So, reading this book about the process of insight, an important issue, for scientist, I found plenty of trick to favor the development of it. But this led me to wonder, how do you recognize the right insight?
Consider Darwin and Lamarck. Sure Lamarck also had his 'Eureka' moment. But it was a wrong Eureka. However, because it made so much sense, he just followed and pushed his idea for most of his life, and is now recognized as an important contributor to evolutionary theory albeit a wrong one. So, how do you recognize good intuition from wrong intuition? In the case of Darwin vs Lamarck, it must be very difficult, even impossible for Lamarck at the time to recognize, even less admit, that he was wrong, partly because the idea was so good, it made so much sense. It is easy for us now a posteriori to say that Lamarck was wrong but at the time, with the knowledge and tools they had, it sure sounded like a good idea, and he had many followers.
I guess a few clues could have come from evaluating and pushing his theory to the limit. By example, Lamarck did not explain the origin of new species. An all important point in evolution. Or may be I should say didn't explain it as convincingly as Darwin's. I guess that a more critical evaluation of his own theory might have helped Lamarck to realize his mistake, eg there is no 'improvement' of the race in animal breeding, so well explained by Darwin, it is selection, not adaptation.
Consider Darwin and Lamarck. Sure Lamarck also had his 'Eureka' moment. But it was a wrong Eureka. However, because it made so much sense, he just followed and pushed his idea for most of his life, and is now recognized as an important contributor to evolutionary theory albeit a wrong one. So, how do you recognize good intuition from wrong intuition? In the case of Darwin vs Lamarck, it must be very difficult, even impossible for Lamarck at the time to recognize, even less admit, that he was wrong, partly because the idea was so good, it made so much sense. It is easy for us now a posteriori to say that Lamarck was wrong but at the time, with the knowledge and tools they had, it sure sounded like a good idea, and he had many followers.
I guess a few clues could have come from evaluating and pushing his theory to the limit. By example, Lamarck did not explain the origin of new species. An all important point in evolution. Or may be I should say didn't explain it as convincingly as Darwin's. I guess that a more critical evaluation of his own theory might have helped Lamarck to realize his mistake, eg there is no 'improvement' of the race in animal breeding, so well explained by Darwin, it is selection, not adaptation.
No comments:
Post a Comment