Wednesday, December 21, 2016

Science Without Creativity? Not To Me

From an outsider's perspective, it’s easy to think that science lacks creativity. The methodical procedures, the copying of steps and numbers, none of it seems creative to the casual observer sitting in a science class while they're told what to do. Everyone remember that one lab (or many labs) that they never understood, but instead just followed the steps blindly. It's for this reason, among others, that the misconceptions about science and creativity occur. People do not create these steps, so they do not find them creative, but this simply is not true. The level of achievement necessary to be able to find out how something works is massive. Our knowledge about the world is solidified through science and the understanding of creation. If science was not creative, then everything we know today would be stunted and without complexity. It takes new ideas and thoughts to create new tests and experiments that are then interpreted critically. Everything about the scientific method, even if it is a method, relies on its creator and how much thought and effort they put into their work. Every test, just like every piece of creative work, is inspired by those before it and then uses those inspirations to create or learn something new. People may argue that there is no creativity in science, but this is because they've never been made to conduct their own experiment and design a procedure that will work, lower variation, and give accurate results. It isn't something that can just appear out of thin air.
When I think back to why people may feel this way, I remember the days before high school. Science wasn't my favorite course, and I never really found the purpose in it. Everything appeared the same because I never fully understood why we did the labs we did, or why anything was important enough. But after experiencing science fairs after science fairs to then research projects, the scientific method become less of a checklist and more of a matter of making something that can be solidly conducted. And, with complete honesty, it isn't an easy task. Making something with enough consistencies to be functional and trying to make the experiment possible for high school students isn't an easy task. Some people may have a step involving the preparation of a dish, but without the knowledge of how a petroleum dish functions, what its purpose is, the effectiveness will be hindered. Advancing science is equal parts knowledge as it is creativity, and most people fail to recognize that. Science isn't just about what we know today, it's about how people were able to figure out the information that we know, and then how they use it to learn more and more and more. The concepts of density, melting, and freezing points, all which seem like common knowledge to most people, had to be discovered, tested, and proven, and all of this was based on theories. Using nothing to make something, or transforming something to make something else, is the process of creation. For those who think otherwise, for better or worse, I believe they should sit down and try truly making something, and then coming back to review the question.

2 comments:

  1. I thought your essay was very good. You did a great job of connecting with the audience(like when you said "I remember the days before high school"), I think we can all agree middle school science was terrible. Anyways, this made your argument more effective.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oh my-o it's an essay! (sorry). I really like how you brought your own experiences in to explain why this misconception exists, and why you have realized it isn't true. It was a nice way to make this misconception seem realer by tying in real life examples. I also thought this was really well written and you got your thoughts across well. Good job!

    ReplyDelete

Popular Posts

top navigation

About me

I'm Hannah and a big fan of mitochondria. This is my biology blog.