Question: What makes a good scientist?
Richard Dawkins: Well, that's very interesting. You asked me who my heroes were, and I said Darwin. Darwin, I think, misdiagnosed his own character traits rather. He said, I've become nothing more than a machine for grinding theories out of facts. I don't think Darwin was that at all. Darwin was a great hypothesis-former. Darwin thought of ideas; he dreamed up ideas, which is the way scientists ordinarily do work. So I think you need to be imaginative. You need to have the imagination to put together ideas which other people haven't had. You do need to be able to work hard. Sir Hans Krebs, who discovered the Krebs Cycle, once in my presence was asked, how do you get a Nobel prize -- which he had. And he said, it's easy: you come into the lab at nine o'clock in the morning, and you leave at six o'clock in the evening every day for thirty five years, or words to that effect. I don't think that's how you do it either. No doubt that's part of it. But you need a combination of that and genuine inspiration, which is akin to poetry; it's akin to great art; it's the inventive, creative leap which great scientists have.
Recorded on: October 21, 2009
Image: Vitruvian Man, Leonardo da Vinci
Discuss
Thor Madsen on November 2, 2009, 12:52 PM
I would go further and say that scientists make art real. They not only envision a hypothesis that expands our perspective but also test that vision through oftentimes years of methodical studying and restudying until they uncover a completely new understanding of how our world works and comes together around us. It is that vision combined with a real connection into our world that the art of the scientist not only changes our view but our lives.
Noah Moore on November 5, 2009, 12:56 PM
I agree with Thor, Dawkins doesn’t go far enough to compare a good scientist to a poet or artist. Science studies facts, and the unalterable unchanging Reality which sounds the scientist is his playing field. It is easy to say a scientist must be creative, but creativity is an aesthetic form which no scientist can really touch. He must have it, or he cannot. Darwin, lacking all imagination and inspiration, was able to combine the findings of several philosophers before him with his mere observation ‘ah! these beaks are different!’ Creativity lies more at the center of what ought to be called the soul, which being immaterial, is the starting ground for the artizen. No physical science can find the forms, just their effects. I would propose that the real scientists are in fact, artists, who can read the stanza of atoms or animals better than those put down on paper.
Jimmy Stole on November 14, 2009, 6:00 AM
Actually i think we just cant define a good scientist. in my view, every scientist is great, and good for humanity. Its about what he/she discover and how we take it. how we use it, we cannot blame a scientist for destruction of world. No doubt, there will be some like Dr. Doom. Humanity can destroy them too.
Timing Logic on November 18, 2009, 9:13 AM
There are obviously different classifications of science and scientists. Observational science as was the case with Darwin, requires a fair amount of logic and reasoning abilities. Not exactly artistic. But, in fact necessary for the functioning of humanity across a wide array of topics. Then there is Albert Einstein. Einstein created a whole new theory not based on observation but on the creativity of his mind. Truly artistic in the most pure sense of the word.
The vast majority of scientists are not artists. Most are very good at reasoning skills and the associated scientific education. I am a scientist and most people I know who are scientists are not creative in the slightest. But, you don’t need to be creative because the educational process does not demand it. You need to be good at solving problems. Reason. Logic. Is creativity involved in that process? Absolutely. But not always. ie, As an example, if I were to give a test every scientist has to take in their training …….. some type of solvable math problem, there is no creativity involved. Everyone follows the same steps and produces the same answer. It’s the unsolvable problem which measures creativity. And, because most scientists and educators don’t even know the questions, the educational process and our achievement as scientists does not depend on creativity.
The true artists are those who expand the knowledge or theories of any scientific discipline. It matters not whether they are right or wrong. Most basic science is not fact. It is simply man’s creative attempt at defining the universe in a manner that we can understand. In that sense, it’s just like art. There is no right or wrong. Eg, the vast majority of physics will eventually be proven to be nothing more than gibberish. And, so will the rationale of Darwin’s work. Yes, we evolved. But his argument as to why is generally preposterous. He is only articulating the effects as someone so eloquently wrote above.
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register