Serendipity is not a new topic. The world has seen the fruits produced from unintentional “stumble-upon” discoveries, even though the word itself has only come to the public's attention in the 1950s – 200 years after its origination. Political economist Stanley Jevons summed up the importance of serendipity in scientific discovery as the great breakthrough in new, developing fields of research. Those who are blessed with the luck of discovery being dropped in their laps have to be intelligent enough to notice that what they were not searching for is actually a huge success. Jevons goes on to say that serendipity becomes less and less important in fields such as science as the field progresses. Oersted observed the movement of a needle between two copper wires connected to two poles to unwittingly notice the force of magnetism. Richet experimented with the TB virus and the cure by ingestion of raw meat. These discoveries were in no means the sought answer to the problem. Acceptance of farfetched ideas brings about knowledge of fields of research. Many of those that have encountered serendipity in science were well educated men, capable of conducting experiments and understanding the improbable outcomes. However high the number of accidental findings, there remains a large percent of scientists that refute serendipity. In Rossman's The Psychology of the Inventor, only 75 of 259 inventors confirmed the belief that serendipity contributed any part to inventions. Doubt is a lingering mindset among the inventors. Maybe serendipity occurs less often that the public thinks, and only the freak accidents are recorded in science. But then again, a scientist generally has more schooling and education than a typical inventor. There is no survey among scientists on the acceptance of serendipity, the numbers may be higher or lower. Education may play a key role in a person being more open to an unexpected outcome. The idea of serendipity, however, is highly opinionated, differing from person to person, or inventor to scientist. Just be prepared for your encounter with serendipity. Will you be accepting or throw it aside?
I have never heard of political economist Stanley Jevons, and quoting him actually made the read very interesting to me because it was fresh and gave me some interesting insight, especially when you said,"Jevons goes on to say that serendipity becomes less and less important in fields such as science as the field progresses". I actually completely disagree with Jevons on this point; i feel that as we go deeper into science, the number of times serendipity occurs might decrease, but the importance would not. I've actually never thought of this point before I read your post, you can email me at kartuppuluri@gatech.edu and give me your thoughts on that. I also like the transition to a more pessimistic point of view with the sentence, "However high the number of accidental findings, there remains a large percent of scientists that refute serendipity", most people just skip the fact that scientist themselves don't approve of serendipity, and bringing this point up was interesting. Although you went on to make some very interesting points, one thing i thought was missing was a concrete thesis idea, or a central idea. But i loved the read, thanks for the post.
ReplyDeleteKarthik Uppuluri, Electronic, G5