The Nature of Scientific Research

Abstract

Every schoolboy knows that science progresses by means of a logical, ordered sequence of events called the scientific method. Every schoolboy is wrong. Science is a thoroughly disorderly and illogical activity. The making of a great scientific discovery is as personal and idiosyncratic as the writing of a great poem. The major difference between the two is that with the poem it is the subjective brilliance which matters: objective validity is almost irrelevant. With a scientific discovery it is the objective validity which is vital: brilliant ideas and masterly experimentation are irrelevant if they do not lead to conclusions which are in accordance with the observation of natural events. The route by which a great discovery is reached may be personal, idiosyncratic and illogical, but the end result is not. If the end result is objectively valid, the disorderly process of discovery is justified: if the end result is invalid, the brilliance, the passion and the idiosyncrasy of the route to it count for nothing. This perhaps explains why highly individual artistic people so often dislike science. Artistic work does not stand or fall by the validity of its conclusions: the means is as important as the end. If a particular poem expressing some thought in a particular way has not been published, no rival poet, even though he may think along similar fines, is likely to publish the same poem first. There is no question of priority, because the way in which the thought is expressed matters more than the thought itself. In contrast, if a particular scientific discovery has not seen the light of day it may be made by any one of a number of men. Each may arrive at the same point by a different route, but arriving is more important than travelling hopefully. The man who gets there first is remembered, the others are forgotten.