Comments on: Science is boring! http://www.brownstudy.info/2009/12/30/science-is-boring/ Learning As I Go Wed, 13 Apr 2011 04:12:15 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Jason Priem http://www.brownstudy.info/2009/12/30/science-is-boring/comment-page-1/#comment-329 Jason Priem Fri, 05 Feb 2010 23:34:37 +0000 http://www.brownstudy.info/?p=376#comment-329 Also: I saw Charlton, the author of the "why are scientists so boring" article, mentioned elsewhere recently.Discover Blog did a whole series on his rather unusual corpus (most of his articles have been published in Medical Hypothesis, of which he is the editor). http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/category/ncbi-rofl/charlton-week/ Some wacky stuff. Also: I saw Charlton, the author of the “why are scientists so boring” article, mentioned elsewhere recently.Discover Blog did a whole series on his rather unusual corpus (most of his articles have been published in Medical Hypothesis, of which he is the editor). http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/category/ncbi-rofl/charlton-week/ Some wacky stuff.

]]> By: Jason Priem http://www.brownstudy.info/2009/12/30/science-is-boring/comment-page-1/#comment-328 Jason Priem Mon, 25 Jan 2010 22:23:31 +0000 http://www.brownstudy.info/?p=376#comment-328 Good links. I'm slowly rereading Kuhn's classic Structure of Scientific Revolutions; his ideas about "normal" and revolutionary science are certainly relevant here. Science generates a lot of beans, and those who like to count them will find opportunities more than ample. I think it's interesting how the second article pushes IQ as an indicator of creativity, given that the creativity psych literature I'm familiar with has found limited association. And I question Charlton's contention that the domination of science by head-down plodders is a new thing; most science has always been normal science, which requires this sort of terrier mindset. Most importantly, if science education is washing out un-persistent geniuses, good! Science is not sudoku. Sure, the revolutionaries of the field were smart--but they also spent years in near-fanatical devotion to the mundane, grungy, painstaking work of the lab (or telescope, or whatever) and notebook. Good links. I’m slowly rereading Kuhn’s classic Structure of Scientific Revolutions; his ideas about “normal” and revolutionary science are certainly relevant here. Science generates a lot of beans, and those who like to count them will find opportunities more than ample.

I think it’s interesting how the second article pushes IQ as an indicator of creativity, given that the creativity psych literature I’m familiar with has found limited association. And I question Charlton’s contention that the domination of science by head-down plodders is a new thing; most science has always been normal science, which requires this sort of terrier mindset.

Most importantly, if science education is washing out un-persistent geniuses, good! Science is not sudoku. Sure, the revolutionaries of the field were smart–but they also spent years in near-fanatical devotion to the mundane, grungy, painstaking work of the lab (or telescope, or whatever) and notebook.

]]>