examples are of theoretical concepts, but even more consistently productive is the application of new techniques and instruments to empirical research.
Many discoveries are driven by technology, by the sudden ability to make a new type of measurement or to make a much more accurate measurement than before. The inventors of the electron microscope, laser, and CT scan could never have imagined the realms that these devices would explore. Recognition of the applicability of a new instrument or technique is easiest for the person who knows the problem, not for the person who develops the technique. One does not necessarily even have to match the new technique with a specific problem. Discovery can result just from a ‘fishing expedition’ with a new kind of observation of an old phenomenon.
Because science is increasingly specialized, researchers seldom are aware of technical or conceptual developments in ‘unrelated’ fields. Thus a potential application may go unrecognized for many years. This approach also is underutilized because it is haphazard, almost always stumbled upon rather than deliberately sought out. Yet it can be fostered. Seeking new applications to one’s field is a strong incentive for reading outside of one’s field. Such goal-oriented reading can be extremely productive.
Breakthroughs by Amateurs: the Outsider Perspective
Breakthroughs by ‘amateurs’ are a phenomenon that seems to run counter to the philosophy of acquiring all relevant data to assist in reaching an insight. Actually, the ‘amateur’ usually is not a scientific novice, but an experienced scientist who has just changed fields. The neophyte brings to a new field the established disciplines of scientific method but not the prevailing assumptions or prejudices of the entrenched leadership of that field. The newcomer may also bring a technique or concept to a different field, as mentioned above.
A related phenomenon is breakthroughs by young scientists: most revolutions within each field of science are led by the younger generation (in physics, for example, by those under 30 years old). This generation may have more energy than the older generation, but it also has less efficiency and much less knowledge. The higher discovery rate among relative newcomers to a field stems from their greater flexibility of thought, due to less ingrained assumptions and conclusions.
Published errors -- whether in assumptions, data, or interpretations -- are stumbling blocks to further insights, particularly for researchers who have long accepted them. It does not follow, though I have heard the argument made, that it is better for one to avoid reading intensively in one’s specialty. Oliver [1991] points out that seeking breakthroughs outside one’s specialty brings hazards as well as opportunities. For example, physicist Lord Kelvin calculated the age of the earth and was dogmatic that his result was correct. He ignored geologists’ evidence for a much older age, partly because the evidence was not from his field.
Knowing all the relevant evidence is essential, but equally essential is alertness to the basis for one’s assumptions and interpretations, and critical reevaluation of that basis.
Changing fields is a drastic means of chasing insights. Changing subjects within the same field can unleash creativity [Loehle, 1990]. Another pragmatic alternative is simply to try out different perspectives. The following problem illustrates this approach.
A gnat flies deep into your ear and repeatedly collides with your eardrum. How can you solve the problem?
First, consider the consequences of initial failure on future trials (Chapter 5): squirting water into your ear might wash the gnat out, but a dead gnat may be even harder to extract than a live gnat. Instead, try the problem-solving technique of
