Creative and Critical Thinking

[Guest guest]

Now and again we discuss criitical and creative thinking. Here are a few

extracts from an article that relates directly to these topics:

----------------------

< http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/sturrock/1.html>

Curious, Creative and Critical Thinking

Sturrock PA

J of Scientific Exploration Vol 11:2, p 225, 1997.

Center for Space Science and Astrophysics, Varian 302G, Stanford University,

Stanford, CA 94305-4060

Ginzton, one of the founders of Varian Associates, once remarked

concerning his colleague Varian that " he had many modes of thought,

of which logic was only a special case. " So it is, most likely, with all

great inventors and so it is, I believe, with all truly productive

scientists. In this essay, I will argue that scientists need at least three

modes of thought that I call " curious, " " creative " and " critical. "

These requirements, though they may be quite general in their applicability,

come sharply into focus when one deals with anomalies within mainstream

science or with anomalous phenomena that seem to reside outside of science as

we know it.

Let us take just one example from within mainstream science. It has been

claimed for some years by Halton Arp of The Max-Planck Institute for

Astrophysics in Garching, Germany and by Tifft of the Steward

Observatory in Tucson, Arizona, that there is evidence indicating that our

interpretation of the redshifts of astronomical objects is incomplete. Their

results, if taken at face value, contradict the usual assumption that the

redshift of distant objects (such as distant galaxies and quasars) is due

almost entirely to the expansion of the universe. Arp and Tifft have been

curious in examining strange patterns that arose in their early observations;

they have also been creative in trying to seek an interpretation of their

results; and they have been critical of their own work by seeking new

observations and encouraging others to make their independent observations.

Then what is the problem? It is that the astronomical community has, by and

large, applied only critical thinking to the same problem. There have been

some attempts to reproduce Tifft's results, with mixed success, but the

general attitude has been " It cannot happen, therefore it does not happen, "

just the opposite of good advice once given by the great physicist

Leighton of the California Institute of Technology, " If it does happen, it

can happen. " As a result of this attitude, Arp and Tifft have come to be

regarded somewhat as heretics. Indeed, Arp lost his observing privileges at

the Mount and Palomar Observatories, forcing him to leave the United

States to go to his present home in Germany. An even more disturbing and

challenging situation arises if a scientist takes an interest in a topic that

is outside of mainstream science and is believed by the scientific community

to represent " pseudoscience, " the " paranormal, " or " pathological science. "

Some of the best known examples that are regarded in this light are

" parapsychology, " " ufology " (the study of UFO reports) and " cryptozoology "

(the search for zoological anomalies, including " Big Foot " and the so-called

" Loch Ness Monster " ). Even the mention of such terms will send a shudder

through the frame of almost any self-respecting scientist. Why is this so?

Typical responses to this question are in fact indicated by the terms I have

just used. If I assert that a subject is " pseudoscience, " I am stating that

the activity is not truly scientific but merely pretends to be scientific.

However, such an assertion is indefensible. A " subject " is neither scientific

nor nonscientific. It is only the study carried out by a particular person or

group of persons that can be so described. One may be able to make a

legitimate case that this person who studies parapsychology is being

pseudo-scientific, but that does not mean that it is impossible for some

other person to carry out a study in the same field that meets the highest

standards of the scientific enterprise.

There is a similar problem connected with the term " paranormal. " If I assert

that a subject is " paranormal, " I am implying that I know what is " normal. " I

am further implying that any subject that is not " normal, " according to my

definition of the term, does not accord with scientific knowledge and must be

rejected as bogus. This would be a huge responsibility to take on. If pressed

on this issue, most scientists would agree that science is incomplete. They

would agree with Isaac Newton who stated that he felt like a boy " finding a

smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of

truth lay all undiscovered before me. " If we do not know all there is to know

about the universe (including human beings and everything else in the

universe), then clearly we cannot claim to know what is " normal, " and it is

therefore foolish to use the term " paranormal. "

On the other hand, the term " pathological science " is somewhat more useful.

It refers to poor, slipshod and misleading research that yields results that

turn out to be false. However, the term was originally coined by the Nobel

Laureate Irving Langmuir to imply that certain fields are made up only of bad

science. If this were the case (an assertion that is in itself debatable), it

would prove only that better work needs to be done, not that such fields

should be placed off-limits to scientific research.

In thinking about such questions over the years, I have come to the

conclusion that the problem with such topics is not a purely intellectual

difficulty in trying to understand the nature of the phenomenon or to assess

the quality and conclusions of the research. I have concluded that the key to

the puzzle is to be found in non-scientific and non-intellectual

considerations. Although the prototype of a scientist is that of a lone

researcher following the truth according to his own light, with little heed

to the world around him, such is not the scientist that we know today, and

perhaps the image was never more than a myth. Science today is a collective

enterprise. Much of the work is done in groups. Even an individual scientist

is dependent upon the good will and support of his fellow scientists for the

wherewithall to continue his work.....

Of course, some important challenges are not regarded as heresies at all. For

instance, it was a major intellectual challenge to try to understand the

nature of pulsars or of quasars when they were first discovered. However,

these discoveries were made by world-class scientists, at prestigious

universities, who were already members of the scientific establishment. Far

from being perceived as a demonstration of the shortcomings of the

establishment, they were hailed as shining examples of what the establishment

does that is right. Far from weakening organized science, these discoveries

help to cement the power of those organizations and of science in

general......

Any scientist who jeopardizes the good standing of these important scientific

organizations may, knowingly or unknowingly, weaken organized science and

thereby hurt his fellow scientists. In this way, the issue is converted from

one that is purely intellectual to one that has sociological and political

consequences. Such issues are perceived as heretical precisely because they

involve a combination of intellectual and political considerations.

My understanding of the term " heresy " is the following: A heresy is a

proposition that is, at the same time, a challenge to understanding and a

challenge to power. Galileo faced the investigators of the Holy Inquisition

in 1633 as a result of his assertion that the Ptolemaic model of the solar

system, in which the Earth is at rest and all bodies revolve around the

Earth, is wrong, and that the Copernican model (the creation of a

Protestant!), that places the Sun at the center and has the Earth revolve

around the Sun, is correct. Perhaps more important was his implicit assertion

that we may discover truth about the universe by observation rather than

through the reading of Holy Scripture. In addition to the purely intellectual

challenge of offering a new model of the solar system, Galileo was

challenging the Church as the ultimate arbiter of truth. Galileo was thereby

challenging the status and power of the Church.

Similarly, in their assertions, Arp and Tifft are challenging the status and

power of astronomers who have based their study of the structure of the

universe on the assumption that the redshift of galaxies and quasars is a

measure of their distance. These astronomers may legitimately fear that, if

Arp and Tifft prove to be correct, much of present-day astronomical

research--including their own research--will be destined for the dustbin......

In summary, I claim that in trying to understand topics that get an emotional

reaction from scientists, it is first essential that we understand the reason

for the emotional reaction. Only when one is past that point can one move on

to a more rational consideration of these topics: the way to advance curious,

creative and critical thinking is to remove the subtle (and perhaps

subliminal) obstacles to such thinking.

Even when the nonintellectual barriers are removed, there can still be some

confusion about the nature of scientific investigation. One may detect in

some discussions the implicit assumption that scientific knowledge is

absolute. The term " law " promotes such a belief, but a scientific " law " is

not an absolute and immutable truth; indeed, it may be more accurate to

regard it simply as a short-hand summary of the results of observations and

experiments carried out to date. Further observation or new experiments may

show that the " law " must be revised if not rescinded.

Science advances by trial and error. ing, daughter of the famous

chemist Linus ing, once asked her father " How is it you had so many good

ideas? " to which he replied, " I had many more ideas, and threw away all the

bad ones. " With luck, a scientist can recognize a bad idea very quickly,

hopefully before he or she publishes. However, some ideas prove to be wrong

or, expressed more charitably, " less than universal in their applicability, "

only after centuries of research. It took 300 years for Newtonian dynamics to

be superseded by relativity and quantum mechanics. Who is to say that

relativity and quantum mechanics will not, in their turn, at some time be

superseded by a more intricate and subtle theory of which we now have no

conception?

It is obvious that, if we wish to learn something new, we should be curious.

However, curiosity is not enough. To conceive of a pattern or law or theory,

one must make an unjustified leap beyond the evidence. Newton's proposal of a

universal law of gravity was simply a guess - but an inspired guess, one that

was confirmed by many subsequent observations and analyses. Even so, the

guess proved eventually to be not quite right and to require modification by

Einstein and others. " Creation " is simply inspired guesswork.

It is only after curiosity and creativity have done their work that critical

thinking should come into play. At this stage, it is essential to cast a

stern critical eye on one's latest act of creation. (We may count upon our

colleagues to help us wholeheartedly in this activity.) However, it is

essential that criticism be even-handed: it should be applied to old ideas as

well as to new ideas. As the astrophysicist Tommy Gold once remarked, " Old

ideas are not right simply because they are old, and new ideas are not wrong

simply because they are new. " In facing any new proposition, one brings to it

years of observation, learning - and perhaps indoctrination. As a human

being, one may feel " this idea is so preposterous that I do not even want to

consider the evidence, " but as a scientist one should state " this proposition

seems very unlikely, and it will take a lot of evidence to persuade me to

take it seriously. "

Carl Sagan was correct in asserting that " extraordinary claims require

extraordinary evidence, " but that does not mean that anything less than

extraordinary evidence may be ignored. We learn from the study of scientific

inference that a strong case for a new proposition can be built either from

one very strong piece of evidence or from the combination of a number of

independent and less spectacular pieces of evidence. In science, as in real

life, one may get from point A to point B either in one giant leap or by a

number of small steps - either by flying or by walking...

----------------

Dr Mel C Siff

Denver, USA

Supertraining/