- Swetha Chandrasekar
- New York, NY
- United States
Chemical and Biomedical Engineering Student, Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Is science just imagination in a straitjacket?
This week in my Bioelectricity class, we listened to an NPR interview with Frances Ashcroft. Ashcroft is a British scientist who made a discovery in 1984 that allows neonatal diabetes patients to take pills as insulin supplements instead of injections. In her interview, as she discussed her thoughts on the scientific process and developing her theory, she referenced a quote by Richard Feynman, is a renowned American theoretical physicist.
"Science is imagination in a straitjacket."
Many scientists would argue that science does not restrict imagination, but rather promotes it. How is it that a well renowned scientist and thinker like Feynman, could feel confined when seeking answers in science? Is science a vehicle for imagination or is it used to tie down imagination with facts? What experience could have caused him to have this opinion? Does science truly restrict the imagination as Feynman suggests, or is science a vehicle for imagination?
Tify Ndanoboi 30+
If and only if for one reason, I could imagine a place and a time where drugs are not engineered as to "Manage" a disease but rather cure it. Science has not delivered.
Some homework for you :)... look up the last time any disease was cured.
You'll be surprised at the answer and how science has been in a straightjacket not of imagination but of business and ongoing profitability.
Be careful about using this as any argument in any class, its not in general what scientists want to hear.
mary kariuki
Alex Velazquez
On the other hand, based on resent studies that our minds interact with our environment and we can impact the physical world at a quantum level with our minds, we might actually find that imagination is the real limit. Facts would be just our imagination collapsing in what would like to experience. I know, sounds crazy but we might have to archive classic mechanic at some point in the future. Now, how is that for imagination? :-)
Obey No1kinobe 50+
No, its much more than that, but at some stage it comes back to evidence and what is physically possible with current technology.
Jacob Baldus
George Holevas
Jonathan Huang
I agree with your take on science and the restriction that it places on imagination. Imagination is near limitless, as you have said. However I do believe that science is limited to the concrete evidence that is used to prove an idea or theory to be scientifically sound. In my mind, this is the straitjacket that science wears. Simply put, imagination can be anything and everything, while science uses imagination to a certain degree and real life proof to show its validity. Think about the past scientists who have stumbled upon new ideas. These ideas were initially merely the work of their imaginations.
Alison Acevedo
Thank you for your post! I vote that science is most definitely a vehicle for imagination.
When Ashcroft stated that science is imagination in a straitjacket, she may have meant that she was limited by any number of things - the equipment she was using, the lack of support financially or from other researchers, the access to samples to test, etc. Feynman is included in this sense of restriction - a physicist might feel limited simply by the inability to 'see' in the fifth or sixth dimension. My point is that science does not limit imagination, it's outside factors, generally limited resources, which create the straitjacket. Part of the solution to this is social outreach, garnering support for researchers through public education. Look at publications like http://www.genengnews.com/ or encourage people to attend events such as http://makerfaire.com/. We should ask how we can make science more popular and accessible so that people may never think that it stunts imagination.
Ravi Patel
Thats the regrettable, under-reported aspect of research. When projects are this expensive, grant committees have the power to essentially decide what gets done within their entire field. On one hand, this is understandable; why spend $50,000 looking into a gene that may have nothing to do at all with cancer or its cure. But on the same token, that gene may very well be the key to curing ALL cancers. We don't know. And unfortunately, a lot of "safe" projects with limited potential get grant money whereas the risky, but high reward projects get nothing.
In my lab, researchers would have one main project that was approved for grant money. However, the big "grant" supported projects weren't really anything more than testing a hypothesis that you KNOW was right (you wouldn't have gotten the grant if there was a hint of doubt). But the side projects was were the real science was really done. This is where we asked "what happens when we do this". This is where the "huh that's funny" occurs. All of this is done with leftover grant money not used for the main project. Nothing big and risky (like isolating/manipulation genes) can really be done as a side project. And unfortunately, something big is what we may need.
Avi Gadish
"While imagination is the source of inspiration in seeking new knowledge, it can also be dangerous if not subjected to discipline; a fertile imagination needs to be balanced by criticism and judgment. This is, of course, quite different from saying it should be repressed or crushed. The imagination merely enables us to wander into the darkness of the unknown where... we may glimpse something that seems of interest... Imagination is at once the source of all hope and inspiration but also of frustration. To forget this is to court despair."
I think the straitjacket in Feynman's quote may actually be the most ideal garment with which to clothe our imaginations. If we let our imaginations run wild, we will surely come up with interesting ideas, but they may not be most effective.
We have seen that science, as a global endeavor to unlock the worlds secrets, is actually quite locked down. Grants are not easy to come by and home-brew labs are only very recently gaining popularity (ie. Genspace.org). Since the time of the enlightenment, it was academic societies, and journals that influenced which scientific advancements and ideas would be popularized and accepted. If your imagination was ahead of its time, then it most likely wouldn't have made it to the status of "Science."
I think many would agree that imagination is the precursor to science and that with the necessary refining, testing and polishing, imagination can become science.
Brian Gonsalves
So while it is our imaginations that allows us to pursue the stuff of StartTrek or ask questions of our beginnings, it is the straight jacketed nature of science, the hard limits of the known rules that govern our universe which eventually satiates or douse that imagination.
Imagine jumping out of a plane and flying, soaring through the skies like superman. Gravity will eventually have something to say about that dream. Or science may use the rules that restricts your dream to develop some technology to allow the fruition of that dream. In a way working within these constrictions (known rules) has been and is the key to that straight jacket and the freeing our imaginations.
After all, man always thought that he could fly, but it was science that allowed him to.
I believe it is our imaginations that are straight jacketed, limited, and science is the gateway to our dreams.
Linda Taylor 50+
There are methods and rules for scientists to follow so we can confirm the knowledge but that should not restrict imagination.
Josh Heuser
'Science lets you do some imagination, but it makes you test your work and prove it'
I think that this is a very ASTUTE observation that is right on the money. Science allows you to be imaginative, if it was not imaginative there would rarely be new discoveries! But it also makes you prove what you imagine.
For example you could imagining a cure for a disease. You could come up with many options. Everything from microbiology, to diet change to seeing if weightlessness cured the disease, or treating it with anything, and any ingredients.. There are millions of cures and you could be as creative as you would want to be. You would only be bound by your imagination! But you also must prove that your idea, invention, approach or anything else actually WORKS. That is the beauty of science. It is provable by other people.
I love science and I also love innovation. When you combine the two amazing things can happen. Thank you for sharing this quote and posting it. Asking the question in the way you did made me grow mentally and enhance my perspective.
Mathew Naismith 10+
Imagination in a strait jacket definitely a yes on that one, if scientists never imagined what if’s science wouldn’t have evolved from philosophy & mysticism. Has science conducted itself freely within the imagination? Definitely not as it’s restricted by fundamental logical deductive analysis in other words dogmas.
Imagination is a huge primary conductive source to a scientist as it allows the scientist to wonder which usually leads to theorising which can lead to a proven deduction with the source of the initial analysis.
This is a good one Swetha!!
Love
Mathew
Anibal Rodriguez
Casey Christofaris 10+
Asgar Fakhrudin
Lauren Bayer
I think that you bring up a good point Asgar. I believe that Feinman's statement meant that science leaves lots of room for imagination, however, the laws of the scientific method can often restrict the expression of the creativity. Scientists can not just propose whatever they want to - their hypothesis need to be proven with experimental data and facts. This is what really validates Asgar's point, which is that when science seeks to demonstrate how something in nature occurs - they must show it rigorously with all of their means necessary so that their hypothesis can be proven beyond doubt. However, when it comes to explain why it occurs, as Asgar said, their lies the most room for imagination. I believe that this is the healthiest way for science to balance its creativity and empirical side. Science needs the imagination to think of their theorems, design the experiments and explain why different phenomena occur, but at the same time science also needs the straight jacket to prove their hypothesis and to actually carry out their dreams.
Austin R 20+
John Moonstroller 30+
What separates us from the animals is the fact we ask that question in our minds. We are the only animal that does that.
Science is a direct result of our need to answer that question. It is the only route that works to narrow the course of applying resources to determine that answer. All other methods just put answering the question off to a later date, and accelerate our use of resources.
Imagination in a strait Jacket is Capitalism and all the trading rules that have been established by that system of sharing resources. Of course the word "sharing", under the rules of capitalism, is a misnomer.
Vincenzo Sergi
Cheers
Kyung Lee
Yaron Tokayer
I agree with your point. I think the quote is double-edged. From one end, as many have commented, scientific theory serves as a reality check on imaginitive ideas and gives a framework in which to explore and create. From the other end--and this is what you brought to my attention--I think that the more unknown scieces don't offer that framework and a lot of it is just shooting in the dark. So indeed "imagination and creativity lead to scientific discovery especially in the areas that we have very little understanding of."
I think this is where the negative connotation of "straightjacket" comes in to play. Swetha asked " What experience could have caused him [Feynman] to have this opinion?" Perhaps he and many other scietists have frusterating experiences, particularly in new frontiers of science, in which their idea or theory is proven empirically false. Maybe it's in times like those when Feynman felt like he was tied down to the laws of nature like a straightjacket and he couldn't break free from them as much as his imagination and theories tried. It can also be that this enemy turns into a friend once success is achieved, because it provides the guidance and framework that has come up throughout this TED conversation.
John Moonstroller 30+
If you walk a path that is narrowed by the rules of science, you will, eventually, stumble onto a discovery, wither you have imagination or not. Computers lack imagination but, if properly programmed, can take the rules of science and make new discoveries.
I'm no longer sure just what imagination really is and if we need it or not.
Michael Crafferty
natasha nikulina 50+
Imagination if it cares to be seen should wear something ; maybe for haiku poetry it chooses takageta...
naked imagination in takadeta to walk carefully in a rainy day.
For science it's a straitjacket of interlocking laws.
Isn't it different ? :)
Leo Taylor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFBtlZfwEwM
Fantastic. Here are the two points I take from it. First is that Richard is using his imagination and that the straightjacket is the known laws of physics. So with his understanding of our laws (at that time) he would not waste time trying to invent or imagine something that was impossible. That is more flight of fancy.
The second thing I take, and he does not mention this at all, is that if I were to use my imagination in the scenario he was talking about (anti-gravity) I would use the imagination to better define gravity. AND then perhaps see if an anti-gravity machine was do able. Rather than trying to use imagination to create an anti-gravity machine that was against, the then, current theory. Keep in mind, to this day we still do not have a law of gravity we have theories and at the time of Richards talk String theory and M theory were so new (or just arriving) that we did not have a quantum view of gravity.
LOL.. of course.... use your imagination to create an anti-gravity machine and you will make a fortune. Use your imagination to nail down the theory and laws of gravity and you will surpass the fame and prestige of Albert Einstein. Which would you want?
Tim Petersen
Okay, everybody take a five minute break, go into the hall and remove your straight jackets, please. just teasing
Tim Petersen
Tim Petersen
Thank you, Swetha, for taking my imagination with you on this journey, this morning. It has been very delightful, reminding me again, what is important in my life. I choose to leave behind the false sense of security in traveling with the perceived 'known' , and I'll run with Mystery and Imaginations, til I run no more.
It has been my utmost pleasure to have met you here, as well. Later, Tim.....if there really is a later?!?!?!
Tim Petersen
“Imagination is everything. It is the preview of life's coming attractions.”
― Albert Einstein
It was from Einstein's notes, and the traditional stories told to me by elders of this nation's first people that helped me put into perspective my ability to dream visions, and restrain fears. I have been told, "Imagination, is the foundation of everything. It is not a piece of , and it is not a compartment within the brain, it is the base ingredient of every cell, right down to the atom."
The message to our central nervous system which reports the hot horseshoe in our hand must be imagined by several distinct messengers before it is reported. Anything, and everything we do, voluntary and involuntary, begins with someone's, or something's imagination.
Einstein also believed knowledge is limited and imagination was everything beyond those limits. Our doctrines, our facts (which , usually end up being facts for a limited time), and our science all create paradigms of thought and imagination. If we are able to understand that our scientific facts, and perhaps, including universal laws of physics, too, are only so for this day. One day it is very likely through higher understanding and healthier imagination that we had measured these perceived truths through frail human understanding, as feeble as this understanding is, in our arrogance this is how we measure all things around us, including fauna and flora, and the celestial beings.
I enjoy science, study and passion of research. I also understand the risk of limiting my imagination should any of that seem worthy of belief. I always worship the Mystery, first. Only Mystery is worthy of belief.
Yes, science is a straightjacket
natasha nikulina 50+
Take music poetry science painting .... one may say :
Imagination was here, imagination acted in this place, and this is what it left.
Science among all human activities , by its very nature is the most restricted one by facts proofs, laws... iow. with the REALITY THAT PRESENT.
Ben Jarvis 50+
Wes Turner
natasha nikulina 50+