Comment #15683

Posted by Paul Orwin on February 9, 2005 11:51 PM (e) (s)

Someday, someone should do a sociological study on serendipity (wow, that is some cool unintentional alliteration!).  I know that the Fleming and penicillin story, along with the Newton’s apple story, is probably apocryphal, but my experience working in the lab (no papers in Nature, that’s for sure!) is that serendipity plays a big role in the course of science.  Monod, I think, said “chance favors the prepared mind”.  It would be interesting to find out just how big a role chance plays in the course of inquiry in general.  I’m not sure that is a well formed question, but cool stuff like this brings these sorts of thoughts to mind.

Comment #15688

Posted by Alex on February 10, 2005 03:12 AM (e) (s)

And just when I thought ants couldn’t possibly get any cooler than they already are…

Anyway, here’s a photograph of Cephalotes atratus, the beast in the study.

Comment #15701

Posted by Buzz on February 10, 2005 07:59 AM (e) (s)

That’s not flying: that’s falling with style.

Comment #15708

Posted by racingiron on February 10, 2005 09:53 AM (e) (s)

Paul Orwin wrote:

…my experience working in the lab (no papers in Nature, that’s for sure!) is that serendipity plays a big role in the course of science.  Monod, I think, said “chance favors the prepared mind”.  It would be interesting to find out just how big a role chance plays in the course of inquiry in general.

But there’s no way random chance can play a role in furthering our understanding of nature!  Intelligence doesn’t happen by accident!  You learn things because The Designer allows you to.

;^)

Comment #15738

Posted by anonymous on February 10, 2005 01:42 PM (e) (s)

It was Pasteur, not Monod:
Dans les champs de l’observation le hasard ne favorise que les esprits préparés.
In the fields of observation chance favors only the prepared mind.
Lecture, University of Lille (December 7, 1854)

Comment #15789

Posted by Paul Orwin on February 10, 2005 04:55 PM (e) (s)

Thanks! I’ll try to stop misattributing it now.  I beg only deference to the Designer to allow me to keep learning these things…(especially the flying ants!)

Comment #15818

Posted by Bonster on February 10, 2005 07:08 PM (e) (s)

But what good is half a wing? ;-}

Comment #15920

Posted by Great White Wonder on February 11, 2005 05:14 PM (e) (s)

Alex, that link you provided is excellent.  Great photographs.  I love insects, especially nasty big ones like the “toe biter” water bug.  Have you ever been bitten by one of those?  Sucks.  Literally.

Comment #15961

Posted by ts on February 12, 2005 02:31 AM (e) (s)

Quite a few such studies of the role of chance have been done, both specifically for science and more generally.  I recently read a study of people’s perception of “luckiness”, which found that “lucky” people generally have different habits and attitudes than “unlucky” people — differences that enable them not only to take better advantage of opportunity when it occurs, but to actively seek out or create opportunity.

Here’s a useful attitude adjustment — abandon a self-centered view of the scope of human activity.  Specifically, rather than assume that no one has done a study just because you are unaware of one (“Someday, someone should do a sociological study” makes that assumption), recognize that there are billions of busy people all over the globe engaged in activities that you are unaware of, that some of them share your  curiosity, and that, if you have imagined a study that someone should do, there’s a good chance that someone has actually done it.  This change of attitude will lead you to actively look for such studies, rather than passively dream of one being done “someday”.  Here are a few things that a search turned up:

http://www.westminstercollege.edu/myriad/index.cfm?parent=25…
http://www.us.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Philosophy/…
http://www.us.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Physics/?vi…

This last one is particularly relevant to the discussion:

Here is a catalog of myths debunked and icons shattered. We discover that Louis Pasteur was not above suppressing “awkward” data when it didn’t support the case he was making. We also learn that Arthur Eddington’s famous experiment that “proved” Einstein’s theory of relativity was fudged And while it is true that Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin by lucky accident, he played almost no role in the years of effort to convert penicillin into a usable drug. Einstein’s Luck restores to science its complex personalities, bitter rivalries, and intense human dramas which until recently have been hidden behind myths and misconceptions. This richly entertaining book will transform the way we think about science and scientists.

Of course, I was just lucky to find that.

Comment #15993

Posted by Don T. Know on February 12, 2005 03:30 PM (e) (s)

That’s not flying: that’s falling with style.

Reminds me of what someone said about planes landing: It’s a controlled crash.

Post a Comment