Serendipity is the talent to discover that the solution to the second problem has indeed been found. Many of the scientists who discover are not aware of the full meaning of the findings and their colleagues are the ones who finish the job
Following Avi Blizovsky's review of The supernova observed at the time of its formation ("Hidan" 22.05.08) I would like to make a few comments about serendipitous discoveries. Blizovsky writes that Alyssa Soderberg from Princeton University, who headed the international team that investigated the event, "stated that it was a random discovery (serendipity)". But not every random discovery is serendipitous.
The term "serendipity" was coined by Horace Walpole. In a letter he wrote to his friend on January 28, 1754, he says that he invented this name after reading a "stupid story" named after the three princes from Serendip (Serendip is the ancient name of Ceylon, which is Sri Lanka). The three protagonists of the story used to discover things they weren't looking for that came their way. The Oxford dictionary defines the term as follows: "The talent of making unexpected successful discoveries at random". The dictionary adds a sharper definition: "to look for one thing and find another". This reminds us of the story of Saul who sought Athens and found a kingdom.
The scientists who follow this path act deliberately to solve problem A, but end up solving problem B, which they were not aware of in the first place. Serendipity is the talent to discover that the solution to the second problem has indeed been found. Many of the scientists who discover are not aware of the full meaning of the findings and their colleagues are the ones who finish the job. In the case of the discovery of the supernova, Soderbergh was at the lecture. She wanted to point the telescope in a certain direction to observe a certain supernova and when she went outside the observatory, she asked her colleague to monitor the data for her. Then a flash was observed which turned out to have originated from another star just as it went supernova. It was therefore a serendipitous discovery according to the pattern of Saul, the Athenians and the monarchy.
One of the most famous cases of serendipitous discovery in the history of science is the discovery of penicillin. The discoverer, Alexander Fleming, noticed that in a vessel containing a bacterial culture, whose lid was not properly closed, mold grew on the exposed surface, while the bacteria died. It is possible that this happened before, but the researchers assumed that the lid had to be properly tightened. Fleming, on the other hand, insisted on the important significance of the find: the mold eliminated the bacteria. The discovery was serendipitous according to the above interpretation: the original problem was the appearance of the mold, while the second problem that was inadvertently solved was the need to eradicate diseases caused by bacteria. There are many other examples from the field of medicine. These are observational/experimental discoveries. In my book "From Amba to Einstein" (2002) I mainly bring examples from the field of theoretical physics.
My main argument is that serendipity in science is not a marginal phenomenon that deserves at most a mention in the history of science in the anecdotes section. It is the serendipitous discoveries that enable the significant breakthroughs in science. Serendipity gives science its unintended nature: the human mind initiates research programs that are supposed to bear fruit in known areas, while serendipity allows science to deviate from the planned course towards unknown areas of nature. The principle of blind discovery realized in the phenomenon of serendipity does not contradict the fact that scientists usually act in a deliberate way to solve problems. And indeed, when scientists make a serendipitous discovery, they are not blindly guessing or groping in the dark, but problem solving and using proven methods. However, since they are aware of problem A and try to solve it, while in the end they solve another problem, B, without intending to, they arrive at the solution of problem B blindly.
In 1989, together with Yuval Naman, I published an article on this subject in the journal Studies in History and Philosophy of Science published in Cambridge. The name of the article is: "Serendipity as a Source of Evolutionary Progress in Science. Following this, an article about the article was also published in the New Scientist newspaper. My article in Hebrew "Blind creativity" It was published in the "Galileo" newspaper.
16 תגובות
fresh:
There is no point in regretting the laws of nature.
You just have to learn to use them in the best way.
In any case - if scientists would only solve questions they are trying to solve - the world would progress much less quickly.
The main problem in an imaginary world where only questions that are asked are solved is that humans are not at all capable of asking all the important questions and therefore it is rather good that nature gives them here and there an answer to a question that they did not ask.
The serendipity of scientific discoveries is a negative and unfortunate thing, if science could progress directly to the goals it sets for itself it would be much better. It was possible to put scientists in a room and let them puzzle over a solution to a certain problem and they would just manage to solve it.
point
both
: )
Point,: It's probably a virus
If I think I have a computer problem with the motherboard that causes the computer to crash every few minutes, and after prolonged research the virus that caused the problem is discovered, is it serendipity?
giving:
The article did not refer to the phenomenon as a miracle and even claimed that it is responsible for a significant part of the progress of science - after all, it is impossible for someone to treat an everyday thing as a miracle. The article is also intended to encourage people to pay attention to the "side" consequences of their work because it is possible that these consequences will lead to a more important discovery than the one they were trying to discover.
There is a point in a special name precisely to convey this message - every study has the truth that it was designed to confirm or disprove but, if you pay attention, it may lead to the revelation of additional truths that are sometimes more revolutionary (which makes sense because usually what you are trying to discover is something that is already guessed its existence based on other findings and then planned an experiment that would test the guess, while what we didn't plan to discover is not limited by the scientist's ability to predict)
To Michael
Don't get me wrong, like you, I am proud and enjoy every time a new discovery or invention is discovered, but I want to give the message that a false discovery should be treated as if it were a miracle that should be called a special word. The chief scientist gave way to a fresh head who is not fully focused on the act or when the scientist went out of focus and was not XNUMX percent focused on what was being done
Happy Shavuot!!
giving:
But you say that "the reason that discoveries like God happen" is the focus and the inability to see the forest, while I (following the author of the article) claim that it is precisely the scientists' ability to see what is happening around and not focus only on the original goal that causes the serendipitous discovery.
To Michael
No, I'm showing the double-edged sword in a person's talent to concentrate on something and make mental effort until the problem is solved until you can't see the forest for most of the trees
giving:
What you describe is the reason for missing serendipitous discoveries and not the reason for the discoveries. All the serendipitous discoveries were discovered precisely (as the author said) because the researchers (or their colleagues) noticed the monarchy even though they were looking for the Athenians.
¤ © × !
The spelling of my name in English is messed up in the article. The correct spelling is:
Dr. Aharon Kantorovich
The history of the sciences clearly confirms Dr. Kantorovitz's claim that the serendipitous discovery plays a central role in the development of human knowledge as a whole. In the transition from the known to the unknown, especially when a scientific revolution occurs, there is, in many cases, a "miraculous" element that cannot be grasped and realized except in hindsight, after the discovery .
A beautiful example of serendipity happened about a decade and a half ago - and was unbelievably beneficial to millions of men around the world. It was the second discovery of the main beneficial effect of a drug that was later named "Viagra".
The drug was originally tested as a drug that may improve heart function. There were no impressive findings in this area, but one of the researchers was smart enough to listen to the patients on whom the substance was tested. Although there was no significant cardiac improvement, the men in the group of patients did not have any complaints about the treatment - and they reported a significant improvement in their erectile ability following taking the medicine - and were happy to continue the experiment...
And the rest - a history that changed the whole approach to the problems of male impotence that was prevalent until then.
And a savior came to manhood - like Penicillium to a sick soul!
And if we have already mentioned the late Prof. Yuval Naaman, we must also mention his interesting story on this subject "Seder from the random". In a conversation that my father Blizovsky had with Yuval Naman, in which I also joined, Yuval explained that in his opinion, serendipity, or the "probability" as he sometimes called the phenomenon, was not a marginal factor but rather a dominant factor in scientific development. He also told us that he is about to publish a book whose conclusions are more extreme than his book "Seder mann al-Akrai".
The conversation with Yuval was when he turned eighty, and it is a great pity that his active life ended shortly after.
Of blessed memory
Have a quiet weekend
Sabdarmish Yehuda
One could say that the reason that such discoveries happen is when a scientist is so completely focused on something that he doesn't even notice the gift that has fallen into his lap, then actually a serendipitous discovery is the human limitation to deal with if counting things at the same time
Or rather to enter from Fox and at the same time exit from it