thought and non-analytical insight. Both forms of thinking are essential for driving innovation and progress. By embracing the power of creative thought alongside scientific rigor, we can continue to make groundbreaking discoveries that shape our understanding of the world.