Directions to "eureka!".

Abstract

The process of scientific discovery is presented by David Paydarfar and William J. Schwartz as a tongue-in-cheek flow diagram, as well as a (presumably) more serious set of informal heuristics (or “principles”) (Editorial, 6 Apr., p. [13][1]). I find it somewhat disappointing that the psychology of discovery would be treated in such an informal fashion. Albert Einstein did say, as the authors quote him, “The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking.” But Einstein went on to say much more—and, in effect, he suggested a program of further investigation that we now call cognitive science. The full quotation reads as follows: “The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking. It is for this reason that the critical thinking of the physicist cannot possibly be restricted to the examination of concepts of his own specific field. He cannot proceed without considering critically a much more difficult problem, the problem of analyzing the nature of everyday thinking” ([1][2], p. [59][3]). In the more than 60 years since Einstein made this remarkable statement, the cognitive sciences have made substantial advances in our understanding of the “difficult problem…of analyzing the nature of everyday thinking.” At the same time that we have gained scientific knowledge about human thought processes, we have also learned how those processes are used in scientific discovery. The connection between everyday thinking and scientific thinking is, as Einstein correctly suggested, more in the detail than in anything fundamental: “The scientific way of forming concepts differs from that which we use in our daily life, not basically, but merely in the more precise definition of concepts and conclusions, more painstaking and systematic choice of experimental material, and greater logical economy” ([2][4], p. [98][5]). Several decades of research on the psychology of the scientific discovery process have revealed how normal cognitive processes enable humans to generate the “precise definitions,” “systematic choice of experimental material,” and “logical economy” that Einstein identified as the hallmarks of scientific thought ([3][6]). 1. [↵][7]1. A. Einstein 1. A. Einstein , Directions to Eureka! in Out of My Later Years, A. Einstein, Ed. (Philosophical Library, New York, 1950), p. 59. 2. [↵][8]1. A. Einstein 1. A. Einstein , Directions to Eureka! in Out of My Later Years, A. Einstein, Ed. (Philosophical Library, New York, 1950), p. 98. 3. [↵][9]1. G. J. Feist, 2. M. E. Gorman , Rev. Gen. Psychol. 2(no. 1), 3 (1998) For reviews of this extensive literature,; 1. D. Klahr , Exploring Science: The Cognition and Development of Discovery Processes (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2000); 1. D. Klahr, 2. H. A. Simon , Psychol. Bull. 125, 524 (1999); 1. C. Zimmerman , Dev. Rev. 20, 99 (2000). # Directions to Eureka! {#article-title-4} As we wrote in our editorial, there are great treatises on discovery in science, including its cognitive psychology, and Klahr's rigorous analyses are certainly among them. But we believe that there is still a place for some personal counsel for practicing scientists and, for further reading in this genre, Sir Peter Medawar's Advice to a Young Scientist ([1][10]) should not be missed. 1. [↵][11]1. P. Medawar , Advice to a Young Scientist (Basic Books, New York, 1979). [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.292.5514.13 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1060498 [4]: #ref-2 [5]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1058104 [6]: #ref-3 [7]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [8]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2 in text [9]: #xref-ref-3-1 View reference 3 in text [10]: #ref-4 [11]: #xref-ref-4-1 View reference 1 in text