On wading into unknown scientific territories

My PHD advisor Prof. Robert Carpick once recommended me an article written by biologist Martin A. Schwartz on his reflections and thoughts on scientific researches:http://jcs.biologists.org/content/121/11/1771.short. Here is my comments on this interesting article.

Below is the original article:

Title: The importance of stupidity in scientific research

I recently saw an old friend for the first time in many years. We had been Ph.D. students at the same time, both studying science, although in different areas. She later dropped out of graduate school, went to Harvard Law School and is now a senior lawyer for a major environmental organization. At some point, the conversation turned to why she had left graduate school. To my utter astonishment, she said it was because it made her feel stupid. After a couple of years of feeling stupid every day, she was ready to do something else.

I had thought of her as one of the brightest people I knew and her subsequent career supports that view. What she said bothered me. I kept thinking about it; sometime the next day, it hit me. Science makes me feel stupid too. It’s just that I’ve gotten used to it. So used to it, in fact, that I actively seek out new opportunities to feel stupid. I wouldn’t know what to do without that feeling. I even think it’s supposed to be this way. Let me explain.

For almost all of us, one of the reasons that we liked science in high school and college is that we were good at it. That can’t be the only reason – fascination with understanding the physical world and an emotional need to discover new things has to enter into it too. But high-school and college science means taking courses, and doing well in courses means getting the right answers on tests. If you know those answers, you do well and get to feel smart.

A Ph.D., in which you have to do a research project, is a whole different thing. For me, it was a daunting task. How could I possibly frame the questions that would lead to significant discoveries; design and interpret an experiment so that the conclusions were absolutely convincing; foresee difficulties and see ways around them, or, failing that, solve them when they occurred? My Ph.D. project was somewhat interdisciplinary and, for a while, whenever I ran into a problem, I pestered the faculty in my department who were experts in the various disciplines that I needed. I remember the day when Henry Taube (who won the Nobel Prize two years later) told me he didn’t know how to solve the problem I was having in his area. I was a third-year graduate student and I figured that Taube knew about 1000 times more than I did (conservative estimate). If he didn’t have the answer, nobody did.

That’s when it hit me: nobody did. That’s why it was a research problem. And being my research problem, it was up to me to solve. Once I faced that fact, I solved the problem in a couple of days. (It wasn’t really very hard; I just had to try a few things.) The crucial lesson was that the scope of things I didn’t know wasn’t merely vast; it was, for all practical purposes, infinite. That realization, instead of being discouraging, was liberating. If our ignorance is infinite, the only possible course of action is to muddle through as best we can.

I’d like to suggest that our Ph.D. programs often do students a disservice in two ways. First, I don’t think students are made to understand how hard it is to do research. And how very, very hard it is to do important research. It’s a lot harder than taking even very demanding courses. What makes it difficult is that research is immersion in the unknown. We just don’t know what we’re doing. We can’t be sure whether we’re asking the right question or doing the right experiment until we get the answer or the result. Admittedly, science is made harder by competition for grants and space in top journals. But apart from all of that, doing significant research is intrinsically hard and changing departmental, institutional or national policies will not succeed in lessening its intrinsic difficulty.

Second, we don’t do a good enough job of teaching our students how to be productively stupid – that is, if we don’t feel stupid it means we’re not really trying. I’m not talking about `relative stupidity’, in which the other students in the class actually read the material, think about it and ace the exam, whereas you don’t. I’m also not talking about bright people who might be working in areas that don’t match their talents. Science involves confronting our `absolute stupidity’. That kind of stupidity is an existential fact, inherent in our efforts to push our way into the unknown. Preliminary and thesis exams have the right idea when the faculty committee pushes until the student starts getting the answers wrong or gives up and says, `I don’t know’. The point of the exam isn’t to see if the student gets all the answers right. If they do, it’s the faculty who failed the exam. The point is to identify the student’s weaknesses, partly to see where they need to invest some effort and partly to see whether the student’s knowledge fails at a sufficiently high level that they are ready to take on a research project.

Productive stupidity means being ignorant by choice. Focusing on important questions puts us in the awkward position of being ignorant. One of the beautiful things about science is that it allows us to bumble along, getting it wrong time after time, and feel perfectly fine as long as we learn something each time. No doubt, this can be difficult for students who are accustomed to getting the answers right. No doubt, reasonable levels of confidence and emotional resilience help, but I think scientific education might do more to ease what is a very big transition: from learning what other people once discovered to making your own discoveries. The more comfortable we become with being stupid, the deeper we will wade into the unknown and the more likely we are to make big discoveries.


And here are my comments:

very interesting essay! I strongly agree with the points the authors made, like ‘productive stupidity’, ‘absolute stupidity vs relative stupidity’, and ‘intrinsic difficulty of research’!

Actually I have been thinking about scientific research for a while. I have two main ideas.
My first idea is that the progress of science is analogous to the evolution of creatures — or we could call it the ‘evolution of knowledge’. Like the biological evolution, where the mutation of genes happens randomly and are selected by the environment, the scientific knowledge evolution also contains two parts: the trials (new ideas, new interpretations…) and the selections from the existing scientific environment (or the knowledge ‘data base’) and from experiments. Only those trials compatible with the scientific environment and experiments could survive and become new knowledge. In today’s academia, the two main mechanisms of selections from the environment are ‘peer reviews’ (from a student’s perspective, it also includes reviews from the advisor and coauthors) and future ‘citations’ after the paper get published.
From this picture, the ‘intrinsic difficulty’ of research the authors talk about is due to the intrinsic large possibility of failures of mutations (or trials), which is just the nature of mutations, because mutation itself is random and has no direction (of course, the trials based on existing knowledge is not totally random, but at the level of ‘new knowledge’, it’s still could be considered as quite random). This large possibility of failure of trials is also the reason of ‘stupidity’ the authors discussed. In order to make the ‘stupidity’ becomes ‘productive stupidity’, one need to learn more about the scientific environment (existing papers and knowledge) and ‘think’ (‘conservative’ and hard thinking) more to make the trials more likely to be compatible with the environment.
My second idea is that the scientific progress (or picture) is a fractal. If we increase the ‘resolution’ we use to study the universe to the infinite, all existing knowledge and results are ‘wrong’ (corresponding to the ‘absolute stupidity’ the authors discussed). The progress of science is the progress of increasing the ‘resolution’ we use to look at the existence (corresponding to the ‘wading deeper into the unknown’ the authors wrote).
From the second picture, the ‘important questions’ the authors mentioned to help the researcher to become ‘productive stupidity’ is those questions which could brings more questions in a fractal way.
The link between the above two pictures is that the selection mechanism in the evolution picture (like peer review and experiments under today’s technology) determines the ‘resolution’ in the fractal picture.


电子邮件地址不会被公开。 必填项已用*标注