Creativity

"Brittany, you are too creative to be a scientist." This statement was uttered by a friend of mine months and months ago. He said it to me a few times while we were hanging out during his visit. At first, I laughed it off. People tend to think I am an artist rather than a scientist. I can see how people may get that impression from my fluid lifestyle and colorful articles of clothing. I can understand how people have this impression since I do not fit the stereotypical science mold.

However, after hearing this statement repeated to me it began to resonate in my head. I began questioning this statement. Why are scientists seen as drones? Robots who are incapable of feelings, interacting with humans, smiling, doing anything but locking themselves in a windowless room solving the mysteries of the universe. Obviously, with the robot's high intellect they are essentially devoid of any creative fiber. Where did this picture come from and why is it proliferated?

I have to say that is the absolute furthest thing from the truth. Scientists are amongst the most creative creatures on earth. Scientists and artists follow a very similar lifestyle. They dedicate their lives to learning technical skills to create their picture. This effort is done to communicate the abstraction in their mind to the rest of the world. Scientists and artist can find themselves completely enthralled in their craft. They share similarities when they become so absorbed in a particular idea that they may forget to eat or sleep. That is just part of the creative process.

Contrary to scientist lore - we are incredibly social. The whole system of science caters to both the social and anti-social aspects of each human. Scientists have to work on articulating their ideas so people can understand them. They most do this in the form of spoken and written word by writing papers, giving presentations, and engaging others in informal discussions. An important aspect of the scientific balancing act is working alone to make sure you understand your work. However, that's not the only thing scientists do.

Scientists are creative. 

Scientists are social.

Scientists are fun.

image credit : sungazing.com + addicted2success.com

Science is a story

Through my adventures in physics, it took me a long time to realize this - science is a story. This story is written by very curious people on a pursuit to understand a question. The story of science is communicated through conversations at bars, personal off-line letters between friends, scribbles on pieces of paper, academic debates between opposing parties, and new connections made when teaching a non-specialist. We are writing a novel of curious pursuits and we contribute to the scientific body of knowledge through learning new technical skills, sharing work in journals, presenting a talk and going to conferences. I hope my colleagues and the public don't lose sight of this beautiful fact.

We are writing a story. Together.

image credit : dailykos.com, letswritetogether.wikispaces.com

Intellectual Debates

If you give the same question to a physicist, a philosopher, a biologist and a historian and they will all tackle the problem very differently. This is simply due to the fact that each field has a very different toolset that is used for working on problems. I think it is very important to recognize this difference when you begin an intellectual debate between different people from very different backgrounds. It is very important to stay clear about what question has been asked. Most specifically how each point being argued fits into your strategy to answer the question.

I think a cause for intellectual debates to turn into arguments is when both parties fail to recognize that they are not arguing the same question. I also think arguments develop when both parties think their way to think is "better". There is no "better" way of thinking about a problem. There is no "better" toolset to work with. Each approach is unique and quite interesting. So, it is important to listen to a person with an alternative view. You may actually learn something new.


image credit : warren carl stone

Crack Not

image credit : alphacoder

If you are in academia, you would have heard the term "crackpot" in reference to some seemingly wacky idea. The term is used rather dismissively towards the individuals coming up with some idea. "Oh that's a crackpot theory."  But did we ever stop to think what that really is? Did we ever stop to questions what these individuals may be attempting to do? In my opinion, I think that the "crackpots" are actually pursuing a creative attempt to push the boundaries of knowledge given the limited amount of information available to them.

When jumping into a particular field, you spend months and years trying to understand the language of the field. You learn the jargon and start to understand a common school of thought. You do this for a very long time, before one tries to push the boundaries of their field and forward knowledge. In my opinion, what this system inadvertently does is make the people on the "inside" dismiss those who are on the "outside". We stick up our noses at anyone who misuses our jargon and tries to extend an idea in a way that isn't quite right. We stick up our noses at the someone trying to make connections when it may not be a viable one.

However, what gets left out of many books is the reality of discovery. Most discoveries were little "accidents". Once this accident happened it sparked curiosity upon the person who made the mistake. They questioned why this happened and sought after finding a reason how this could happen. Upon further examination, they were able to validate that something might not be wrong with what they did. So what is the next thing they do? Share it with the world.

If what they found was correct, it would take a while for the world to accept it. It takes a while for paradigms to shift. It takes a while for a school of thought to accept a tangential off shoot of the mainstream. And what exactly is that off shoot called colloquially? "Going out on a limb." And if you would like to say it dismissively, you could call it a "crackpot theory".

My proposal would be to listen more and try to understand what attempts are being made to extend the current ideas. It is possible that they might be able to see something you can't and make connections that you wouldn't be able to see. So, listen. You might actually learn something.

a measurement

" The team measured the accelerated expansion of the universe using observations of distant supernovae."

Whenever I hear statements like that I am in complete awe that these scientists can make such profound claims and conclusions. I puzzle how one could "simply" look at the data in a particular plot and conclude that our universe has an accelerated expansion. I think to myself that they must be incredibly intelligent people who are capable of just seeing this. I hope one day that I can be like them. I would take good quality data and it would be completely obvious to me that the deep underlying meanings of physics will just pop out at me.

You know what? There is a huge, huge problem with that. Its not the stand alone data that leads you to these conclusions. It is the synergistic relationship between data and theory that allow scientists to make a claim. There is no possible way that by simply looking at how photons arrived on your detector you would be able to conclude this. You need to see if a theory can fit your data points. And this is what you search for. You are looking to find a connection between a theory and the data that you have collected.

Only when you find that the predictions from you theory match your data THEN you can make a real life scientific claim. You need the theories AND you need the data. They are simply nothing without each other. 

And that is what a true measurement is.