![\"\"](\"http:\/\/blogs.nicholas.duke.edu\/inphdeep\/files\/2013\/02\/Picture1.png\")
<\/a>As children, we learn about the scientific method: we learn to identify a question, form a hypothesis, design an experiment to test that hypothesis, and finally, draw and communicate a conclusion.\u00a0 It’s a linear progression from question to conclusion, without a lot of room for creativity.\u00a0 We are taught that scientists follow a straight and rational path to learn about the world.\u00a0 Why would they need to be creative? Though it might not be said outright, it is instilled in us at an early age: the creative types pursue fields like theater, art, or music, while those who choose STEM are ruled by logic and rationality \u2014 traits thought of as at odds with the creative spirit.<\/p>\n
When I first started writing this post a few weeks ago, I realized that I’m out of my league discussing the reasons why this dichotomy between scientific thought and creativity just doesn’t make sense.\u00a0 I had to call in a friend to help me understand the philosophy of creative thinking.\u00a0 Here, Dr. Nick brings some history and explanation to the tension between creative and rational thinking:<\/p>\n
“We can roughly characterise creative thinking as thought that results in a novel and valuable product (which may of course be something immaterial, like a theory or another thought). Rational thinking is, again roughly, thought that proceeds from a given starting point to a pre-specified end via a series of justified steps.”*<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
These two types of thinking are often thought to be opposed for a couple of reasons. First is an “old-fashioned view of creativity as a sort of benign derangement… If this were right, creative and rational thought would be opposed, since derangement precludes rationality.”* But of course that can’t be right, because not all creative people are crazy, so maybe rationality and creativity aren’t opposite ends of a spectrum.<\/p>\n
A second reason why we might think of rationality and creativity as opposed is because<\/p>\n
“rational thinking might be thought of as in some sense determinate. There’s a single rational path from starting point A to finishing point B. Further, B can be specified in advance. But it’s of the nature of creative thinking that we can’t really say in advance what the end product will be…Even if the goal can’t be specified, we can say when we’ve arrived there. What distinguishes
\nthat from rational thought? And conversely, the goal of rational procedures can’t always be specified except vaguely. Finally, it would seem that the two can work together; in pursuit of a creative goal, one can rationally consider what the next step will be.”*<\/p><\/blockquote>\nThe two aren’t really as opposed as we’re led to believe.\u00a0 In fact, good science relies on creativity.<\/p>\n
We need creativity in our science to generate alternative hypotheses (good science tests multiple hypotheses for an observation at once, rather than running through them in series), and synthesize new models to further our understanding of how the world works.\u00a0 Creativity helps scientists develop new ideas about the world when results don’t fit with what we know about the world.\u00a0 Think of a concept like time dilation\/relativity<\/a>, or the arrangement of the periodic table of the elements<\/a>, and tell me there wasn’t a creative process in their development.<\/p>\n
Post Script: As the academic grandchild of Stuart Fisher (yes, scientists can be huge nerds about their academic genealogies<\/a>), who wrote one of my favorite scientific papers<\/a>, I would be remiss if I didn’t spend some time thinking about the interplay of science and creativity.<\/p>\n
*Many thanks to guest expert <\/em>Dr. Nick Wiltsher<\/em><\/a> (quoted above), who provided lots of insight into the nature and history of the tension between creative and rational thinking, and who is a swell guy.<\/em><\/p>\n