The value of standard
science
"Une théorie
scientifique authentique n'a pas deux sens: un sens
mathématique et un sens commun". André
Lichnerowicz.
This
essay has the purpose of showing the richness of "standard"
scientific research, the considerable bulk of associations, images,
personal encounters, the complexity of the network and the many
sheets unfolded during the psychogenesis of a scientific idea. My
thesis is that several cognitive processes engaged in any
"microdiscovery" are common to every scientific task up to the major
discoveries. But some important points still remain uncertain. Is the
work of genius also of the same kind? In any case, what is the
cognitive difference between a microdiscovery and a macrodiscovery (a
breakthrough like the double helix)? Perhaps if we could describe the
common ground of both scientific journeys, the peaks of innovation
and creativity could be easily measured against some objective
level.
I consider that a microdiscovery
is a scientific discovery that
1. is non trivial
2. can be discussed and validated
(or falsified)
3. gives enough support for other
microdiscoveries
4. can be developed in a short
amount of time
5. uses established tools (formal
and/or material)
This definition is operational,
i.e. it can be used to sort out a particular subclass of
discoveries.The first point concerns the fact of innovation, the
second the imperative of public confrontation, the third the stimulus
for future research in the same field, the fourth emphasizes the
small scale of time involved, the fifth reports the standard use of
known instruments (but not the construction of new ones). We could
call these points: innovation, confrontation, modelisation and
parsimony. I shall discuss some properties of these five points
later. I must say that I still don't have a good definition for a
macrodiscovery, a major breakthrough in science, like the double
helix. Perhaps a rearrangement and extension of this list will
suffice, but this is another question. The (romantic?) emphasis on
the big discoveries, the media coverage of spectacular scientific
events, the cult of geniuses and prizes, has hidden the underlying
process of the microdiscoveries, a process that, I think, has so much
in common with those of the macro ones (and of all genuine discovery
of any kind, personal, religious, artistic, social, in our
lives).
The problem is that the scientific
study of a microdiscovery sounds too idiosyncratic as in a one-case
experiment, etc., and we are trained against this non-replicational
approach. The same problem arises with the macrodiscoveries, of
course. There is a lot a discussion among experts and I will not deal
with it now. My aim is to provide a description and analysis of a
fact of everyday scientific life: a standard microdiscovery. Perhaps
other scientists will recognize themselves in this rendering, perhaps
also this will suffice in a first account, even if more than a good
description is necessary for the advancement of science. (More about
this extension to rules and laws, processes and psychogenesis,
later). I will describe now the main conditions of this
study.
a) Documentation. I started
with the purpose of making short remarks in a log book during the
whole process of discovery, and trying to remain objective about
places, dates, encounters, ideas, readings, etc. This log has 29
pages in a small (pocket) format, and is handwritten. I carried the
notebook with me the whole day during my work.
|
My method was to become
at the same time "the subject and object" of a
microdiscovery and to enjoy the double jeu instead of trying
to dismiss one or the other part of it. As a subject I was
practicing my expertise in eye movements, experimenting,
calculating, analysing data, etc. But, in parallel, I was
also the object of another experiment, this time in
cognition as a (micro) discoverer or explorer of some kind,
who kept a diary of his journey towards some remote, if any,
microdiscovery (in this successful case it took the fractal
format of a power function for saccadic eye movements, but
many journeys, as we know, even the most simple, may lead to
dead ends).
|
Figure 1. A page of my
book
|
Perhaps some sympathetic reader
would dare to take the same double stance during his or her next
microdiscovery. In that case I can give now some practical advices.
First, don't be afraid to become oberved, by yourself!, as the object
(or, if you prefer, the meta-subject) of your process of discovery. I
strongly recommend the constant use of the same small notebook during
your whole experience, and be conscious of writing down the details
you consider of interest, every day. Second, you should include
common and even trivial aspects, for instance, the spatio-temporal
coordinates of a particular idea you have got about your problem and
research, the readings, the meetings with your colleagues, trips,
meals, etc. Third, write any comment about your mood, feelings,
motivation, fatigue, etc. Fourth, keep any sheet of paper you are
using and don't forget the napkin if you were writing, drawing or
making some calculations in the restaurant. Include some snapshots
and drawings also to illustrate your trips. I know that this agenda
is difficult to accomplish but any honest aproximation to the ideal
log is better that nothing. At the end of your -I hope fruitful-
journey you will have a complete portfolio that will include
documentation about your cognitive work (in your notebook) and of
your research (in the experimental protocols of your subject-matter).
With both feet, objective and subjective, you can walk a long
distance now in order to reconstruct your cognitive
journey.
b) Reconstruction. It is
essential to have your piece of discovery published in order to
produce a reconstruction, because this is the final text to be
confronted as the terminus ad quem of your whole endeavour. Once you
have finished your scientific task it is time to sit down and retrace
your path. You will find immediately that there were several paths
and not only one. These paths form a network, many went loose, others
started to diverge into other currents. A whole "landscape of
knowledge" will arise under your eyes, even if the final discovery
was so tiny as to disappear in the midst of the overwhelming amount
of scientific articles in your field. But if you retrace your path
you will enrich your expertise and your understanding of science in
general. And, last but not least, you will offer us a worthy present
under the format of a vivid account of an intellectual
adventure.
The reconstruction needs some
method too. First you might classify the kind or format of the
documents as following:
1. writings, drawings,
calculations, in the notebook
2. loose pages or
copybooks.
3. images and sounds (if videos,
records or photographs were taken)
4. different stages of the final
text (or different versions, perhaps in different
languages)
5. letters from the editors,
comments of colleagues, referees (including refusals and
corrections).
6. conferences, or seminars about
your research, before, during and after the publication
7. appearences in other media,
articles quoting your publication, etc.
Second, classify the "material
contents" of your cognitive journey, and make a catalogue or list of
all the items:
1. sources, private and public,
remote and recent
2. persons, colleagues,
friends.
3. places, laboratories,
libraries.
4. trips, fellowships, grants,
prizes
5. specific readings and
meetings.
Third, a personal description of
the "formal contents", that will include schemata, tables,
reflections, etc. about the different cognitive proceses (imitation,
analogy, deduction, intuition, etc). This is the most difficult part
of all the reconstruction, the heart of the matter.
