Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

LouisvilleDem

(303 posts)
25. You need both
Wed Jul 1, 2015, 06:03 PM
Jul 2015

I agree that you need to have a great deal of intuition to come up with a hypothesis. However, that is merely the first step in the scientific process. We will never know how many thousands of intuitive people came up with brilliant hypothesis to explain some phenomena, but then lacked the "sensing" personality needed to collect and analyze a comprehensive set of facts needed to prove their hypothesis correct to the scientific community at large. Perhaps that is why there are so few really revolutionary ideas in science that actually come from one person. There is no doubt that Crick was an incredibly intuitive person, but would he have ever been known as the co-discoverer of DNA if not for the hard grunt work of collecting empirical facts performed by Rosalind Franklin? According to Crick himself, the answer is no.

on edit:

From a letter Crick wrote in 1961:

However, the data which really helped us to obtain the structure was mainly obtained by Rosalind Franklin, who died a few years ago.


http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/retrieve/ResourceMetadata/SCBBFW

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

For whatever their reasons, their brains are almost totally shutdown. nt ladjf Jun 2015 #1
N-type here. Maybe this will influence some... Ghost Dog Jun 2015 #2
"presenting them with data they can't process... Duppers Jun 2015 #3
This is then where everything breaks down The2ndWheel Jun 2015 #5
Science suggests the opposite OKIsItJustMe Jun 2015 #8
...when political passions come into play. Duppers Jun 2015 #18
Accountants, lawyers and Doctors are TRAINED to be that way happyslug Jun 2015 #21
there is another type -- those who deny professionally GreatGazoo Jun 2015 #4
two categories of psychological wiring PADemD Jun 2015 #6
I think “confirmation bias” goes a long way… OKIsItJustMe Jun 2015 #7
Practices like "fake balance" play into peoples' psychological predispositions. GliderGuider Jun 2015 #10
You may misunderstand “S types” OKIsItJustMe Jun 2015 #11
How so? GliderGuider Jun 2015 #12
“S types … innate tendency to trust what's in front of them.” OKIsItJustMe Jun 2015 #13
ergo why I used the word "tendency". GliderGuider Jun 2015 #14
Right. My point here is that I don’t think it’s an S -vs- N thing at all OKIsItJustMe Jun 2015 #15
OK, and I think S/N plays a significant role. GliderGuider Jun 2015 #16
It may play a role OKIsItJustMe Jun 2015 #17
Deniers are 'practical' people pscot Jun 2015 #9
The irony here is amusing LouisvilleDem Jun 2015 #19
GG; I'm afraid I couldn't disagree more with your statement: "As far as I can tell, most scientists Bill USA Jun 2015 #20
I have no problem with your disagreement GliderGuider Jun 2015 #22
are you referring to Myers-Briggs Type Indicator? Bill USA Jun 2015 #23
I come from a hard-science family GliderGuider Jun 2015 #24
You need both LouisvilleDem Jul 2015 #25
never said there was no intuition involved in conduct of scientific discovery. Without that you'd Bill USA Jul 2015 #27
And I was just talking about the MBTI. GliderGuider Jul 2015 #28
I do not understand it.. its the one thing that drives me nutsy Peacetrain Jul 2015 #26
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Why it's so hard to convi...»Reply #25