Slashdot Mirror


Ask Slashdot: Why Are Scientists Constantly Surprised By What They Discover?

Slashdot reader dryriver asks about "the sheer number of times scientists consider something to be 'scientifically impossible', are badly disproven by some kind of new finding or discovery a few years later, and then express 'surprise' that 'X is indeed possible'." If you do a Google News search for the keywords "scientists were surprised" or similar, a huge number of science-related news articles contains a passage about "scientists being surprised" by what they discovered. There seems to be a great disparity between the mindset of inventors -- who always try to MAKE new things become possible -- and the mindset of many scientists, who seem unable or unwilling to consider that what "science holds to be true today" may not turn out to be quite so true tomorrow.

Here's the question: Why do many scientists, having knowledge of the fact that surprises in science happen all the time, continually express "surprise" when they find something unusual? If surprises in scientific research are so common, why are scientists still "surprised" by "surprise findings"?

"The surprising stuff is what we hear about, and there has to be some reason why it is surprising," argues gurps_npc in response to the original submission. "A common answer is that current state of science thinks the surprising stuff was impossible."

"The whole premise is flawed," counters long-time reader Martin+S. "Natural skepticism is an essential component of science." And long-time reader UnknownSoldier supplies a one-word answer: "Ego."

But how would you answer the question? Share your best thoughts in the comments. Why are scientists constantly surprised by what they discover?

4 of 254 comments (clear)

  1. If you really care to know... by The+Real+Dr+John · · Score: 4, Informative

    As a neuroscientist I can tell you why many scientists in the life sciences are surprised by findings: shocker! It's because living systems are so absurdly complicated. Just take a look at what is known currently for any major biochemical pathway, or gene regulation, or mitochondrial metabolism, or protein trafficking in the cell. The complexity is mind boggling. Anyone who thinks you can wade into that abyss of unknowns with certainty hasn't done any biological research.

    --
    A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
  2. Re:Journalists and headline editors, not scientist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    For further details on bad journalism, read http://phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174

  3. Re: Because it gives you more funding by tsa · · Score: 3, Informative

    Indeed, that was what I came up with first too. I was a scientist for a long time, and of course sometimes nature surprises you, but to get funding you need to use every superlative in your tool set, and 'suprising' seems to work well even with stuff you didn't find that surprising. And ince you have funding the money givers will want to hear great stories, so there we go again.

    --

    -- Cheers!

  4. Re:Remember: Clarke's First Law is fiction by BorisAmmerlaan · · Score: 5, Informative

    According to Shirlock Holmes "when you have eliminated the possible, only the impossible remains!"

    I do not know who Shirlock Holmes is, but the actual Sherlock Holmes quote is: "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"

    So... exactly the opposite of what you said.