How Scientists Really Think

HOW SCIENTISTS REALLY THINK ROBERT S. ROOT-BERNSTEIN* Robert Root-Bernstein's career defies normal categorization. He received his A.B. in biochemistry from Princeton University with a senior thesis demonstrating that the mathematics of net theory could be applied to modeling biochemical and neuronal systems. Frustrated by the narrowness of existing Ph.D. programs in biochemistry, he decided to train himself in modern biological theory by taking a Ph.D. in the history and philosophy of science, also from Princeton. He then went to the SaIk Institute for Biological Studies as postdoctoral fellow in theories in biology, becoming research associate in Jonas Salk's Autoimmune and Neoplastic Diseases Laboratory. Aided and abetted by a MacArthur Prize Fellowship (1981), he worked on a new theory of autoimmunity, postulated and found chemical complementarity between multiple antigens in the induction of experimental autoimmune diseases, and studied the specificity of molecular interactions between drugs, hormones, and neurotransmitters . His research sometimes concerns and is always informed by the history and philosophy of science, and he has just completed a book, Discovering (Harvard University Press, 1989), about obstacles and inducements to the exploratory and speculative investigations that drive all scientific progress. He is currently assistant professor ofphysiology at Michigan State University. Revised version of a talk presented at the Boston Colloquium for the Philosophy of Science, Boston, Massachusetts, October 13, 1987. ?Departments of Natural Science and Physiology, Michigan State University, East Lansing , Michigan 48824.© 1989 by The University of Chicago. AU rights reserved. 003 l-5982/89/3204-0654$0 1 .00 472 I Robert S. Root-Bernstein ¦ How Scientists Really Think In one of Lillian de la Torre's detective stories, Dr. Sam Johnson and his faithful, but not too bright, Boswell visit Lord Monboddo. Monboddo has just acquired what he thinks is a veritable wild child—the missing link between the apes and civilized man. He begins his examination of the child by feeling his hind end for the remnants of a tail. "Sure, sir," remarks Dr. Johnson, "you are a logician indeed, for I see you reason by the method." "How so," inquires Boswell, lost by his friend's obscure train of thought. "The learned advocate [Lord Monboddo]," replied Johnson, "is seen to reason a posteriori" [I]. De la Torre pokes fun at formal logic, as well she might, for our most powerful scientific thought is no less behindhand in playfulness and surprise than it is in rational method. Consider. To what extent can formal logic—induction and deduction—describe what scientists do? Do their methods actually fit into these categories? In particular, how do we explain in terms of logic the existence of surprise in science and, especially , the fun that scientists have pursuing those surprises? After all, would anyone bother doing science if everything could be logically predicted in advance and nothing was left but the demonstration of propositions ? Or, does logic apply only to the testing of preexisting ideas, as many philosophers maintain at present? Is the context of discovery distinct from the context of testing and justification [2]? Let me expand on this last point. One of the maxims of science, best stated by Neils Bohr, is that progress follows most rapidly from paradox. A fundamental problem with philosophy of science is that many philosophers believe the context ofdiscovery to be unknowable: How a scientific discovery occurs is a matter of unique historical, social, and psychological elements that cannot be explained logically or rationally. We can only determine whether the resulting hypothesis is correct or not. Fortunately for the progress of knowledge, this position creates the paradox that rationality proceeds from irrationality: Philosophers tell us discov'ry's illogical From which I conclude that science is magical: How can insight be sought In irrational thought And then tested and taught as if logical?! As in all paradoxes, some element of the discovery process is being misconstrued or left out. So, what do scientists actually do? Do they induce? Do they deduce? Or do they do something else? Since I am not a professional philosopher , let me begin my consideration of these questions by giving my understandings of the definitions of these terms. Induction I take to Perspectives in...