Over the weekend I posted a link to the Postdoc Carnival ... lots of good stuff in there including this entry from The Unbearable Lightness of Being A Postdoc on the woes of postdoc-hood. I also saw a nice post at Sunil's blog on What does it take to be a pioneering scientist? And there is a bit that is interesting, but while you read it I'd like you to think about the fine line between doggedness and dogma, it is one of the biggest chalenges that one faces as a scientist. How do you know when to give in and accept the death of your pet theory, and when should you ignore your negative result and keep going.
A stubborn streak: More often than not, the best scientists come up with a hypothesis (usually based on some facts, and where they think it could lead), which they hold on to longer than most of their students or postdocs. They usually don't want to let their pet "world changing" idea fall through before they have invested enough time and resources and thoroughly eliminated all reasonable possibilities. Usually, the people doing the grunt work (the students and postdocs) have to live with the frustrations, while the head scientist can sit back and speculate. But invariably, the stubborn streak pays off, with most of the pioneers getting their predictions right. And then they can nostalgically say how it was all hard work. Importantly, the best do not cling on to their ideas if the evidence conclusively shows that their hypothesis is not true, but they don't accept defeat when presented only with "negative data" (where instead of disproving a theory you only can produce data that doesn't fully answer the question). However, they usually demand solid proof before they declare their ideas to the world (in contrast to some "shooting star" scientists, who publish a blaze of high profile papers in a desire to rush through with their "findings" without being rigorous enough, often to be proven incorrect).Vision: Understandably, the best scientists also have a vision. From their data, they make and state the appropriate conclusions, and can also predict where the finding may lead. There are a lot of good scientists out there who can interpret their data well, and come to solid conclusions. But only a few can make the leap from those conclusions to the greater implications the findings have for an entire scientific discipline. The best papers have a discussion where statements are made that prove to be prophetic.
This all brings to mind some previous posts ...
Explorers & Crusaders
The three types of experiments
The significance of negative data
So when does doggedness turn to dogma? How do you know that your assumptions are correct? When do you conclude that your assumptions are off? Are good scientists lucky in the assumptions they make or are they smart or perhaps they have a "sixth sense"?
- Log in to post comments
(1) Scientists should not be "married to their hypothesis." But they can live together for a long time without shame.
(2) The ability to resist negative criticism is positively correlated with success in science. Unfortunately, it is also correlated with crackpottery. The Japanese have a word for this, I forget just what word. It applies, for instance, to the soldiers on islands who would not leave after WW II, because they suspected the War was not over, and this was an enemy trick. A Japanese university used this word when they gave a faculty position to Hypertext inventor Theodore "Ted" Nelson, roundly ignored in the USA, even though Ted was a grandfather of the Web.
(3) Why do some people fail to make "the leap"? Sir Arthur C. Clarke has explained, at length, the difference between "failure of imagination" and the more subtle "failure of nerve."
Alex - your blog entry and links come off sounding rather grand and elaborate. There is just one thing. Are you trying to ask questions about the notion of groundbreaking insight (or theory, as you call it), or just having a solid idea in the lab?
AC,
I seem to be offending you with every post. Just trying to be provocative. My point (in all these posts) is that you have to be careful as a scientist. If you have comments on any particulars, please tell. If anything we can both learn from discussion of these rants/ideas/theories.
As for my own scientific career, yes I have plenty of theories and opinions as to what exactly is going on within each of our cells. (Read some of my entries or some of my papers and you'll agree that I do have views). But it's important to try to test your theories vigorously and even try to shoot them down. Like everyone I have been wrong. In fact in my current work I originally concluded that the current model within my field (mRNA export) was wrong, but with some extra experiments, my ideas slowly changed. Sort of like moving from Newton to Kepler ... Newton was right about gravity but the planetary orbits are not circular but elliptical. Once my paper is published I describe this all in detail.
The whole issue of when to continue pursuing an idea vs faithfully defending your model to the extreme, is a big issue for scientists and I was hoping to start a discussion on this. Please write back with your thoughts ...
I think thats right. Sometimes from doggedness develops dogma. I think it's down to the circumstances and personalities involved. You hear of anecdotes where some old guy (I could use girl but I won't in this instance - discuss) who has been banging on about his favourite controversial theory for decades. He sits in the audience at one talk which shows unequivocally and elegantly that he is utterly wrong. What makes that guy swallow his pride and cry out with joy at having had an revelatory moment? What makes another unleash a trirade of abuse at hte speaker or worse still secretly avow to block the speakers grant applications and papers. It an interesting point. I think young scientists often too little hypothesising and too much bench donkey work. There appears to be not enough understanding that that wee band-tendency seen late on a Friday night might one day grow to be a fully fledged hypothesis that could change the facde of science. Problem is when that belief in a band-tendency leads to band-delusion.
Oh I forgot to say thanks for the plug :)
unfortunately many older scientists also have a vested interest in NOT solving the problem they are working on. Maybe you don't want to be wrong or maybe you don't want to have to figure out something else to study. I think this was brought up nicely in the "Eighth Day of Creation."
I find that the most critical decisions are when to quit a project. Cut N' Run is a good strategy sometimes.