the essay of scientists

• The Magazine
• Stay Curious
• The Sciences
• Environment
• Planet Earth

10 Famous Scientists and Their Contributions

Get to know the greatest scientists in the world. learn how these famous scientists changed the world as we know it through their contributions and discoveries..

From unraveling the mysteries of the cosmos to unearthing the origins of humanity, these famous scientists have not only expanded the boundaries of human knowledge but have also profoundly altered the way we live, work, and perceive the world around us. The relentless pursuit of knowledge by these visionary thinkers has propelled humanity forward in ways that were once unimaginable. 

These exceptional individuals have made an extraordinary impact on fields including physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, and numerous others. Their contributions stand as a testament to the transformative power of human curiosity and the enduring impact of those who dared to ask questions, challenge the status quo, and change the world. Join us as we embark on a journey through the lives and legacies of the greatest scientists of all time.

1. Albert Einstein: The Whole Package

Albert Einstein was not only a scientific genius but also a figure of enduring popularity and intrigue. His remarkable contributions to science, which include the famous equation E = mc2 and the theory of relativity , challenged conventional notions and reshaped our understanding of the universe.

Born in Ulm, Germany, in 1879, Einstein was a precocious child. As a teenager, he wrote a paper on magnetic fields. (Einstein never actually failed math, contrary to popular lore.) His career trajectory began as a clerk in the Swiss Patent Office in 1905, where he published his four groundbreaking papers, including his famous equation, E = mc2, which described the relationship between matter and energy.

Contributions

Einstein's watershed year of 1905 marked the publication of his most important papers, addressing topics such as Brownian motion , the photoelectric effect and special relativity. His work in special relativity introduced the idea that space and time are interwoven, laying the foundation for modern astronomy. In 1916, he expanded on his theory of relativity with the development of general relativity, proposing that mass distorts the fabric of space and time.

Although Einstein received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921, it wasn't for his work on general relativity but rather for his discovery of the photoelectric effect. His contributions to science earned him a prestigious place in the scientific community.

Key Moment 

A crowd barged past dioramas, glass displays, and wide-eyed security guards in the American Museum of Natural History. Screams rang out as some runners fell and were trampled. Upon arriving at a lecture hall, the mob broke down the door.

The date was Jan. 8, 1930, and the New York museum was showing a film about Albert Einstein and his general theory of relativity. Einstein was not present, but 4,500 mostly ticketless people still showed up for the viewing. Museum officials told them “no ticket, no show,” setting the stage for, in the words of the Chicago Tribune , “the first science riot in history.”

Such was Einstein’s popularity. As a publicist might say, he was the whole package: distinctive look (untamed hair, rumpled sweater), witty personality (his quips, such as God not playing dice, would live on) and major scientific cred (his papers upended physics).

Read More: 5 Interesting Things About Albert Einstein

Einstein, who died of heart failure in 1955 , left behind a profound legacy in the world of science. His life's work extended beyond scientific discoveries, encompassing his role as a public intellectual, civil rights advocate, and pacifist.

Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity remains one of his most celebrated achievements. It predicted the existence of black holes and gravitational waves, with physicists recently measuring the waves from the collision of two black holes over a billion light-years away. General relativity also underpins the concept of gravitational lensing, enabling astronomers to study distant cosmic objects in unprecedented detail.

“Einstein remains the last, and perhaps only, physicist ever to become a household name,” says James Overduin, a theoretical physicist at Towson University in Maryland.

Einstein's legacy goes beyond his scientific contributions. He is remembered for his imaginative thinking, a quality that led to his greatest insights. His influence as a public figure and his advocacy for civil rights continue to inspire generations.

“I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination,” he said in a Saturday Evening Post interview. “Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.”

— Mark Barna

Read More: 20 Brilliant Albert Einstein Quotes

2. Marie Curie: She Went Her Own Way

Marie Curie's remarkable journey to scientific acclaim was characterized by determination and a thirst for knowledge. Living amidst poverty and political turmoil, her unwavering passion for learning and her contributions to the fields of physics and chemistry have made an everlasting impact on the world of science.

Marie Curie , born as Maria Salomea Sklodowska in 1867 in Warsaw, Poland, faced immense challenges during her early life due to both her gender and her family's financial struggles. Her parents, fervent Polish patriots, sacrificed their wealth in support of their homeland's fight for independence from Russian, Austrian, and Prussian rule. Despite these hardships, Marie's parents, who were educators themselves, instilled a deep love for learning and Polish culture in her.

Marie and her sisters were initially denied higher education opportunities due to societal restrictions and lack of financial resources. In response, Marie and her sister Bronislawa joined a clandestine organization known as the Flying University, aimed at providing Polish education, forbidden under Russian rule.

Marie Curie's path to scientific greatness began when she arrived in Paris in 1891 to pursue higher education. Inspired by the work of French physicist Henri Becquerel, who discovered the emissions of uranium, Marie chose to explore uranium's rays for her Ph.D. thesis. Her research led her to the groundbreaking discovery of radioactivity, revealing that matter could undergo atomic-level transformations.

Marie Curie collaborated with her husband, Pierre Curie, and together they examined uranium-rich minerals, ultimately discovering two new elements, polonium and radium. Their work was published in 1898, and within just five months, they announced the discovery of radium.

In 1903, Marie Curie, Pierre Curie, and Henri Becquerel were jointly awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for their pioneering work in radioactivity. Marie became the first woman to receive a Nobel Prize, marking a historic achievement.

Read More: 5 Things You Didn't Know About Marie Curie

Tragedy struck in 1906 when Pierre Curie died suddenly in a carriage accident. Despite her grief, Marie Curie persevered and continued her research, taking over Pierre's position at the University of Paris. In 1911, she earned her second Nobel Prize, this time in Chemistry, for her remarkable contributions to the fields of polonium and radium.

Marie Curie's legacy extended beyond her Nobel Prizes. She made significant contributions to the fields of radiology and nuclear physics. She founded the Radium Institute in Paris, which produced its own Nobel laureates, and during World War I, she led France's first military radiology center, becoming the first female medical physicist.

Marie Curie died in 1934 from a type of anemia that likely stemmed from her exposure to such extreme radiation during her career. In fact, her original notes and papers are still so radioactive that they’re kept in lead-lined boxes, and you need protective gear to view them

Marie Curie's legacy endures as one of the greatest scientists of all time. She remains the only person to receive Nobel Prizes in two different scientific fields, a testament to her exceptional contributions to science. Her groundbreaking research in radioactivity revolutionized our understanding of matter and energy, leaving her mark on the fields of physics, chemistry, and medicine.

— Lacy Schley

Read More: Marie Curie: Iconic Scientist, Nobel Prize Winner … War Hero?

3. Isaac Newton: The Man Who Defined Science on a Bet

Isaac Newton was an English mathematician, physicist and astronomer who is widely recognized as one of the most influential scientists in history. He made groundbreaking contributions to various fields of science and mathematics and is considered one of the key figures in the scientific revolution of the 17th century.

Isaac Newton was born on Christmas Day in 1642. Despite being a sickly infant, his survival was an achievement in itself. Just 23 years later, with Cambridge University closed due to the plague, Newton embarked on groundbreaking discoveries that would bear his name. He invented calculus, a new form of mathematics, as part of his scientific journey.

Newton's introverted nature led him to withhold his findings for decades. It was only through the persistent efforts of his friend, Edmund Halley, who was famous for discovering comets, that Newton finally agreed to publish. Halley's interest was piqued due to a bet about planetary orbits, and Newton, having already solved the problem, astounded him with his answer.

Read More: 5 Eccentric Facts About Isaac Newton

The culmination of Newton's work was the "Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica," commonly known as the Principia , published in 1687. This monumental work not only described the motion of planets and projectiles but also revealed the unifying force of gravity, demonstrating that it governed both heavenly and earthly bodies. Newton's laws became the key to unlocking the universe's mysteries.

Newton's dedication to academia was unwavering. He rarely left his room except to deliver lectures, even if it meant addressing empty rooms. His contributions extended beyond the laws of motion and gravitation to encompass groundbreaking work in optics, color theory, the development of reflecting telescopes bearing his name, and fundamental advancements in mathematics and heat.

In 1692, Newton faced a rare failure and experienced a prolonged nervous breakdown, possibly exacerbated by mercury poisoning from his alchemical experiments. Although he ceased producing scientific work, his influence in the field persisted.

Achievements

Newton spent his remaining three decades modernizing England's economy and pursuing criminals. In 1696, he received a royal appointment as the Warden of the Mint in London. Despite being viewed as a cushy job with a handsome salary, Newton immersed himself in the role. He oversaw the recoinage of English currency, provided economic advice, established the gold standard, and introduced ridged coins that prevented the tampering of precious metals. His dedication extended to pursuing counterfeiters vigorously, even infiltrating London's criminal networks , and witnessing their executions.

Newton's reputation among his peers was marred by his unpleasant demeanor. He had few close friends, never married, and was described as "insidious, ambitious, and excessively covetous of praise, and impatient of contradiction" by Astronomer Royal John Flamsteed. Newton held grudges for extended periods and engaged in famous feuds, notably with German scientist Gottfried Leibniz over the invention of calculus and English scientist Robert Hooke.

Isaac Newton's legacy endures as one of the world's greatest scientists. His contributions to physics, mathematics, and various scientific disciplines shifted human understanding. Newton's laws of motion and gravitation revolutionized the field of physics and continue to be foundational principles.

His work in optics and mathematics laid the groundwork for future scientific advancements. Despite his complex personality, Newton's legacy as a scientific visionary remains unparalleled.

How fitting that the unit of force is named after stubborn, persistent, amazing Newton, himself a force of nature.

— Bill Andrews

Read More: Isaac Newton, World's Most Famous Alchemist

4. Charles Darwin: Delivering the Evolutionary Gospel

Charles Darwin has become one of the world's most renowned scientists. His inspiration came from a deep curiosity about beetles and geology, setting him on a transformative path. His theory of evolution through natural selection challenged prevailing beliefs and left an enduring legacy that continues to shape the field of biology and our understanding of life on Earth.

Charles Darwin , an unlikely revolutionary scientist, began his journey with interests in collecting beetles and studying geology. As a young man, he occasionally skipped classes at the University of Edinburgh Medical School to explore the countryside. His path to becoming the father of evolutionary biology took an unexpected turn in 1831 when he received an invitation to join a world-spanning journey aboard the HMS Beagle .

During his five-year voyage aboard the HMS Beagle, Darwin observed and documented geological formations, various habitats and the diverse flora and fauna across the Southern Hemisphere. His observations led to a paradigm-shifting realization that challenged the prevailing Victorian-era theories of animal origins rooted in creationism. 

Darwin noticed subtle variations within the same species based on their environments, exemplified by the unique beak shapes of Galapagos finches adapted to their food sources. This observation gave rise to the concept of natural selection, suggesting that species could change over time due to environmental factors, rather than divine intervention.

Read More: 7 Things You May Not Know About Charles Darwin

Upon his return, Darwin was initially hesitant to publish his evolutionary ideas, instead focusing on studying his voyage samples and producing works on geology, coral reefs and barnacles. He married his first cousin, Emma Wedgwood, and they had ten children, with Darwin actively engaging as a loving and attentive father — an uncommon practice among eminent scientists of his era.

Darwin's unique interests in taxidermy , unusual food and his struggle with ill health did not deter him from his evolutionary pursuits. Over two decades, he meticulously gathered overwhelming evidence in support of evolution.

Publication

All of his observations and musings eventually coalesced into the tour de force that was On the Origin of Species , published in 1859 when Darwin was 50 years old. The 500-page book sold out immediately, and Darwin would go on to produce six editions, each time adding to and refining his arguments.

In non-technical language, the book laid out a simple argument for how the wide array of Earth’s species came to be. It was based on two ideas: that species can change gradually over time, and that all species face difficulties brought on by their surroundings. From these basic observations, it stands to reason that those species best adapted to their environments will survive and those that fall short will die out.

Despite facing fierce criticism from proponents of creationism and the religious establishment, Darwin's theory of natural selection and evolution eventually gained acceptance in the 1930s. His work revolutionized scientific thought and remains largely intact to this day.

His theory, meticulously documented and logically sound, has withstood the test of time and scrutiny. Jerry Coyne, a professor emeritus at the University of Chicago, emphasizes the profound impact of Darwin's theory, stating that it "changed people’s views in so short a time" and that "there’s nothing you can really say to go after the important aspects of Darwin’s theory." 

— Nathaniel Scharping

Read More: 8 Inspirational Sayings From Charles Darwin

5. Nikola Tesla: Wizard of the Industrial Revolution

Nikola Tesla grips his hat in his hand. He points his cane toward Niagara Falls and beckons bystanders to turn their gaze to the future. This bronze Tesla — a statue on the Canadian side — stands atop an induction motor, the type of engine that drove the first hydroelectric power plant.

Nikola Tesla exhibited a remarkable aptitude for science and invention from an early age. His work in electricity, magnetism and wireless power transmission concepts, established him as an eccentric but brilliant pioneer in the field of electrical engineering.

Nikola Tesla , a Serbian-American engineer, was born in 1856 in what is now Croatia. His pioneering work in the field of electrical engineering laid the foundation for our modern electrified world. Tesla's groundbreaking designs played a crucial role in advancing alternating current (AC) technology during the early days of the electric age, enabling the transmission of electric power over vast distances, ultimately lighting up American homes.

One of Tesla's most significant contributions was the development of the Tesla coil , a high-voltage transformer that had a profound impact on electrical engineering. His innovative techniques allowed for wireless transmission of power, a concept that is still being explored today, particularly in the field of wireless charging, including applications in cell phones.

Tesla's visionary mind led him to propose audacious ideas, including a grand plan involving a system of towers that could harness energy from the environment and transmit both signals and electricity wirelessly around the world. While these ideas were intriguing, they were ultimately deemed impractical and remained unrealized. Tesla also claimed to have invented a "death ray," adding to his mystique.

Read More: What Did Nikola Tesla Do? The Truth Behind the Legend

Tesla's eccentric genius and prolific inventions earned him widespread recognition during his lifetime. He held numerous patents and made significant contributions to the field of electrical engineering. While he did not invent alternating current (AC), he played a pivotal role in its development and promotion. His ceaseless work and inventions made him a household name, a rare feat for scientists in his era.

In recent years, Tesla's legacy has taken on a life of its own, often overshadowing his actual inventions. He has become a symbol of innovation and eccentricity, inspiring events like San Diego Comic-Con, where attendees dress as Tesla. Perhaps most notably, the world's most famous electric car company bears his name, reflecting his ongoing influence on the electrification of transportation.

While Tesla's mystique sometimes veered into the realm of self-promotion and fantastical claims, his genuine contributions to electrical engineering cannot be denied. He may not have caused earthquakes with his inventions or single handedly discovered AC, but his visionary work and impact on the electrification of the world continue to illuminate our lives.

— Eric Betz

Read More: These 7 Famous Physicists Are Still Alive Today

6. Galileo Galilei: Discoverer of the Cosmos

Galileo Galilei , an Italian mathematician, made a pivotal contribution to modern astronomy around December 1609. At the age of 45, he turned a telescope towards the moon and ushered in a new era in the field.

His observations unveiled remarkable discoveries, such as the presence of four large moons orbiting Jupiter and the realization that the Milky Way's faint glow emanated from countless distant stars. Additionally, he identified sunspots on the surface of the sun and observed the phases of Venus, providing conclusive evidence that Venus orbited the sun within Earth's own orbit.

While Galileo didn't invent the telescope and wasn't the first to use one for celestial observations, his work undeniably marked a turning point in the history of science. His groundbreaking findings supported the heliocentric model proposed by Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus, who had revolutionized astronomy with his sun-centered solar system model . 

Beyond his astronomical observations, Galileo made significant contributions to the understanding of motion. He demonstrated that objects dropped simultaneously would hit the ground at the same time, irrespective of their size, illustrating that gravity isn't dependent on an object's mass. His law of inertia also played a critical role in explaining the Earth's rotation.

Read More: 12 Fascinating Facts About Galileo Galilei You May Not Know

Galileo's discoveries, particularly his support for the Copernican model of the solar system, brought him into conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. In 1616, an inquisition ordered him to cease promoting heliocentrism, as it contradicted the church's geocentric doctrine based on Aristotle's outdated views of the cosmos.

The situation worsened in 1633 when Galileo published a work comparing the Copernican and Ptolemaic systems, further discrediting the latter. Consequently, the church placed him under house arrest, where he remained until his death in 1642.

Galileo's legacy endured despite the challenges he faced from religious authorities. His observations and pioneering work on celestial bodies and motion laid the foundation for modern astronomy and physics.

His law of inertia, in particular, would influence future scientists, including Sir Isaac Newton, who built upon Galileo's work to formulate a comprehensive set of laws of motion that continue to guide spacecraft navigation across the solar system today. Notably, NASA's Galileo mission to Jupiter, launched centuries later, demonstrated the enduring relevance of Galileo's contributions to the field of space exploration. 

Read More: Galileo Galilei's Legacy Went Beyond Science

7. Ada Lovelace: The Enchantress of Numbers

Ada Lovelace defied the conventions of her era and transformed the world of computer science. She is known as the world's first computer programmer. Her legacy endures, inspiring generations of computer scientists and earning her the title of the "Enchantress of Numbers.”

Ada Lovelace, born Ada Byron, made history as the world's first computer programmer, a remarkable achievement considering she lived a century before the advent of modern computers. Her journey into the world of mathematics and computing began in the early 1830s when she was just 17 years old. 

Ada, the only legitimate child of the poet Lord Byron, entered into a pivotal collaboration with British mathematician, inventor, and engineer Charles Babbage. Babbage had conceived plans for an intricate machine called the Difference Engine — essentially a massive mechanical calculator.

Read More: Meet Ada Lovelace, The First Computer Programmer

At a gathering in the 1830s, Babbage exhibited an incomplete prototype of his Difference Engine. Among the attendees was the young Ada Lovelace, who, despite her age, grasped the workings of the machine. This encounter marked the beginning of a profound working relationship and close friendship between Lovelace and Babbage that endured until her untimely death in 1852 at the age of 36. Inspired by Babbage's innovations, Lovelace recognized the immense potential of his latest concept, the Analytical Engine.

The Analytical Engine was more than a mere calculator. Its intricate mechanisms, coupled with the ability for users to input commands through punch cards, endowed it with the capacity to perform a wide range of mathematical tasks. Lovelace, in fact, went a step further by crafting instructions for solving a complex mathematical problem, effectively creating what many historians later deemed the world's first computer program. In her groundbreaking work, Lovelace laid the foundation for computer programming, defining her legacy as one of the greatest scientists.

Ada Lovelace's contributions to the realm of "poetical science," as she termed it, are celebrated as pioneering achievements in computer programming and mathematics. Despite her tumultuous personal life marked by gambling and scandal, her intellectual brilliance and foresight into the potential of computing machines set her apart. Charles Babbage himself described Lovelace as an "enchantress" who wielded a remarkable influence over the abstract realm of science, a force equivalent to the most brilliant male intellects of her time. 

Read More: Meet 10 Women in Science Who Changed the World

8. Pythagoras: Math's Mystery Man

Pythagoras left an enduring legacy in the world of mathematics that continues to influence the field to this day. While his famous Pythagorean theorem , which relates the sides of a right triangle, is well-known, his broader contributions to mathematics and his belief in the fundamental role of numbers in the universe shaped the foundations of geometry and mathematical thought for centuries to come.

Pythagoras , a Greek philosopher and mathematician, lived in the sixth century B.C. He is credited with the Pythagorean theorem, although the origins of this mathematical concept are debated.

Pythagoras is most famous for the Pythagorean theorem, which relates the lengths of the sides of a right triangle. While he may not have been the first to discover it, he played a significant role in its development. His emphasis on the importance of mathematical concepts laid the foundation for modern geometry.

Pythagoras did not receive formal awards, but his legacy in mathematics and geometry is considered one of the cornerstones of scientific knowledge.

Pythagoras' contributions to mathematics, particularly the Pythagorean theorem, have had a lasting impact on science and education. His emphasis on the importance of mathematical relationships and the certainty of mathematical proofs continues to influence the way we understand the world.

Read More: The Origin Story of Pythagoras and His Cult Followers

9. Carl Linnaeus: Say His Name(s)

Carl Linnaeus embarked on a mission to improve the chaos of naming living organisms. His innovative system of binomial nomenclature not only simplified the process of scientific communication but also laid the foundation for modern taxonomy, leaving an enduring legacy in the field of biology.

It started in Sweden: a functional, user-friendly innovation that took over the world, bringing order to chaos. No, not an Ikea closet organizer. We’re talking about the binomial nomenclature system , which has given us clarity and a common language, devised by Carl Linnaeus.

Linnaeus, born in southern Sweden in 1707, was an “intensely practical” man, according to Sandra Knapp, a botanist and taxonomist at the Natural History Museum in London. He lived at a time when formal scientific training was scant and there was no system for referring to living things. Plants and animals had common names, which varied from one location and language to the next, and scientific “phrase names,” cumbersome Latin descriptions that could run several paragraphs.ccjhhg

While Linnaeus is often hailed as the father of taxonomy, his primary focus was on naming rather than organizing living organisms into evolutionary hierarchies. The task of ordering species would come later, notably with the work of Charles Darwin in the following century. Despite advancements in our understanding of evolution and the impact of genetic analysis on biological classification, Linnaeus' naming system endures as a simple and adaptable means of identification.

The 18th century was also a time when European explorers were fanning out across the globe, finding ever more plants and animals new to science.

“There got to be more and more things that needed to be described, and the names were becoming more and more complex,” says Knapp.

Linnaeus, a botanist with a talent for noticing details, first used what he called “trivial names” in the margins of his 1753 book Species Plantarum . He intended the simple Latin two-word construction for each plant as a kind of shorthand, an easy way to remember what it was.

“It reflected the adjective-noun structure in languages all over the world,” Knapp says of the trivial names, which today we know as genus and species. The names moved quickly from the margins of a single book to the center of botany, and then all of biology. Linnaeus started a revolution — positioning him as one of the greatest scientists — but it was an unintentional one.

Today we regard Linnaeus as the father of taxonomy, which is used to sort the entire living world into evolutionary hierarchies, or family trees. But the systematic Swede was mostly interested in naming things rather than ordering them, an emphasis that arrived the next century with Charles Darwin.

As evolution became better understood and, more recently, genetic analysis changed how we classify and organize living things, many of Linnaeus’ other ideas have been supplanted. But his naming system, so simple and adaptable, remains.

“It doesn’t matter to the tree in the forest if it has a name,” Knapp says. “But by giving it a name, we can discuss it. Linnaeus gave us a system so we could talk about the natural world.”

— Gemma Tarlach

Read More: Is Plant Communication a Real Thing?

10. Rosalind Franklin: The Hero Denied Her Due

Rosalind Franklin, a brilliant and tenacious scientist, transformed the world of molecular biology. Her pioneering work in X-ray crystallography and groundbreaking research on the structure of DNA propelled her to the forefront of scientific discovery. Yet, her remarkable contributions were often overshadowed, and her legacy is not only one of scientific excellence but also a testament to the persistence and resilience of a scientist who deserved greater recognition in her time.

Rosalind Franklin , one of the greatest scientists of her time, was a British-born firebrand and perfectionist. While she had a reputation for being somewhat reserved and difficult to connect with, those who knew her well found her to be outgoing and loyal. Franklin's brilliance shone through in her work, particularly in the field of X-ray crystallography , an imaging technique that revealed molecular structures based on scattered X-ray beams. Her early research on the microstructures of carbon and graphite remains influential in the scientific community.

However, it was Rosalind Franklin's groundbreaking work with DNA that would become her most significant contribution. During her time at King's College London in the early 1950s, she came close to proving the double-helix theory of DNA. Her achievement was epitomized in "photograph #51," which was considered the finest image of a DNA molecule at that time. Unfortunately, her work was viewed by others, notably James Watson and Francis Crick.

Watson saw photograph #51 through her colleague Maurice Wilkins, and Crick received unpublished data from a report Franklin had submitted to the council. In 1953, Watson and Crick published their iconic paper in "Nature," loosely citing Franklin's work, which also appeared in the same issue.

Rosalind Franklin's pivotal role in elucidating the structure of DNA was overlooked when the Nobel Prize was awarded in 1962 to James Watson, Francis Crick, and Maurice Wilkins. This omission is widely regarded as one of the major snubs of the 20th century in the field of science.

Despite her groundbreaking work and significant contributions to science, Franklin's life was tragically cut short. In 1956, at the height of her career, she was diagnosed with ovarian cancer, possibly linked to her extensive X-ray work. Remarkably, she continued to work in the lab until her passing in 1958 at the young age of 37.

Rosalind Franklin's legacy endures not only for her achievements but also for the recognition she deserved but did not receive during her lifetime. She was known for her extreme clarity and perfectionism in all her scientific endeavors, changing the field of molecular biology. While many remember her for her contributions, she is also remembered for how her work was overshadowed and underappreciated, a testament to her enduring influence on the world of science.

“As a scientist, Miss Franklin was distinguished by extreme clarity and perfection in everything she undertook,” Bernal wrote in her obituary, published in Nature . Though it’s her achievements that close colleagues admired, most remember Franklin for how she was forgotten. 

— Carl Engelking

Read More: The Unsung Heroes of Science

More Greatest Scientists: Our Personal Favorites

Isaac Asimov   (1920–1992) Asimov was my gateway into science fiction, then science, then everything else. He penned some of the genre’s most iconic works — fleshing out the laws of robotics, the messiness of a galactic empire, the pitfalls of predicting the future — in simple, effortless prose. A trained biochemist, the Russian-born New Yorker wrote prolifically, producing over 400 books, not all science-related: Of the 10 Dewey Decimal categories, he has books in nine. — B.A.

Richard Feynman   (1918–1988) Feynman played a part in most of the highlights of 20th-century physics. In 1941, he joined the Manhattan Project. After the war, his Feynman diagrams — for which he shared the ’65 Nobel Prize in Physics — became the standard way to show how subatomic particles interact. As part of the 1986 space shuttle Challenger disaster investigation, he explained the problems to the public in easily understandable terms, his trademark. Feynman was also famously irreverent, and his books pack lessons I live by. — E.B.

Robert FitzRoy   (1805–1865) FitzRoy suffered for science, and for that I respect him. As captain of the HMS Beagle , he sailed Charles Darwin around the world, only to later oppose his shipmate’s theory of evolution while waving a Bible overhead. FitzRoy founded the U.K.’s Met Office in 1854, and he was a pioneer of prediction; he coined the term weather forecast. But after losing his fortunes, suffering from depression and poor health, and facing fierce criticism of his forecasting system, he slit his throat in 1865. — C.E.

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck   (1744–1829) Lamarck may be remembered as a failure today, but to me, he represents an important step forward for evolutionary thinking . Before he suggested that species could change over time in the early 19th century, no one took the concept of evolution seriously. Though eventually proven wrong, Lamarck’s work brought the concept of evolution into the light and would help shape the theories of a young Charles Darwin. Science isn’t all about dazzling successes; it’s also a story of failures surmounted and incremental advances. — N.S.

Lucretius   (99 B.C.–55 B.C.) My path to the first-century B.C. Roman thinker Titus Lucretius Carus started with Ralph Waldo Emerson and Michele de Montaigne, who cited him in their essays. Lucretius’ only known work, On the Nature of Things, is remarkable for its foreshadowing of Darwinism, humans as higher primates, the study of atoms and the scientific method — all contemplated in a geocentric world ruled by eccentric gods. — M.B.

Katharine McCormick   (1875–1967) McCormick planned to attend medical school after earning her biology degree from MIT in 1904. Instead, she married rich. After her husband’s death in 1947, she used her inheritance to provide crucial funding for research on the hormonal birth control pill . She also fought to make her alma mater more accessible to women, leading to an all-female dormitory, allowing more women to enroll. As a feminist interested in science, I’d love to be friends with this badass advocate for women’s rights. — L.S.

John Muir   (1838–1914) In 1863, Muir abandoned his eclectic combination of courses at the University of Wisconsin to wander instead the “University of the Wilderness” — a school he never stopped attending. A champion of the national parks (enough right there to make him a hero to me!), Muir fought vigorously for conservation and warned, “When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.” It’s a reminder we need today, more than ever. — Elisa Neckar

Rolf O. Peterson   (1944–) Peterson helms the world’s longest-running study of the predator-prey relationship in the wild, between wolves and moose on Isle Royale in the middle of Lake Superior. He’s devoted more than four decades to the 58-year wildlife ecology project, a dedication and passion indicative, to me, of what science is all about. As the wolf population has nearly disappeared and moose numbers have climbed, patience and emotional investment like his are crucial in the quest to learn how nature works. — Becky Lang

Marie Tharp   (1920–2006) I love maps. So did geologist and cartographer Tharp . In the mid-20th century, before women were permitted aboard research vessels, Tharp explored the oceans from her desk at Columbia University. With the seafloor — then thought to be nearly flat — her canvas, and raw data her inks, she revealed a landscape of mountain ranges and deep trenches. Her keen eye also spotted the first hints of plate tectonics at work beneath the waves. Initially dismissed, Tharp’s observations would become crucial to proving continental drift. — G.T.

Read more: The Dynasties That Changed Science

Making Science Popular With Other Greatest Scientists

Science needs to get out of the lab and into the public eye. Over the past hundred years or so, these other greatest scientists have made it their mission. They left their contributions in multiple sciences while making them broadly available to the general public.

Sean M. Carroll  (1966– ) : The physicist (and one-time  Discover  blogger) has developed a following among space enthusiasts through his lectures, television appearances and books, including   The Particle at the End of the Universe, on the Higgs boson .

Rachel Carson   (1907–1964) : With her 1962 book  Silent Spring , the biologist energized a nascent environmental movement. In 2006,  Discover  named  Silent Spring  among the top 25 science books of all time.

Richard Dawkins   (1941– ) : The biologist, a charismatic speaker, first gained public notoriety in 1976 with his book  The Selfish Gene , one of his many works on evolution .

Jane Goodall   (1934– ) : Studying chimpanzees in Tanzania, Goodall’s patience and observational skills led to fresh insights into their behavior — and led her to star in a number of television documentaries.

Stephen Jay Gould   (1941–2002) : In 1997, the paleontologist Gould was a guest on  The Simpson s, a testament to his broad appeal. Among scientists, Gould was controversial for his idea of evolution unfolding in fits and starts rather than in a continuum.

Stephen Hawking   (1942–2018) : His books’ titles suggest the breadth and boldness of his ideas:  The Universe in a Nutshell, The Theory of Everything . “My goal is simple,” he has said. “It is a complete understanding of the universe, why it is as it is and why it exists at all.”

Aldo Leopold   (1887–1948) : If Henry Thoreau and John Muir primed the pump for American environmentalism, Leopold filled the first buckets . His posthumously published  A Sand County Almanac  is a cornerstone of modern environmentalism.

Bill Nye   (1955– ) : What should an engineer and part-time stand-up comedian do with his life? For Nye, the answer was to become a science communicator . In the ’90s, he hosted a popular children’s science show and more recently has been an eloquent defender of evolution in public debates with creationists.

Oliver Sacks   (1933–2015) : The neurologist began as a medical researcher , but found his calling in clinical practice and as a chronicler of strange medical maladies, most famously in his book  The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat.

Carl Sagan   (1934–1996) : It’s hard to hear someone say “billions and billions” and not hear Sagan’s distinctive voice , and remember his 1980  Cosmos: A Personal Voyage  miniseries. Sagan brought the wonder of the universe to the public in a way that had never happened before.

Neil deGrasse Tyson   (1958– ) : The astrophysicist and gifted communicator is Carl Sagan’s successor as champion of the universe . In a nod to Sagan’s  Cosmos , Tyson hosted the miniseries  Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey  in 2014.

E.O. Wilson   (1929–2021) : The prolific, Pulitzer Prize-winning biologist first attracted broad public attention with 1975’s  Sociobiology: The New Synthesis . His subsequent works have filled many a bookshelf with provocative discussions of biodiversity, philosophy and the animals he has studied most closely: ants. — M.B.

Read More: Who Was Anna Mani, and How Was She a Pioneer for Women in STEM?

Science Stars: The Next Generation

As science progresses, so does the roll call of new voices and greatest scientists serving as bridges between lab and layman. Here are some of our favorite emerging science stars:

British physicist Brian Cox became a household name in the U.K. in less than a decade, thanks to his accessible explanations of the universe in TV and radio shows, books and public appearances.

Neuroscientist Carl Hart debunks anti-science myths supporting misguided drug policies via various media, including his memoir High Price .

From the Amazon forest to the dissecting table, YouTube star and naturalist Emily Graslie brings viewers into the guts of the natural world, often literally.

When not talking dinosaurs or head transplants on Australian radio, molecular biologist Upulie Divisekera coordinates @RealScientists , a rotating Twitter account for science outreach.

Mixing pop culture and chemistry, analytical chemist Raychelle Burks demystifies the molecules behind poisons, dyes and even Game of Thrones via video, podcast and blog.

Climate scientist and evangelical Christian Katharine Hayhoe preaches beyond the choir about the planetary changes humans are causing in PBS’ Global Weirding video series. — Ashley Braun

Read More: 6 Famous Archaeologists You Need to Know About

This article was originally published on April 11, 2017 and has since been updated with new information by the Discover staff.

• solar system

Sign up for our weekly science updates.

Save up to 40% off the cover price when you subscribe to Discover magazine.

22 Famous Scientists Who Changed How We View the World (and the Universe)

From medicine to physics and astronomy, these scholars have saved lives and improved our understanding across all aspects of the natural world.

Whether it’s a medicine that has saved countless lives or an equation that helped propel the evolution of energy and technology, these breakthroughs arose from the scientific method of observation and experimentation.

Here are 22 of the most famous scientists from the 15 th century to today and how their crucial contributions in many fields of study still impact us.

Nicolaus Copernicus

Astronomer and mathematician 1473-1543

For centuries, people incorrectly believed the Earth was the center of the universe. Copernicus theorized otherwise, with the belief that the size and speed of a planet’s orbit depended on its distance from the centralized sun.

Rather than a breakthrough, however, Copernicus’ hypotheses were met with controversy as they deviated from the beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church. The church even outright banned his research collection, On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres , in 1616 long after the German scientist’s death.

Galileo Galilei

Physicist and astronomer 1564-1642

Galileo changed how we literally see the world by taking early telescopes and improving their design. The Italian scientist made lenses capable of magnifying objects twenty-fold .

When Galileo used his tools to look toward the heavens, he discovered Jupiter’s four largest moons, now named in his honor , and stars far off in the Milky Way not visible to the human eye. His findings built the foundation for modern astronomy.

Learn More About Galileo Galilei

Robert Hooke

Astronomer, physicist, and biologist 1635-1703

Englishman Hooke coined the term “cell,” now known as the basic structural unit of all organisms, in his 1665 book Micrographia after observing the cell walls in slices of cork tissue. But his studies weren’t limited to biology. He is famous for Hooke’s Law, which states that the force required to compress or extend a spring is proportional to the distance of compression or extension. He also helped redesign London buildings destroyed by the city’s “Great Fire” in 1666.

Learn More About Robert Hooke

Sir Isaac Newton

Physicist and mathematician 1643-1727

You probably know about Newton’s three laws of motion, including that objects will remain at rest or in uniform motion unless acted upon. But did you also know his theory of gravity allowed the Englishman to calculate the mass of each planet and Earth’s ocean tides? Although Albert Einstein would later improve on some of his theories, Newton remains one of the most important minds in history.

Fun fact: Newton’s mother tried to pull him out of school at age 12 to become a farmer. Seems like a good thing that plan fell through.

Learn More About Isaac Newton

Charles Darwin

Biologist 1809-1882

Growing up in Great Britain, Darwin was raised in a Christian family and held creationist beliefs. That’s not what you’d expect from the man whose landmark 1859 book On the Origins of Species by Means of Natural Selection provided a detailed description of the theory of evolution. In his writings, he outlined his natural selection concept, in which species that evolve and adapt to their environment thrive while the others perish.

Learn More About Charles Darwin

Ada Lovelace

Mathematician and computer scientist 1815-1852

A computer scientist in the 1800s? Yes—Lovelace’s notes and instructions on mentor Charles Babbage ’s “analytical engine” are considered a breakthrough on the path to modern computers. For example, the London-born Lovelace first theorized a process now called looping, in which computer programs repeat a series of instructions until a desired outcome is reached.

Although her contributions weren’t recognized until the 20 th century, her legacy was forever cemented in 1980 when the U.S. Department of Defense named the new computer language Ada in her honor.

Learn More About Ada Lovelace

Gregor Mendel

Geneticist 1822-1884

Mendel, from Austria, became an Augustinian monk and an educator, instead of taking over his family’s farm as his father wished. His growing skills did pay off, as Mendel used pea plants to study the transmission of hereditary traits. His findings that traits were either dominant or recessive and passed on independently of one another became the foundation for modern genetic studies.

Learn More About Gregor Mendel

Louis Pasteur

Chemist and microbiologist 1822-1895

Pasteur used his observations of microorganisms to suggest hygienic methods we take for granted today, like sterilizing linens, dressings, and surgical instruments. The process of treating food items with heat to kill pathogens—known as pasteurization—also bears his name.

However, the French scientist is arguably most renowned for his efforts in creating vaccines for diseases such as cholera, smallpox, anthrax, and rabies. He worked on the rabies vaccine despite suffering from a severe brain stroke in 1868.

Learn More About Louis Pasteur

Sigmund Freud

Psychologist 1856-1939

Although his research initially focused on neurobiology, Freud—who was born in what is now the Czech Republic but grew up in Austria—became known for his psychoanalytic theory that past traumatic experiences caused neuroses in patients. He also proposed the ideas of the id, ego, and superego as the three foundations of human personality and that dreams were a method of coping with conflicts rooted in the subconscious.

Learn More About Sigmund Freud

Nikola Tesla

Physicist and mathematician 1856-1943

Chances are you’re reading this in a lit room. If so, you have the Croatia-born Tesla to thank. He designed the alternative current, or AC, electric system, which remains the primary method of electricity used throughout the world (rival Thomas Edison created a direct current system).

Additionally, his patented Tesla coil used in radio transmission antennas helped build the foundation for wireless technology. The scientist also helped pioneer remote and radar technology.

Learn More About Nikola Tesla

George Washington Carver

Botanist and agricultural scientist Circa 1864-1943

Washington Carver is best known for his work with the peanut plant. Born into slavery , the Missouri native developed more than 300 uses for it —including shaving cream, shampoo, plastics, and of course, recipes for foods like bread and candies. But he also looked out for farmers by teaching them livestock care and cultivation techniques. Washington Carver built fruitful friendships with major figures like automaker Henry Ford , whom he worked with to create a soybean-based alternative to rubber and an experimental lightweight car body.

Learn More About George Washington Carver

Marie Curie

Physicist and chemist 1867-1934

Curie, originally from modern-day Poland, was the first woman to win a Nobel Prize —in physics—and also became the first person to win two Nobel prizes .

The scientist, with the help of husband Pierre Curie , discovered radioactivity and the elements polonium and radium. She also championed the use of portable X-ray machines on the battlefields of World War I. Curie died from aplastic anemia, likely caused by her exposure to radiation.

Learn More About Marie Curie

Albert Einstein

Physicist 1879-1955

In addition to his frizzy hair and reported distaste for wearing socks, Einstein became famous for his theory of relativity , suggesting that space and time are intertwined . And, of course, the famous equation E=MC², which showed that even the tiniest particles can produce large amounts of energy.

The German scientist was also a champion for civil rights , once calling racism a “disease.” He joined the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in the 1940s.

Learn More About Albert Einstein

Physicist 1885-1962

Bohr studied and played soccer at Denmark’s University of Copenhagen before embarking to England to work with J.J. Thomson , who discovered the electron. Bohr proposed an entirely different model of the atom, in which electrons can jump between energy levels. This helped pave the way for quantum mechanics.

Bohr was also a key contributor to the Manhattan Project, in which the United States developed an atomic bomb during World War II. Bohr worked with project director J. Robert Oppenheimer , the subject of the 2023 biopic Oppenheimer .

Learn More About Niels Bohr

Rachel Carson

Biologist 1907-1964

Carson penned the famous book Silent Spring in 1962. The American scientist’s research on the adverse effects of DDT and other pesticides in nature is credited with beginning the modern environmental movement . Soon after the book’s release, the Environmental Protection Agency was established in 1970, and the use of DDT was banned by 1972. Carson, who died of breast cancer, posthumously received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1980.

Learn More About Rachel Carson

Alan Turing

Computer scientist and mathematician 1912-1954

A skilled cryptanalyst, Turing helped decipher coded messages from the German military during World War II. The British mathematician is also considered the father of computer science and artificial intelligence, with his Turing Test purported to measure a machine’s ability to exhibit behaviors comparable to human beings.

Turing’s life and efforts during the war were the basis for the 2014 movie The Imitation Game , starring Benedict Cumberbatch .

Learn More About Alan Turing

Gertrude B. Elion

Biochemist and pharmacologist 1918-1999

Elion, who won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1988, developed 45 patents in medicine throughout her remarkable career. Hired by Burroughs-Wellcome (now GlaxoSmithKline) in 1944, the American soon went on to develop a drug, 6-MP, to combat leukemia. In 1977, she and her team created the antiviral drug acyclovir that debunked the idea that any drug capable of killing a virus would be too toxic for humans. It’s used to treat herpes, chickenpox, and shingles.

Learn More About Gertrude B. Elion

Katherine Johnson

Mathematician 1918-2020

Each of NASA’s early milestones—from sending an astronaut, Alan Shepard , to space for the first time in 1961, to Neil Armstrong and the Apollo 11 crew landing on the moon eight years later—were all possible because of Johnson. The West Virginia native helped perform the mathematical calculations necessary to determine their correct flight paths .

In a show of gratitude, NASA named a building at its Langley Research Center in Virginia after Johnson in 2017. Her inspiring true story was told in the 2016 movie Hidden Figures , with Taraji P. Henson playing her on the big screen.

Learn More About Katherine Johnson

Rosalind Franklin

Chemist and biophysicist 1920-1958

Franklin began working at King’s College London in 1951 and used X-ray diffraction techniques to find that human DNA had two forms: a dry “A” form and wet “B” form. However, Franklin’s discovery was overlooked after a colleague leaked her findings to scientists Francis Crick and James Watson . That pair went on to create the double helix model for DNA structure. Franklin died from ovarian cancer at age 37.

Learn More About Rosalind Franklin

Jane Goodall

Primatologist 1934-present

Goodall’s extensive study of chimpanzees has helped us understand how similar humans are to our evolutionary relatives. After arriving in Tanzania in 1960, the British scientist discovered chimps create and use tools, develop complex language and social systems, and aren’t exclusively vegetarian as once believed.

Once she understood chimpanzees, Goodall turned her efforts to preserving their habitats and preventing unethical treatment of the animals in scientific experiments.

Learn More About Jane Goodall

Tyler Piccotti first joined the Biography.com staff as an Associate News Editor in February 2023, and before that worked almost eight years as a newspaper reporter and copy editor. He is a graduate of Syracuse University. When he's not writing and researching his next story, you can find him at the nearest amusement park, catching the latest movie, or cheering on his favorite sports teams.

Nobel Prize Winners

Martin Luther King Jr.

Henry Kissinger

Malala Yousafzai

Jimmy Carter

10 Famous Poets Whose Enduring Works We Still Read

Wole Soyinka

Jean-Paul Sartre

Albert Camus

Barack Obama

Browse Course Material

Course info.

• Karen Boiko

Departments

• Comparative Media Studies/Writing

As Taught In

• Academic Writing
• Creative Writing
• Nonfiction Prose

Learning Resource Types

The science essay, course description.

You are leaving MIT OpenCourseWare

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Scientific Discovery

Scientific discovery is the process or product of successful scientific inquiry. Objects of discovery can be things, events, processes, causes, and properties as well as theories and hypotheses and their features (their explanatory power, for example). Most philosophical discussions of scientific discoveries focus on the generation of new hypotheses that fit or explain given data sets or allow for the derivation of testable consequences. Philosophical discussions of scientific discovery have been intricate and complex because the term “discovery” has been used in many different ways, both to refer to the outcome and to the procedure of inquiry. In the narrowest sense, the term “discovery” refers to the purported “eureka moment” of having a new insight. In the broadest sense, “discovery” is a synonym for “successful scientific endeavor” tout court. Some philosophical disputes about the nature of scientific discovery reflect these terminological variations.

Philosophical issues related to scientific discovery arise about the nature of human creativity, specifically about whether the “eureka moment” can be analyzed and about whether there are rules (algorithms, guidelines, or heuristics) according to which such a novel insight can be brought about. Philosophical issues also arise about the analysis and evaluation of heuristics, about the characteristics of hypotheses worthy of articulation and testing, and, on the meta-level, about the nature and scope of philosophical analysis itself. This essay describes the emergence and development of the philosophical problem of scientific discovery and surveys different philosophical approaches to understanding scientific discovery. In doing so, it also illuminates the meta-philosophical problems surrounding the debates, and, incidentally, the changing nature of philosophy of science.

1. Introduction

2. scientific inquiry as discovery, 3. elements of discovery, 4. pragmatic logics of discovery, 5. the distinction between the context of discovery and the context of justification, 6.1 discovery as abduction, 6.2 heuristic programming, 7. anomalies and the structure of discovery, 8.1 discoverability, 8.2 preliminary appraisal, 8.3 heuristic strategies, 9.1 kinds and features of creativity, 9.2 analogy, 9.3 mental models, 10. machine discovery, 11. social epistemology and discovery, 12. integrated approaches to knowledge generation, other internet resources, related entries.

Philosophical reflection on scientific discovery occurred in different phases. Prior to the 1930s, philosophers were mostly concerned with discoveries in the broad sense of the term, that is, with the analysis of successful scientific inquiry as a whole. Philosophical discussions focused on the question of whether there were any discernible patterns in the production of new knowledge. Because the concept of discovery did not have a specified meaning and was used in a very wide sense, almost all discussions of scientific method and practice could potentially be considered as early contributions to reflections on scientific discovery. In the course of the 18 th century, as philosophy of science and science gradually became two distinct endeavors with different audiences, the term “discovery” became a technical term in philosophical discussions. Different elements of scientific inquiry were specified. Most importantly, during the 19 th century, the generation of new knowledge came to be clearly and explicitly distinguished from its assessment, and thus the conditions for the narrower notion of discovery as the act or process of conceiving new ideas emerged. This distinction was encapsulated in the so-called “context distinction,” between the “context of discovery” and the “context of justification”.

Much of the discussion about scientific discovery in the 20 th century revolved around this distinction It was argued that conceiving a new idea is a non-rational process, a leap of insight that cannot be captured in specific instructions. Justification, by contrast, is a systematic process of applying evaluative criteria to knowledge claims. Advocates of the context distinction argued that philosophy of science is exclusively concerned with the context of justification. The assumption underlying this argument is that philosophy is a normative project; it determines norms for scientific practice. Given this assumption, only the justification of ideas, not their generation, can be the subject of philosophical (normative) analysis. Discovery, by contrast, can only be a topic for empirical study. By definition, the study of discovery is outside the scope of philosophy of science proper.

The introduction of the context distinction and the disciplinary distinction between empirical science studies and normative philosophy of science that was tied to it spawned meta-philosophical disputes. For a long time, philosophical debates about discovery were shaped by the notion that philosophical and empirical analyses are mutually exclusive. Some philosophers insisted, like their predecessors prior to the 1930s, that the philosopher’s tasks include the analysis of actual scientific practices and that scientific resources be used to address philosophical problems. They maintained that it is a legitimate task for philosophy of science to develop a theory of heuristics or problem solving. But this position was the minority view in philosophy of science until the last decades of the 20 th century. Philosophers of discovery were thus compelled to demonstrate that scientific discovery was in fact a legitimate part of philosophy of science. Philosophical reflections about the nature of scientific discovery had to be bolstered by meta-philosophical arguments about the nature and scope of philosophy of science.

Today, however, there is wide agreement that philosophy and empirical research are not mutually exclusive. Not only do empirical studies of actual scientific discoveries in past and present inform philosophical thought about the structure and cognitive mechanisms of discovery, but works in psychology, cognitive science, artificial intelligence and related fields have become integral parts of philosophical analyses of the processes and conditions of the generation of new knowledge. Social epistemology has opened up another perspective on scientific discovery, reconceptualizing knowledge generation as group process.

Prior to the 19 th century, the term “discovery” was used broadly to refer to a new finding, such as a new cure, an unknown territory, an improvement of an instrument, or a new method of measuring longitude. One strand of the discussion about discovery dating back to ancient times concerns the method of analysis as the method of discovery in mathematics and geometry, and, by extension, in philosophy and scientific inquiry. Following the analytic method, we seek to find or discover something – the “thing sought,” which could be a theorem, a solution to a geometrical problem, or a cause – by analyzing it. In the ancient Greek context, analytic methods in mathematics, geometry, and philosophy were not clearly separated; the notion of finding or discovering things by analysis was relevant in all these fields.

In the ensuing centuries, several natural and experimental philosophers, including Avicenna and Zabarella, Bacon and Boyle, the authors of the Port-Royal Logic and Newton, and many others, expounded rules of reasoning and methods for arriving at new knowledge. The ancient notion of analysis still informed these rules and methods. Newton’s famous thirty-first query in the second edition of the Opticks outlines the role of analysis in discovery as follows: “As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths … By this way of Analysis we may proceed from Compounds to Ingredients, and from Motions to the Forces producing them; and in general, from Effects to their Causes, and from particular Causes to more general ones, till the Argument end in the most general. This is the Method of Analysis” (Newton 1718, 380, see Koertge 1980, section VI). Early modern accounts of discovery captured knowledge-seeking practices in the study of living and non-living nature, ranging from astronomy and physics to medicine, chemistry, and agriculture. These rich accounts of scientific inquiry were often expounded to bolster particular theories about the nature of matter and natural forces and were not explicitly labeled “methods of discovery ”, yet they are, in fact, accounts of knowledge generation and proper scientific reasoning, covering topics such as the role of the senses in knowledge generation, observation and experimentation, analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, hypotheses, probability, and certainty.

Bacon’s work is a prominent example. His view of the method of science as it is presented in the Novum Organum showed how best to arrive at knowledge about “form natures” (the most general properties of matter) via a systematic investigation of phenomenal natures. Bacon described how first to collect and organize natural phenomena and experimentally produced facts in tables, how to evaluate these lists, and how to refine the initial results with the help of further trials. Through these steps, the investigator would arrive at conclusions about the “form nature” that produces particular phenomenal natures. Bacon expounded the procedures of constructing and evaluating tables of presences and absences to underpin his matter theory. In addition, in his other writings, such as his natural history Sylva Sylvarum or his comprehensive work on human learning De Augmentis Scientiarium , Bacon exemplified the “art of discovery” with practical examples and discussions of strategies of inquiry.

Like Bacon and Newton, several other early modern authors advanced ideas about how to generate and secure empirical knowledge, what difficulties may arise in scientific inquiry, and how they could be overcome. The close connection between theories about matter and force and scientific methodologies that we find in early modern works was gradually severed. 18 th - and early 19 th -century authors on scientific method and logic cited early modern approaches mostly to model proper scientific practice and reasoning, often creatively modifying them ( section 3 ). Moreover, they developed the earlier methodologies of experimentation, observation, and reasoning into practical guidelines for discovering new phenomena and devising probable hypotheses about cause-effect relations.

It was common in 20 th -century philosophy of science to draw a sharp contrast between those early theories of scientific method and modern approaches. 20 th -century philosophers of science interpreted 17 th - and 18 th -century approaches as generative theories of scientific method. They function simultaneously as guides for acquiring new knowledge and as assessments of the knowledge thus obtained, whereby knowledge that is obtained “in the right way” is considered secure (Laudan 1980; Schaffner 1993: chapter 2). On this view, scientific methods are taken to have probative force (Nickles 1985). According to modern, “consequentialist” theories, propositions must be established by comparing their consequences with observed and experimentally produced phenomena (Laudan 1980; Nickles 1985). It was further argued that, when consequentialist theories were on the rise, the two processes of generation and assessment of an idea or hypothesis became distinct, and the view that the merit of a new idea does not depend on the way in which it was arrived at became widely accepted.

More recent research in history of philosophy of science has shown, however, that there was no such sharp contrast. Consequentialist ideas were advanced throughout the 18 th century, and the early modern generative theories of scientific method and knowledge were more pragmatic than previously assumed. Early modern scholars did not assume that this procedure would lead to absolute certainty. One could only obtain moral certainty for the propositions thus secured.

During the 18 th and 19 th centuries, the different elements of discovery gradually became separated and discussed in more detail. Discussions concerned the nature of observations and experiments, the act of having an insight and the processes of articulating, developing, and testing the novel insight. Philosophical discussion focused on the question of whether and to what extent rules could be devised to guide each of these processes.

Numerous 19 th -century scholars contributed to these discussions, including Claude Bernard, Auguste Comte, George Gore, John Herschel, W. Stanley Jevons, Justus von Liebig, John Stuart Mill, and Charles Sanders Peirce, to name only a few. William Whewell’s work, especially the two volumes of Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences of 1840, is a noteworthy and, later, much discussed contribution to the philosophical debates about scientific discovery because he explicitly distinguished the creative moment or “happy thought” as he called it from other elements of scientific inquiry and because he offered a detailed analysis of the “discoverer’s induction”, i.e., the pursuit and evaluation of the new insight. Whewell’s approach is not unique, but for late 20 th -century philosophers of science, his comprehensive, historically informed philosophy of discovery became a point of orientation in the revival of interest in scientific discovery processes.

For Whewell, discovery comprised three elements: the happy thought, the articulation and development of that thought, and the testing or verification of it. His account was in part a description of the psychological makeup of the discoverer. For instance, he held that only geniuses could have those happy thoughts that are essential to discovery. In part, his account was an account of the methods by which happy thoughts are integrated into the system of knowledge. According to Whewell, the initial step in every discovery is what he called “some happy thought, of which we cannot trace the origin; some fortunate cast of intellect, rising above all rules. No maxims can be given which inevitably lead to discovery” (Whewell 1996 [1840]: 186). An “art of discovery” in the sense of a teachable and learnable skill does not exist according to Whewell. The happy thought builds on the known facts, but according to Whewell it is impossible to prescribe a method for having happy thoughts.

In this sense, happy thoughts are accidental. But in an important sense, scientific discoveries are not accidental. The happy thought is not a wild guess. Only the person whose mind is prepared to see things will actually notice them. The “previous condition of the intellect, and not the single fact, is really the main and peculiar cause of the success. The fact is merely the occasion by which the engine of discovery is brought into play sooner or later. It is, as I have elsewhere said, only the spark which discharges a gun already loaded and pointed; and there is little propriety in speaking of such an accident as the cause why the bullet hits its mark.” (Whewell 1996 [1840]: 189).

Having a happy thought is not yet a discovery, however. The second element of a scientific discovery consists in binding together—“colligating”, as Whewell called it—a set of facts by bringing them under a general conception. Not only does the colligation produce something new, but it also shows the previously known facts in a new light. Colligation involves, on the one hand, the specification of facts through systematic observation, measurements and experiment, and on the other hand, the clarification of ideas through the exposition of the definitions and axioms that are tacitly implied in those ideas. This process is extended and iterative. The scientists go back and forth between binding together the facts, clarifying the idea, rendering the facts more exact, and so forth.

The final part of the discovery is the verification of the colligation involving the happy thought. This means, first and foremost, that the outcome of the colligation must be sufficient to explain the data at hand. Verification also involves judging the predictive power, simplicity, and “consilience” of the outcome of the colligation. “Consilience” refers to a higher range of generality (broader applicability) of the theory (the articulated and clarified happy thought) that the actual colligation produced. Whewell’s account of discovery is not a deductivist system. It is essential that the outcome of the colligation be inferable from the data prior to any testing (Snyder 1997).

Whewell’s theory of discovery clearly separates three elements: the non-analyzable happy thought or eureka moment; the process of colligation which includes the clarification and explication of facts and ideas; and the verification of the outcome of the colligation. His position that the philosophy of discovery cannot prescribe how to think happy thoughts has been a key element of 20 th -century philosophical reflection on discovery. In contrast to many 20 th -century approaches, Whewell’s philosophical conception of discovery also comprises the processes by which the happy thoughts are articulated. Similarly, the process of verification is an integral part of discovery. The procedures of articulation and test are both analyzable according to Whewell, and his conception of colligation and verification serve as guidelines for how the discoverer should proceed. To verify a hypothesis, the investigator needs to show that it accounts for the known facts, that it foretells new, previously unobserved phenomena, and that it can explain and predict phenomena which are explained and predicted by a hypothesis that was obtained through an independent happy thought-cum-colligation (Ducasse 1951).

Whewell’s conceptualization of scientific discovery offers a useful framework for mapping the philosophical debates about discovery and for identifying major issues of concern in 20 th -century philosophical debates. Until the late 20 th century, most philosophers operated with a notion of discovery that is narrower than Whewell’s. In more recent treatments of discovery, however, the scope of the term “discovery” is limited to either the first of these elements, the “happy thought”, or to the happy thought and its initial articulation. In the narrower conception, what Whewell called “verification” is not part of discovery proper. Secondly, until the late 20 th century, there was wide agreement that the eureka moment, narrowly construed, is an unanalyzable, even mysterious leap of insight. The main disagreements concerned the question of whether the process of developing a hypothesis (the “colligation” in Whewell’s terms) is, or is not, a part of discovery proper – and if it is, whether and how this process is guided by rules. Much of the controversies in the 20 th century about the possibility of a philosophy of discovery can be understood against the background of the disagreement about whether the process of discovery does or does not include the articulation and development of a novel thought. Philosophers also disagreed on the issue of whether it is a philosophical task to explicate these rules.

In early 20 th -century logical empiricism, the view that discovery is or at least crucially involves a non-analyzable creative act of a gifted genius was widespread. Alternative conceptions of discovery especially in the pragmatist tradition emphasize that discovery is an extended process, i.e., that the discovery process includes the reasoning processes through which a new insight is articulated and further developed.

In the pragmatist tradition, the term “logic” is used in the broad sense to refer to strategies of human reasoning and inquiry. While the reasoning involved does not proceed according to the principles of demonstrative logic, it is systematic enough to deserve the label “logical”. Proponents of this view argued that traditional (here: syllogistic) logic is an inadequate model of scientific discovery because it misrepresents the process of knowledge generation as grossly as the notion of an “aha moment”.

Early 20 th -century pragmatic logics of discovery can best be described as comprehensive theories of the mental and physical-practical operations involved in knowledge generation, as theories of “how we think” (Dewey 1910). Among the mental operations are classification, determination of what is relevant to an inquiry, and the conditions of communication of meaning; among the physical operations are observation and (laboratory) experiments. These features of scientific discovery are either not or only insufficiently represented by traditional syllogistic logic (Schiller 1917: 236–7).

Philosophers advocating this approach agree that the logic of discovery should be characterized as a set of heuristic principles rather than as a process of applying inductive or deductive logic to a set of propositions. These heuristic principles are not understood to show the path to secure knowledge. Heuristic principles are suggestive rather than demonstrative (Carmichael 1922, 1930). One recurrent feature in these accounts of the reasoning strategies leading to new ideas is analogical reasoning (Schiller 1917; Benjamin 1934, see also section 9.2 .). However, in academic philosophy of science, endeavors to develop more systematically the heuristics guiding discovery processes were soon eclipsed by the advance of the distinction between contexts of discovery and justification.

The distinction between “context of discovery” and “context of justification” dominated and shaped the discussions about discovery in 20 th -century philosophy of science. The context distinction marks the distinction between the generation of a new idea or hypothesis and the defense (test, verification) of it. As the previous sections have shown, the distinction among different elements of scientific inquiry has a long history but in the first half of the 20 th century, the distinction between the different features of scientific inquiry turned into a powerful demarcation criterion between “genuine” philosophy and other fields of science studies, which became potent in philosophy of science. The boundary between context of discovery (the de facto thinking processes) and context of justification (the de jure defense of the correctness of these thoughts) was now understood to determine the scope of philosophy of science, whereby philosophy of science is conceived as a normative endeavor. Advocates of the context distinction argue that the generation of a new idea is an intuitive, nonrational process; it cannot be subject to normative analysis. Therefore, the study of scientists’ actual thinking can only be the subject of psychology, sociology, and other empirical sciences. Philosophy of science, by contrast, is exclusively concerned with the context of justification.

The terms “context of discovery” and “context of justification” are often associated with Hans Reichenbach’s work. Reichenbach’s original conception of the context distinction is quite complex, however (Howard 2006; Richardson 2006). It does not map easily on to the disciplinary distinction mentioned above, because for Reichenbach, philosophy of science proper is partly descriptive. Reichenbach maintains that philosophy of science includes a description of knowledge as it really is. Descriptive philosophy of science reconstructs scientists’ thinking processes in such a way that logical analysis can be performed on them, and it thus prepares the ground for the evaluation of these thoughts (Reichenbach 1938: § 1). Discovery, by contrast, is the object of empirical—psychological, sociological—study. According to Reichenbach, the empirical study of discoveries shows that processes of discovery often correspond to the principle of induction, but this is simply a psychological fact (Reichenbach 1938: 403).

While the terms “context of discovery” and “context of justification” are widely used, there has been ample discussion about how the distinction should be drawn and what their philosophical significance is (c.f. Kordig 1978; Gutting 1980; Zahar 1983; Leplin 1987; Hoyningen-Huene 1987; Weber 2005: chapter 3; Schickore and Steinle 2006). Most commonly, the distinction is interpreted as a distinction between the process of conceiving a theory and the assessment of that theory, specifically the assessment of the theory’s epistemic support. This version of the distinction is not necessarily interpreted as a temporal distinction. In other words, it is not usually assumed that a theory is first fully developed and then assessed. Rather, generation and assessment are two different epistemic approaches to theory: the endeavor to articulate, flesh out, and develop its potential and the endeavor to assess its epistemic worth. Within the framework of the context distinction, there are two main ways of conceptualizing the process of conceiving a theory. The first option is to characterize the generation of new knowledge as an irrational act, a mysterious creative intuition, a “eureka moment”. The second option is to conceptualize the generation of new knowledge as an extended process that includes a creative act as well as some process of articulating and developing the creative idea.

Both of these accounts of knowledge generation served as starting points for arguments against the possibility of a philosophy of discovery. In line with the first option, philosophers have argued that neither is it possible to prescribe a logical method that produces new ideas nor is it possible to reconstruct logically the process of discovery. Only the process of testing is amenable to logical investigation. This objection to philosophies of discovery has been called the “discovery machine objection” (Curd 1980: 207). It is usually associated with Karl Popper’s Logic of Scientific Discovery .

The initial state, the act of conceiving or inventing a theory, seems to me neither to call for logical analysis not to be susceptible of it. The question how it happens that a new idea occurs to a man—whether it is a musical theme, a dramatic conflict, or a scientific theory—may be of great interest to empirical psychology; but it is irrelevant to the logical analysis of scientific knowledge. This latter is concerned not with questions of fact (Kant’s quid facti ?) , but only with questions of justification or validity (Kant’s quid juris ?) . Its questions are of the following kind. Can a statement be justified? And if so, how? Is it testable? Is it logically dependent on certain other statements? Or does it perhaps contradict them? […]Accordingly I shall distinguish sharply between the process of conceiving a new idea, and the methods and results of examining it logically. As to the task of the logic of knowledge—in contradistinction to the psychology of knowledge—I shall proceed on the assumption that it consists solely in investigating the methods employed in those systematic tests to which every new idea must be subjected if it is to be seriously entertained. (Popper 2002 [1934/1959]: 7–8)

With respect to the second way of conceptualizing knowledge generation, many philosophers argue in a similar fashion that because the process of discovery involves an irrational, intuitive process, which cannot be examined logically, a logic of discovery cannot be construed. Other philosophers turn against the philosophy of discovery even though they explicitly acknowledge that discovery is an extended, reasoned process. They present a meta-philosophical objection argument, arguing that a theory of articulating and developing ideas is not a philosophical but a psychological or sociological theory. In this perspective, “discovery” is understood as a retrospective label, which is attributed as a sign of accomplishment to some scientific endeavors. Sociological theories acknowledge that discovery is a collective achievement and the outcome of a process of negotiation through which “discovery stories” are constructed and certain knowledge claims are granted discovery status (Brannigan 1981; Schaffer 1986, 1994).

The impact of the context distinction on 20 th -century studies of scientific discovery and on philosophy of science more generally can hardly be overestimated. The view that the process of discovery (however construed) is outside the scope of philosophy of science proper was widely shared amongst philosophers of science for most of the 20 th century. The last section shows that there were some attempts to develop logics of discovery in the 1920s and 1930s, especially in the pragmatist tradition. But for several decades, the context distinction dictated what philosophy of science should be about and how it should proceed. The dominant view was that theories of mental operations or heuristics had no place in philosophy of science and that, therefore, discovery was not a legitimate topic for philosophy of science. Until the last decades of the 20 th century, there were few attempts to challenge the disciplinary distinction tied to the context distinction. Only during the 1970s did the interest in philosophical approaches to discovery begin to increase again. But the context distinction remained a challenge for philosophies of discovery.

There are several lines of response to the disciplinary distinction tied to the context distinction. Each of these lines of response opens a philosophical perspective on discovery. Each proceeds on the assumption that philosophy of science may legitimately include some form of analysis of actual reasoning patterns as well as information from empirical sciences such as cognitive science, psychology, and sociology. All of these responses reject the idea that discovery is nothing but a mystical event. Discovery is conceived as an analyzable reasoning process, not just as a creative leap by which novel ideas spring into being fully formed. All of these responses agree that the procedures and methods for arriving at new hypotheses and ideas are no guarantee that the hypothesis or idea that is thus formed is necessarily the best or the correct one. Nonetheless, it is the task of philosophy of science to provide rules for making this process better. All of these responses can be described as theories of problem solving, whose ultimate goal is to make the generation of new ideas and theories more efficient.

But the different approaches to scientific discovery employ different terminologies. In particular, the term “logic” of discovery is sometimes used in a narrow sense and sometimes broadly understood. In the narrow sense, “logic” of discovery is understood to refer to a set of formal, generally applicable rules by which novel ideas can be mechanically derived from existing data. In the broad sense, “logic” of discovery refers to the schematic representation of reasoning procedures. “Logical” is just another term for “rational”. Moreover, while each of these responses combines philosophical analyses of scientific discovery with empirical research on actual human cognition, different sets of resources are mobilized, ranging from AI research and cognitive science to historical studies of problem-solving procedures. Also, the responses parse the process of scientific inquiry differently. Often, scientific inquiry is regarded as having two aspects, viz. generation and assessments of new ideas. At times, however, scientific inquiry is regarded as having three aspects, namely generation, pursuit or articulation, and assessment of knowledge. In the latter framework, the label “discovery” is sometimes used to refer just to generation and sometimes to refer to both generation and pursuit.

One response to the challenge of the context distinction draws on a broad understanding of the term “logic” to argue that we cannot but admit a general, domain-neutral logic if we do not want to assume that the success of science is a miracle (Jantzen 2016) and that a logic of scientific discovery can be developed ( section 6 ). Another response, drawing on a narrow understanding of the term “logic”, is to concede that there is no logic of discovery, i.e., no algorithm for generating new knowledge, but that the process of discovery follows an identifiable, analyzable pattern ( section 7 ).

Others argue that discovery is governed by a methodology . The methodology of discovery is a legitimate topic for philosophical analysis ( section 8 ). Yet another response assumes that discovery is or at least involves a creative act. Drawing on resources from cognitive science, neuroscience, computational research, and environmental and social psychology, philosophers have sought to demystify the cognitive processes involved in the generation of new ideas. Philosophers who take this approach argue that scientific creativity is amenable to philosophical analysis ( section 9.1 ).

All these responses assume that there is more to discovery than a eureka moment. Discovery comprises processes of articulating, developing, and assessing the creative thought, as well as the scientific community’s adjudication of what does, and does not, count as “discovery” (Arabatzis 1996). These are the processes that can be examined with the tools of philosophical analysis, augmented by input from other fields of science studies such as sociology, history, or cognitive science.

6. Logics of discovery after the context distinction

One way of responding to the demarcation criterion described above is to argue that discovery is a topic for philosophy of science because it is a logical process after all. Advocates of this approach to the logic of discovery usually accept the overall distinction between the two processes of conceiving and testing a hypothesis. They also agree that it is impossible to put together a manual that provides a formal, mechanical procedure through which innovative concepts or hypotheses can be derived: There is no discovery machine. But they reject the view that the process of conceiving a theory is a creative act, a mysterious guess, a hunch, a more or less instantaneous and random process. Instead, they insist that both conceiving and testing hypotheses are processes of reasoning and systematic inference, that both of these processes can be represented schematically, and that it is possible to distinguish better and worse paths to new knowledge.

This line of argument has much in common with the logics of discovery described in section 4 above but it is now explicitly pitched against the disciplinary distinction tied to the context distinction. There are two main ways of developing this argument. The first is to conceive of discovery in terms of abductive reasoning ( section 6.1 ). The second is to conceive of discovery in terms of problem-solving algorithms, whereby heuristic rules aid the processing of available data and enhance the success in finding solutions to problems ( section 6.2 ). Both lines of argument rely on a broad conception of logic, whereby the “logic” of discovery amounts to a schematic account of the reasoning processes involved in knowledge generation.

One argument, elaborated prominently by Norwood R. Hanson, is that the act of discovery—here, the act of suggesting a new hypothesis—follows a distinctive logical pattern, which is different from both inductive logic and the logic of hypothetico-deductive reasoning. The special logic of discovery is the logic of abductive or “retroductive” inferences (Hanson 1958). The argument that it is through an act of abductive inferences that plausible, promising scientific hypotheses are devised goes back to C.S. Peirce. This version of the logic of discovery characterizes reasoning processes that take place before a new hypothesis is ultimately justified. The abductive mode of reasoning that leads to plausible hypotheses is conceptualized as an inference beginning with data or, more specifically, with surprising or anomalous phenomena.

In this view, discovery is primarily a process of explaining anomalies or surprising, astonishing phenomena. The scientists’ reasoning proceeds abductively from an anomaly to an explanatory hypothesis in light of which the phenomena would no longer be surprising or anomalous. The outcome of this reasoning process is not one single specific hypothesis but the delineation of a type of hypotheses that is worthy of further attention (Hanson 1965: 64). According to Hanson, the abductive argument has the following schematic form (Hanson 1960: 104):

• Some surprising, astonishing phenomena p 1 , p 2 , p 3 … are encountered.
• But p 1 , p 2 , p 3 … would not be surprising were an hypothesis of H ’s type to obtain. They would follow as a matter of course from something like H and would be explained by it.
• Therefore there is good reason for elaborating an hypothesis of type H—for proposing it as a possible hypothesis from whose assumption p 1 , p 2 , p 3 … might be explained.

Drawing on the historical record, Hanson argues that several important discoveries were made relying on abductive reasoning, such as Kepler’s discovery of the elliptic orbit of Mars (Hanson 1958). It is now widely agreed, however, that Hanson’s reconstruction of the episode is not a historically adequate account of Kepler’s discovery (Lugg 1985). More importantly, while there is general agreement that abductive inferences are frequent in both everyday and scientific reasoning, these inferences are no longer considered as logical inferences. Even if one accepts Hanson’s schematic representation of the process of identifying plausible hypotheses, this process is a “logical” process only in the widest sense whereby the term “logical” is understood as synonymous with “rational”. Notably, some philosophers have even questioned the rationality of abductive inferences (Koehler 1991; Brem and Rips 2000).

Another argument against the above schema is that it is too permissive. There will be several hypotheses that are explanations for phenomena p 1 , p 2 , p 3 …, so the fact that a particular hypothesis explains the phenomena is not a decisive criterion for developing that hypothesis (Harman 1965; see also Blackwell 1969). Additional criteria are required to evaluate the hypothesis yielded by abductive inferences.

Finally, it is worth noting that the schema of abductive reasoning does not explain the very act of conceiving a hypothesis or hypothesis-type. The processes by which a new idea is first articulated remain unanalyzed in the above schema. The schema focuses on the reasoning processes by which an exploratory hypothesis is assessed in terms of its merits and promise (Laudan 1980; Schaffner 1993).

In more recent work on abduction and discovery, two notions of abduction are sometimes distinguished: the common notion of abduction as inference to the best explanation (selective abduction) and creative abduction (Magnani 2000, 2009). Selective abduction—the inference to the best explanation—involves selecting a hypothesis from a set of known hypotheses. Medical diagnosis exemplifies this kind of abduction. Creative abduction, by contrast, involves generating a new, plausible hypothesis. This happens, for instance, in medical research, when the notion of a new disease is articulated. However, it is still an open question whether this distinction can be drawn, or whether there is a more gradual transition from selecting an explanatory hypothesis from a familiar domain (selective abduction) to selecting a hypothesis that is slightly modified from the familiar set and to identifying a more drastically modified or altered assumption.

Another recent suggestion is to broaden Peirce’s original account of abduction and to include not only verbal information but also non-verbal mental representations, such as visual, auditory, or motor representations. In Thagard’s approach, representations are characterized as patterns of activity in mental populations (see also section 9.3 below). The advantage of the neural account of human reasoning is that it covers features such as the surprise that accompanies the generation of new insights or the visual and auditory representations that contribute to it. Surprise, for instance, could be characterized as resulting from rapid changes in activation of the node in a neural network representing the “surprising” element (Thagard and Stewart 2011). If all mental representations can be characterized as patterns of firing in neural populations, abduction can be analyzed as the combination or “convolution” (Thagard) of patterns of neural activity from disjoint or overlapping patterns of activity (Thagard 2010).

The concern with the logic of discovery has also motivated research on artificial intelligence at the intersection of philosophy of science and cognitive science. In this approach, scientific discovery is treated as a form of problem-solving activity (Simon 1973; see also Newell and Simon 1971), whereby the systematic aspects of problem solving are studied within an information-processing framework. The aim is to clarify with the help of computational tools the nature of the methods used to discover scientific hypotheses. These hypotheses are regarded as solutions to problems. Philosophers working in this tradition build computer programs employing methods of heuristic selective search (e.g., Langley et al. 1987). In computational heuristics, search programs can be described as searches for solutions in a so-called “problem space” in a certain domain. The problem space comprises all possible configurations in that domain (e.g., for chess problems, all possible arrangements of pieces on a board of chess). Each configuration is a “state” of the problem space. There are two special states, namely the goal state, i.e., the state to be reached, and the initial state, i.e., the configuration at the starting point from which the search begins. There are operators, which determine the moves that generate new states from the current state. There are path constraints, which limit the permitted moves. Problem solving is the process of searching for a solution of the problem of how to generate the goal state from an initial state. In principle, all states can be generated by applying the operators to the initial state, then to the resulting state, until the goal state is reached (Langley et al. 1987: chapter 9). A problem solution is a sequence of operations leading from the initial to the goal state.

The basic idea behind computational heuristics is that rules can be identified that serve as guidelines for finding a solution to a given problem quickly and efficiently by avoiding undesired states of the problem space. These rules are best described as rules of thumb. The aim of constructing a logic of discovery thus becomes the aim of constructing a heuristics for the efficient search for solutions to problems. The term “heuristic search” indicates that in contrast to algorithms, problem-solving procedures lead to results that are merely provisional and plausible. A solution is not guaranteed, but heuristic searches are advantageous because they are more efficient than exhaustive random trial and error searches. Insofar as it is possible to evaluate whether one set of heuristics is better—more efficacious—than another, the logic of discovery turns into a normative theory of discovery.

Arguably, because it is possible to reconstruct important scientific discovery processes with sets of computational heuristics, the scientific discovery process can be considered as a special case of the general mechanism of information processing. In this context, the term “logic” is not used in the narrow sense of a set of formal, generally applicable rules to draw inferences but again in a broad sense as a label for a set of procedural rules.

The computer programs that embody the principles of heuristic searches in scientific inquiry simulate the paths that scientists followed when they searched for new theoretical hypotheses. Computer programs such as BACON (Simon et al. 1981) and KEKADA (Kulkarni and Simon 1988) utilize sets of problem-solving heuristics to detect regularities in given data sets. The program would note, for instance, that the values of a dependent term are constant or that a set of values for a term x and a set of values for a term y are linearly related. It would thus “infer” that the dependent term always has that value or that a linear relation exists between x and y . These programs can “make discoveries” in the sense that they can simulate successful discoveries such as Kepler’s third law (BACON) or the Krebs cycle (KEKADA).

Computational theories of scientific discoveries have helped identify and clarify a number of problem-solving strategies. An example of such a strategy is heuristic means-ends analysis, which involves identifying specific differences between the present and the goal situation and searches for operators (processes that will change the situation) that are associated with the differences that were detected. Another important heuristic is to divide the problem into sub-problems and to begin solving the one with the smallest number of unknowns to be determined (Simon 1977). Computational approaches have also highlighted the extent to which the generation of new knowledge draws on existing knowledge that constrains the development of new hypotheses.

As accounts of scientific discoveries, the early computational heuristics have some limitations. Compared to the problem spaces given in computational heuristics, the complex problem spaces for scientific problems are often ill defined, and the relevant search space and goal state must be delineated before heuristic assumptions could be formulated (Bechtel and Richardson 1993: chapter 1). Because a computer program requires the data from actual experiments, the simulations cover only certain aspects of scientific discoveries; in particular, it cannot determine by itself which data is relevant, which data to relate and what form of law it should look for (Gillies 1996). However, as a consequence of the rise of so-called “deep learning” methods in data-intensive science, there is renewed philosophical interest in the question of whether machines can make discoveries ( section 10 ).

Many philosophers maintain that discovery is a legitimate topic for philosophy of science while abandoning the notion that there is a logic of discovery. One very influential approach is Thomas Kuhn’s analysis of the emergence of novel facts and theories (Kuhn 1970 [1962]: chapter 6). Kuhn identifies a general pattern of discovery as part of his account of scientific change. A discovery is not a simple act, but an extended, complex process, which culminates in paradigm changes. Paradigms are the symbolic generalizations, metaphysical commitments, values, and exemplars that are shared by a community of scientists and that guide the research of that community. Paradigm-based, normal science does not aim at novelty but instead at the development, extension, and articulation of accepted paradigms. A discovery begins with an anomaly, that is, with the recognition that the expectations induced by an established paradigm are being violated. The process of discovery involves several aspects: observations of an anomalous phenomenon, attempts to conceptualize it, and changes in the paradigm so that the anomaly can be accommodated.

It is the mark of success of normal science that it does not make transformative discoveries, and yet such discoveries come about as a consequence of normal, paradigm-guided science. The more detailed and the better developed a paradigm, the more precise are its predictions. The more precisely the researchers know what to expect, the better they are able to recognize anomalous results and violations of expectations:

novelty ordinarily emerges only for the man who, knowing with precision what he should expect, is able to recognize that something has gone wrong. Anomaly appears only against the background provided by the paradigm. (Kuhn 1970 [1962]: 65)

Drawing on several historical examples, Kuhn argues that it is usually impossible to identify the very moment when something was discovered or even the individual who made the discovery. Kuhn illustrates these points with the discovery of oxygen (see Kuhn 1970 [1962]: 53–56). Oxygen had not been discovered before 1774 and had been discovered by 1777. Even before 1774, Lavoisier had noticed that something was wrong with phlogiston theory, but he was unable to move forward. Two other investigators, C. W. Scheele and Joseph Priestley, independently identified a gas obtained from heating solid substances. But Scheele’s work remained unpublished until after 1777, and Priestley did not identify his substance as a new sort of gas. In 1777, Lavoisier presented the oxygen theory of combustion, which gave rise to fundamental reconceptualization of chemistry. But according to this theory as Lavoisier first presented it, oxygen was not a chemical element. It was an atomic “principle of acidity” and oxygen gas was a combination of that principle with caloric. According to Kuhn, all of these developments are part of the discovery of oxygen, but none of them can be singled out as “the” act of discovery.

In pre-paradigmatic periods or in times of paradigm crisis, theory-induced discoveries may happen. In these periods, scientists speculate and develop tentative theories, which may lead to novel expectations and experiments and observations to test whether these expectations can be confirmed. Even though no precise predictions can be made, phenomena that are thus uncovered are often not quite what had been expected. In these situations, the simultaneous exploration of the new phenomena and articulation of the tentative hypotheses together bring about discovery.

In cases like the discovery of oxygen, by contrast, which took place while a paradigm was already in place, the unexpected becomes apparent only slowly, with difficulty, and against some resistance. Only gradually do the anomalies become visible as such. It takes time for the investigators to recognize “both that something is and what it is” (Kuhn 1970 [1962]: 55). Eventually, a new paradigm becomes established and the anomalous phenomena become the expected phenomena.

Recent studies in cognitive neuroscience of brain activity during periods of conceptual change support Kuhn’s view that conceptual change is hard to achieve. These studies examine the neural processes that are involved in the recognition of anomalies and compare them with the brain activity involved in the processing of information that is consistent with preferred theories. The studies suggest that the two types of data are processed differently (Dunbar et al. 2007).

8. Methodologies of discovery

Advocates of the view that there are methodologies of discovery use the term “logic” in the narrow sense of an algorithmic procedure to generate new ideas. But like the AI-based theories of scientific discovery described in section 6 , methodologies of scientific discovery interpret the concept “discovery” as a label for an extended process of generating and articulating new ideas and often describe the process in terms of problem solving. In these approaches, the distinction between the contexts of discovery and the context of justification is challenged because the methodology of discovery is understood to play a justificatory role. Advocates of a methodology of discovery usually rely on a distinction between different justification procedures, justification involved in the process of generating new knowledge and justification involved in testing it. Consequential or “strong” justifications are methods of testing. The justification involved in discovery, by contrast, is conceived as generative (as opposed to consequential) justification ( section 8.1 ) or as weak (as opposed to strong) justification ( section 8.2 ). Again, some terminological ambiguity exists because according to some philosophers, there are three contexts, not two: Only the initial conception of a new idea (the creative act is the context of discovery proper, and between it and justification there exists a separate context of pursuit (Laudan 1980). But many advocates of methodologies of discovery regard the context of pursuit as an integral part of the process of justification. They retain the notion of two contexts and re-draw the boundaries between the contexts of discovery and justification as they were drawn in the early 20 th century.

The methodology of discovery has sometimes been characterized as a form of justification that is complementary to the methodology of testing (Nickles 1984, 1985, 1989). According to the methodology of testing, empirical support for a theory results from successfully testing the predictive consequences derived from that theory (and appropriate auxiliary assumptions). In light of this methodology, justification for a theory is “consequential justification,” the notion that a hypothesis is established if successful novel predictions are derived from the theory or claim. Generative justification complements consequential justification. Advocates of generative justification hold that there exists an important form of justification in science that involves reasoning to a claim from data or previously established results more generally.

One classic example for a generative methodology is the set of Newton’s rules for the study of natural philosophy. According to these rules, general propositions are established by deducing them from the phenomena. The notion of generative justification seeks to preserve the intuition behind classic conceptions of justification by deduction. Generative justification amounts to the rational reconstruction of the discovery path in order to establish its discoverability had the researchers known what is known now, regardless of how it was first thought of (Nickles 1985, 1989). The reconstruction demonstrates in hindsight that the claim could have been discovered in this manner had the necessary information and techniques been available. In other words, generative justification—justification as “discoverability” or “potential discovery”—justifies a knowledge claim by deriving it from results that are already established. While generative justification does not retrace exactly those steps of the actual discovery path that were actually taken, it is a better representation of scientists’ actual practices than consequential justification because scientists tend to construe new claims from available knowledge. Generative justification is a weaker version of the traditional ideal of justification by deduction from the phenomena. Justification by deduction from the phenomena is complete if a theory or claim is completely determined from what we already know. The demonstration of discoverability results from the successful derivation of a claim or theory from the most basic and most solidly established empirical information.

Discoverability as described in the previous paragraphs is a mode of justification. Like the testing of novel predictions derived from a hypothesis, generative justification begins when the phase of finding and articulating a hypothesis worthy of assessing is drawing to a close. Other approaches to the methodology of discovery are directly concerned with the procedures involved in devising new hypotheses. The argument in favor of this kind of methodology is that the procedures of devising new hypotheses already include elements of appraisal. These preliminary assessments have been termed “weak” evaluation procedures (Schaffner 1993). Weak evaluations are relevant during the process of devising a new hypothesis. They provide reasons for accepting a hypothesis as promising and worthy of further attention. Strong evaluations, by contrast, provide reasons for accepting a hypothesis as (approximately) true or confirmed. Both “generative” and “consequential” testing as discussed in the previous section are strong evaluation procedures. Strong evaluation procedures are rigorous and systematically organized according to the principles of hypothesis derivation or H-D testing. A methodology of preliminary appraisal, by contrast, articulates criteria for the evaluation of a hypothesis prior to rigorous derivation or testing. It aids the decision about whether to take that hypothesis seriously enough to develop it further and test it. For advocates of this version of the methodology of discovery, it is the task of philosophy of science to characterize sets of constraints and methodological rules guiding the complex process of prior-to-test evaluation of hypotheses.

In contrast to the computational approaches discussed above, strategies of preliminary appraisal are not regarded as subject-neutral but as specific to particular fields of study. Philosophers of biology, for instance, have developed a fine-grained framework to account for the generation and preliminary evaluation of biological mechanisms (Darden 2002; Craver 2002; Bechtel and Richardson 1993; Craver and Darden 2013). Some philosophers have suggested that the phase of preliminary appraisal be further divided into two phases, the phase of appraising and the phase of revising. According to Lindley Darden, the phases of generation, appraisal and revision of descriptions of mechanisms can be characterized as reasoning processes governed by reasoning strategies. Different reasoning strategies govern the different phases (Darden 1991, 2002; Craver 2002; Darden 2009). The generation of hypotheses about mechanisms, for instance, is governed by the strategy of “schema instantiation” (see Darden 2002). The discovery of the mechanism of protein synthesis involved the instantiation of an abstract schema for chemical reactions: reactant 1 + reactant 2 = product. The actual mechanism of protein synthesis was found through specification and modification of this schema.

Neither of these strategies is deemed necessary for discovery, and they are not prescriptions for biological research. Rather, these strategies are deemed sufficient for the discovery of mechanisms. The methodology of the discovery of mechanisms is an extrapolation from past episodes of research on mechanisms and the result of a synthesis of rational reconstructions of several of these historical episodes. The methodology of discovery is weakly normative in the sense that the strategies for the discovery of mechanisms that were successful in the past may prove useful in future biological research (Darden 2002).

As philosophers of science have again become more attuned to actual scientific practices, interest in heuristic strategies has also been revived. Many analysts now agree that discovery processes can be regarded as problem solving activities, whereby a discovery is a solution to a problem. Heuristics-based methodologies of discovery are neither purely subjective and intuitive nor algorithmic or formalizable; the point is that reasons can be given for pursuing one or the other problem-solving strategy. These rules are open and do not guarantee a solution to a problem when applied (Ippoliti 2018). On this view, scientific researchers are no longer seen as Kuhnian “puzzle solvers” but as problem solvers and decision makers in complex, variable, and changing environments (Wimsatt 2007).

Philosophers of discovery working in this tradition draw on a growing body of literature in cognitive psychology, management science, operations research, and economy on human reasoning and decision making in contexts with limited information, under time constraints, and with sub-optimal means (Gigerenzer & Sturm 2012). Heuristic strategies characterized in these studies, such as Gigerenzer’s “tools to theory heuristic” are then applied to understand scientific knowledge generation (Gigerenzer 1992, Nickles 2018). Other analysts specify heuristic strategies in a range of scientific fields, including climate science, neurobiology, and clinical medicine (Gramelsberger 2011, Schaffner 2008, Gillies 2018). Finally, in analytic epistemology, formal methods are developed to identify and assess distinct heuristic strategies currently in use, such as Bayesian reverse engineering in cognitive science (Zednik and Jäkel 2016).

As the literature on heuristics continues to grow, it has become clear that the term “heuristics” is itself used in a variety of different ways. (For a valuable taxonomy of meanings of “heuristic,” see Chow 2015, see also Ippoliti 2018.) Moreover, as in the context of earlier debates about computational heuristics, debates continue about the limitations of heuristics. The use of heuristics may come at a cost if heuristics introduce systematic biases (Wimsatt 2007). Some philosophers thus call for general principles for the evaluation of heuristic strategies (Hey 2016).

9. Cognitive perspectives on discovery

The approaches to scientific discovery presented in the previous sections focus on the adoption, articulation, and preliminary evaluation of ideas or hypotheses prior to rigorous testing, not on how a novel hypothesis or idea is first thought up. For a long time, the predominant view among philosophers of discovery was that the initial step of discovery is a mysterious intuitive leap of the human mind that cannot be analyzed further. More recent accounts of discovery informed by evolutionary biology also do not explicate how new ideas are formed. The generation of new ideas is akin to random, blind variations of thought processes, which have to be inspected by the critical mind and assessed as neutral, productive, or useless (Campbell 1960; see also Hull 1988), but the key processes by which new ideas are generated are left unanalyzed.

With the recent rapprochement among philosophy of mind, cognitive science and psychology and the increased integration of empirical research into philosophy of science, these processes have been submitted to closer analysis, and philosophical studies of creativity have seen a surge of interest (e.g. Paul & Kaufman 2014a). The distinctive feature of these studies is that they integrate philosophical analyses with empirical work from cognitive science, psychology, evolutionary biology, and computational neuroscience (Thagard 2012). Analysts have distinguished different kinds and different features of creative thinking and have examined certain features in depth, and from new angles. Recent philosophical research on creativity comprises conceptual analyses and integrated approaches based on the assumption that creativity can be analyzed and that empirical research can contribute to the analysis (Paul & Kaufman 2014b). Two key elements of the cognitive processes involved in creative thinking that have been in the focus of philosophical analysis are analogies ( section 9.2 ) and mental models ( section 9.3 ).

General definitions of creativity highlight novelty or originality and significance or value as distinctive features of a creative act or product (Sternberg & Lubart 1999, Kieran 2014, Paul & Kaufman 2014b, although see Hills & Bird 2019). Different kinds of creativity can be distinguished depending on whether the act or product is novel for a particular individual or entirely novel. Psychologist Margaret Boden distinguishes between psychological creativity (P-creativity) and historical creativity (H-creativity). P-creativity is a development that is new, surprising and important to the particular person who comes up with it. H-creativity, by contrast, is radically novel, surprising, and important—it is generated for the first time (Boden 2004). Further distinctions have been proposed, such as anthropological creativity (construed as a human condition) and metaphysical creativity, a radically new thought or action in the sense that it is unaccounted for by antecedents and available knowledge, and thus constitutes a radical break with the past (Kronfeldner 2009, drawing on Hausman 1984).

Psychological studies analyze the personality traits and creative individuals’ behavioral dispositions that are conducive to creative thinking. They suggest that creative scientists share certain distinct personality traits, including confidence, openness, dominance, independence, introversion, as well as arrogance and hostility. (For overviews of recent studies on personality traits of creative scientists, see Feist 1999, 2006: chapter 5).

Recent work on creativity in philosophy of mind and cognitive science offers substantive analyses of the cognitive and neural mechanisms involved in creative thinking (Abrams 2018, Minai et al 2022) and critical scrutiny of the romantic idea of genius creativity as something deeply mysterious (Blackburn 2014). Some of this research aims to characterize features that are common to all creative processes, such as Thagard and Stewart’s account according to which creativity results from combinations of representations (Thagard & Stewart 2011, but see Pasquale and Poirier 2016). Other research aims to identify the features that are distinctive of scientific creativity as opposed to other forms of creativity, such as artistic creativity or creative technological invention (Simonton 2014).

Many philosophers of science highlight the role of analogy in the development of new knowledge, whereby analogy is understood as a process of bringing ideas that are well understood in one domain to bear on a new domain (Thagard 1984; Holyoak and Thagard 1996). An important source for philosophical thought about analogy is Mary Hesse’s conception of models and analogies in theory construction and development. In this approach, analogies are similarities between different domains. Hesse introduces the distinction between positive, negative, and neutral analogies (Hesse 1966: 8). If we consider the relation between gas molecules and a model for gas, namely a collection of billiard balls in random motion, we will find properties that are common to both domains (positive analogy) as well as properties that can only be ascribed to the model but not to the target domain (negative analogy). There is a positive analogy between gas molecules and a collection of billiard balls because both the balls and the molecules move randomly. There is a negative analogy between the domains because billiard balls are colored, hard, and shiny but gas molecules do not have these properties. The most interesting properties are those properties of the model about which we do not know whether they are positive or negative analogies. This set of properties is the neutral analogy. These properties are the significant properties because they might lead to new insights about the less familiar domain. From our knowledge about the familiar billiard balls, we may be able to derive new predictions about the behavior of gas molecules, which we could then test.

Hesse offers a more detailed analysis of the structure of analogical reasoning through the distinction between horizontal and vertical analogies between domains. Horizontal analogies between two domains concern the sameness or similarity between properties of both domains. If we consider sound and light waves, there are similarities between them: sound echoes, light reflects; sound is loud, light is bright, both sound and light are detectable by our senses. There are also relations among the properties within one domain, such as the causal relation between sound and the loud tone we hear and, analogously, between physical light and the bright light we see. These analogies are vertical analogies. For Hesse, vertical analogies hold the key for the construction of new theories.

Analogies play several roles in science. Not only do they contribute to discovery but they also play a role in the development and evaluation of scientific theories. Current discussions about analogy and discovery have expanded and refined Hesse’s approach in various ways. Some philosophers have developed criteria for evaluating analogy arguments (Bartha 2010). Other work has identified highly significant analogies that were particularly fruitful for the advancement of science (Holyoak and Thagard 1996: 186–188; Thagard 1999: chapter 9). The majority of analysts explore the features of the cognitive mechanisms through which aspects of a familiar domain or source are applied to an unknown target domain in order to understand what is unknown. According to the influential multi-constraint theory of analogical reasoning developed by Holyoak and Thagard, the transfer processes involved in analogical reasoning (scientific and otherwise) are guided or constrained in three main ways: 1) by the direct similarity between the elements involved; 2) by the structural parallels between source and target domain; as well as 3) by the purposes of the investigators, i.e., the reasons why the analogy is considered. Discovery, the formulation of a new hypothesis, is one such purpose.

“In vivo” investigations of scientists reasoning in their laboratories have not only shown that analogical reasoning is a key component of scientific practice, but also that the distance between source and target depends on the purpose for which analogies are sought. Scientists trying to fix experimental problems draw analogies between targets and sources from highly similar domains. In contrast, scientists attempting to formulate new models or concepts draw analogies between less similar domains. Analogies between radically different domains, however, are rare (Dunbar 1997, 2001).

In current cognitive science, human cognition is often explored in terms of model-based reasoning. The starting point of this approach is the notion that much of human reasoning, including probabilistic and causal reasoning as well as problem solving takes place through mental modeling rather than through the application of logic or methodological criteria to a set of propositions (Johnson-Laird 1983; Magnani et al. 1999; Magnani and Nersessian 2002). In model-based reasoning, the mind constructs a structural representation of a real-world or imaginary situation and manipulates this structure. In this perspective, conceptual structures are viewed as models and conceptual innovation as constructing new models through various modeling operations. Analogical reasoning—analogical modeling—is regarded as one of three main forms of model-based reasoning that appear to be relevant for conceptual innovation in science. Besides analogical modeling, visual modeling and simulative modeling or thought experiments also play key roles (Nersessian 1992, 1999, 2009). These modeling practices are constructive in that they aid the development of novel mental models. The key elements of model-based reasoning are the call on knowledge of generative principles and constraints for physical models in a source domain and the use of various forms of abstraction. Conceptual innovation results from the creation of new concepts through processes that abstract and integrate source and target domains into new models (Nersessian 2009).

Some critics have argued that despite the large amount of work on the topic, the notion of mental model is not sufficiently clear. Thagard seeks to clarify the concept by characterizing mental models in terms of neural processes (Thagard 2010). In his approach, mental models are produced through complex patterns of neural firing, whereby the neurons and the interconnections between them are dynamic and changing. A pattern of firing neurons is a representation when there is a stable causal correlation between the pattern or activation and the thing that is represented. In this research, questions about the nature of model-based reasoning are transformed into questions about the brain mechanisms that produce mental representations.

The above sections again show that the study of scientific discovery integrates different approaches, combining conceptual analysis of processes of knowledge generation with empirical work on creativity, drawing heavily and explicitly on current research in psychology and cognitive science, and on in vivo laboratory observations, as well as brain imaging techniques (Kounios & Beeman 2009, Thagard & Stewart 2011).

Earlier critics of AI-based theories of scientific discoveries argued that a computer cannot devise new concepts but is confined to the concepts included in the given computer language (Hempel 1985: 119–120). It cannot design new experiments, instruments, or methods. Subsequent computational research on scientific discovery was driven by the motivation to contribute computational tools to aid scientists in their research (Addis et al. 2016). It appears that computational methods can be used to generate new results leading to refereed scientific publications in astrophysics, cancer research, ecology, and other fields (Langley 2000). However, the philosophical discussion has continued about the question of whether these methods really generate new knowledge or whether they merely speed up data processing. It is also still an open question whether data-intensive science is fundamentally different from traditional research, for instance regarding the status of hypothesis or theory in data-intensive research (Pietsch 2015).

In the wake of recent developments in machine learning, some older discussions about automated discovery have been revived. The availability of vastly improved computational tools and software for data analysis has stimulated new discussions about computer-generated discovery (see Leonelli 2020). It is largely uncontroversial that machine learning tools can aid discovery, for instance in research on antibiotics (Stokes et al, 2020). The notion of “robot scientist” is mostly used metaphorically, and the vision that human scientists may one day be replaced by computers – by successors of the laboratory automation systems “Adam” and “Eve”, allegedly the first “robot scientists” – is evoked in writings for broader audiences (see King et al. 2009, Williams et al. 2015, for popularized descriptions of these systems), although some interesting ethical challenges do arise from “superhuman AI” (see Russell 2021). It also appears that, on the notion that products of creative acts are both novel and valuable, AI systems should be called “creative,” an implication which not all analysts will find plausible (Boden 2014)

Philosophical analyses focus on various questions arising from the processes involving human-machine complexes. One issue relevant to the problem of scientific discovery arises from the opacity of machine learning. If machine learning indeed escapes human understanding, how can we be warranted to say that knowledge or understanding is generated by deep learning tools? Might we have reason to say that humans and machines are “co-developers” of knowledge (Tamaddoni-Nezhad et al. 2021)?

New perspectives on scientific discovery have also opened up in the context of social epistemology (see Goldman & O’Connor 2021). Social epistemology investigates knowledge production as a group process, specifically the epistemic effects of group composition in terms of cognitive diversity and unity and social interactions within groups or institutions such as testimony and trust, peer disagreement and critique, and group justification, among others. On this view, discovery is a collective achievement, and the task is to explore how assorted social-epistemic activities or practices have an impact on the knowledge generated by groups in question. There are obvious implications for debates about scientific discovery of recent research in the different branches of social epistemology. Social epistemologists have examined individual cognitive agents in their roles as group members (as providers of information or as critics) and the interactions among these members (Longino 2001), groups as aggregates of diverse agents, or the entire group as epistemic agent (e.g., Koons 2021, Dragos 2019).

Standpoint theory, for instance, explores the role of outsiders in knowledge generation, considering how the sociocultural structures and practices in which individuals are embedded aid or obstruct the generation of creative ideas. According to standpoint theorists, people with standpoint are politically aware and politically engaged people outside the mainstream. Because people with standpoint have different experiences and access to different domains of expertise than most members of a culture, they can draw on rich conceptual resources for creative thinking (Solomon 2007).

Social epistemologists examining groups as aggregates of agents consider to what extent diversity among group members is conducive to knowledge production and whether and to what extent beliefs and attitudes must be shared among group members to make collective knowledge possible (Bird 2014). This is still an open question. Some formal approaches to model the influence of diversity on knowledge generation suggest that cognitive diversity is beneficial to collective knowledge generation (Weisberg and Muldoon 2009), but others have criticized the model (Alexander et al (2015), see also Thoma (2015) and Poyhönen (2017) for further discussion).

This essay has illustrated that philosophy of discovery has come full circle. Philosophy of discovery has once again become a thriving field of philosophical study, now intersecting with, and drawing on philosophical and empirical studies of creative thinking, problem solving under uncertainty, collective knowledge production, and machine learning. Recent approaches to discovery are typically explicitly interdisciplinary and integrative, cutting across previous distinctions among hypothesis generation and theory building, data collection, assessment, and selection; as well as descriptive-analytic, historical, and normative perspectives (Danks & Ippoliti 2018, Michel 2021). The goal no longer is to provide one overarching account of scientific discovery but to produce multifaceted analyses of past and present activities of knowledge generation in all their complexity and heterogeneity that are illuminating to the non-scientist and the scientific researcher alike.

• Abraham, A. 2019, The Neuroscience of Creativity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Addis, M., Sozou, P.D., Gobet, F. and Lane, P. R., 2016, “Computational scientific discovery and cognitive science theories”, in Mueller, V. C. (ed.) Computing and Philosophy , Springer, 83–87.
• Alexander, J., Himmelreich, J., and Thompson, C. 2015, Epistemic Landscapes, Optimal Search, and the Division of Cognitive Labor, Philosophy of Science 82: 424–453.
• Arabatzis, T. 1996, “Rethinking the ‘Discovery’ of the Electron,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B Studies In History and Philosophy of Modern Physics , 27: 405–435.
• Bartha, P., 2010, By Parallel Reasoning: The Construction and Evaluation of Analogical Arguments , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Bechtel, W. and R. Richardson, 1993, Discovering Complexity , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Benjamin, A.C., 1934, “The Mystery of Scientific Discovery ” Philosophy of Science , 1: 224–36.
• Bird, A. 2014, “When is There a Group that Knows? Distributed Cognition, Scientific Knowledge, and the Social Epistemic Subject”, in J. Lackey (ed.), Essays in Collective Epistemology , Oxford: Oxford University Press, 42–63.
• Blackburn, S. 2014, “Creativity and Not-So-Dumb Luck”, in Paul, E. S. and Kaufman, S. B. (eds.), The Philosophy of Creativity: New Essays , New York: Oxford Academic online edn. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199836963.003.0008.
• Blackwell, R.J., 1969, Discovery in the Physical Sciences , Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
• Boden, M.A., 2004, The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms , London: Routledge.
• –––, 2014, “Creativity and Artificial Intelligence: A Contradiction in Terms?”, in Paul, E. S. and Kaufman, S. B. (eds.), The Philosophy of Creativity: New Essays (New York: Oxford Academic online edn., https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199836963.003.0012 .
• Brannigan, A., 1981, The Social Basis of Scientific Discoveries , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Brem, S. and L.J. Rips, 2000, “Explanation and Evidence in Informal Argument”, Cognitive Science , 24: 573–604.
• Campbell, D., 1960, “Blind Variation and Selective Retention in Creative Thought as in Other Knowledge Processes”, Psychological Review , 67: 380–400.
• Carmichael, R.D., 1922, “The Logic of Discovery”, The Monist , 32: 569–608.
• –––, 1930, The Logic of Discovery , Chicago: Open Court.
• Chow, S. 2015, “Many Meanings of ‘Heuristic’”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science , 66: 977–1016
• Craver, C.F., 2002, “Interlevel Experiments, Multilevel Mechanisms in the Neuroscience of Memory”, Philosophy of Science Supplement , 69: 83–97.
• Craver, C.F. and L. Darden, 2013, In Search of Mechanisms: Discoveries across the Life Sciences , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Curd, M., 1980, “The Logic of Discovery: An Analysis of Three Approaches”, in T. Nickles (ed.) Scientific Discovery, Logic, and Rationality , Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 201–19.
• Danks, D. & Ippoliti, E. (eds.) 2018, Building Theories: Heuristics and Hypotheses in Sciences , Cham: Springer.
• Darden, L., 1991, Theory Change in Science: Strategies from Mendelian Genetics , New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2002, “Strategies for Discovering Mechanisms: Schema Instantiation, Modular Subassembly, Forward/Backward Chaining”, Philosophy of Science , 69: S354-S65.
• –––, 2009, “Discovering Mechanisms in Molecular Biology: Finding and Fixing Incompleteness and Incorrectness”, in J. Meheus and T. Nickles (eds.), Models of Discovery and Creativity , Dordrecht: Springer, 43–55.
• Dewey, J. 1910, How We Think . Boston: D.C. Heath
• Dragos, C., 2019, “Groups Can Know How” American Philosophical Quarterly 56: 265–276
• Ducasse, C.J., 1951, “Whewell’s Philosophy of Scientific Discovery II”, The Philosophical Review , 60(2): 213–34.
• Dunbar, K., 1997, “How scientists think: On-line creativity and conceptual change in science”, in T.B. Ward, S.M. Smith, and J. Vaid (eds.), Conceptual Structures and Processes: Emergence, Discovery, and Change , Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press, 461–493.
• –––, 2001, “The Analogical Paradox: Why Analogy is so Easy in Naturalistic Settings Yet so Difficult in Psychological Laboratories”, in D. Gentner, K.J. Holyoak, and B.N. Kokinov (eds.), The Analogical Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Dunbar, K, J. Fugelsang, and C Stein, 2007, “Do Naïve Theories Ever Go Away? Using Brain and Behavior to Understand Changes in Concepts”, in M. Lovett and P. Shah (eds.), Thinking with Data: 33rd Carnegie Symposium on Cognition , Mahwah: Erlbaum, 193–205.
• Feist, G.J., 1999, “The Influence of Personality on Artistic and Scientific Creativity”, in R.J. Sternberg (ed.), Handbook of Creativity , New York: Cambridge University Press, 273–96.
• –––, 2006, The psychology of science and the origins of the scientific mind , New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Gillies D., 1996, Artificial intelligence and scientific method . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2018 “Discovering Cures in Medicine” in Danks, D. & Ippoliti, E. (eds.), Building Theories: Heuristics and Hypotheses in Sciences , Cham: Springer, 83–100.
• Goldman, Alvin & O’Connor, C., 2021, “Social Epistemology”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2021 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2021/entries/epistemology-social/>.
• Gramelsberger, G. 2011, “What Do Numerical (Climate) Models Really Represent?” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 42: 296–302.
• Gutting, G., 1980, “Science as Discovery”, Revue internationale de philosophie , 131: 26–48.
• Hanson, N.R., 1958, Patterns of Discovery , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 1960, “Is there a Logic of Scientific Discovery?”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy , 38: 91–106.
• –––, 1965, “Notes Toward a Logic of Discovery”, in R.J. Bernstein (ed.), Perspectives on Peirce. Critical Essays on Charles Sanders Peirce , New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 42–65.
• Harman, G.H., 1965, “The Inference to the Best Explanation”, Philosophical Review , 74.
• Hausman, C. R. 1984, A Discourse on Novelty and Creation , New York: SUNY Press.
• Hempel, C.G., 1985, “Thoughts in the Limitations of Discovery by Computer”, in K. Schaffner (ed.), Logic of Discovery and Diagnosis in Medicine , Berkeley: University of California Press, 115–22.
• Hesse, M., 1966, Models and Analogies in Science , Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
• Hey, S. 2016 “Heuristics and Meta-heuristics in Scientific Judgement”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science , 67: 471–495
• Hills, A., Bird, A. 2019, “Against Creativity”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 99: 694–713.
• Holyoak, K.J. and P. Thagard, 1996, Mental Leaps: Analogy in Creative Thought , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Howard, D., 2006, “Lost Wanderers in the Forest of Knowledge: Some Thoughts on the Discovery-Justification Distinction”, in J. Schickore and F. Steinle (eds.), Revisiting Discovery and Justification. Historical and Philosophical Perspectives on the Context Distinction , Dordrecht: Springer, 3–22.
• Hoyningen-Huene, P., 1987, “Context of Discovery and Context of Justification”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science , 18: 501–15.
• Hull, D.L., 1988, Science as Practice: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Ippoliti, E. 2018, “Heuristic Logic. A Kernel” in Danks, D. & Ippoliti, E. (eds.) Building Theories: Heuristics and Hypotheses in Sciences , Cham: Springer, 191–212
• Jantzen, B.C., 2016, “Discovery without a ‘Logic’ would be a Miracle”, Synthese , 193: 3209–3238.
• Johnson-Laird, P., 1983, Mental Models , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Kieran, M., 2014, “Creativity as a Virtue of Character,” in E. Paul and S. B. Kaufman (eds.), The Philosophy of Creativity: New Essays . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 125–44
• King, R. D. et al. 2009, “The Automation of Science”, Science 324: 85–89.
• Koehler, D.J., 1991, “Explanation, Imagination, and Confidence in Judgment”, Psychological Bulletin , 110: 499–519.
• Koertge, N. 1980, “Analysis as a Method of Discovery during the Scientific Revolution” in Nickles, T. (ed.) Scientific Discovery, Logic, and Rationality vol. I, Dordrecht: Reidel, 139–157
• Koons, J.R. 2021, “Knowledge as a Collective Status”, Analytic Philosophy , https://doi.org/10.1111/phib.12224
• Kounios, J. and Beeman, M. 2009, “The Aha! Moment : The Cognitive Neuroscience of Insight”, Current Directions in Psychological Science , 18: 210–16.
• Kordig, C., 1978, “Discovery and Justification”, Philosophy of Science , 45: 110–17.
• Kronfeldner, M. 2009, “Creativity Naturalized”, The Philosophical Quarterly 59: 577–592.
• Kuhn, T.S., 1970 [1962], The Structure of Scientific Revolutions , 2 nd edition, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; first edition, 1962.
• Kulkarni, D. and H.A. Simon, 1988, “The processes of scientific discovery: The strategy of experimentation”, Cognitive Science , 12: 139–76.
• Langley, P., 2000, “The Computational Support of Scientific Discovery”, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies , 53: 393–410.
• Langley, P., H.A. Simon, G.L. Bradshaw, and J.M. Zytkow, 1987, Scientific Discovery: Computational Explorations of the Creative Processes , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Laudan, L., 1980, “Why Was the Logic of Discovery Abandoned?” in T. Nickles (ed.), Scientific Discovery (Volume I), Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 173–83.
• Leonelli, S. 2020, “Scientific Research and Big Data”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/science-big-data/>
• Leplin, J., 1987, “The Bearing of Discovery on Justification”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy , 17: 805–14.
• Longino, H. 2001, The Fate of Knowledge , Princeton: Princeton University Press
• Lugg, A., 1985, “The Process of Discovery”, Philosophy of Science , 52: 207–20.
• Magnani, L., 2000, Abduction, Reason, and Science: Processes of Discovery and Explanation , Dordrecht: Kluwer.
• –––, 2009, “Creative Abduction and Hypothesis Withdrawal”, in J. Meheus and T. Nickles (eds.), Models of Discovery and Creativity , Dordrecht: Springer.
• Magnani, L. and N.J. Nersessian, 2002, Model-Based Reasoning: Science, Technology, and Values , Dordrecht: Kluwer.
• Magnani, L., N.J. Nersessian, and P. Thagard, 1999, Model-Based Reasoning in Scientific Discovery , Dordrecht: Kluwer.
• Michel, J. (ed.) 2021, Making Scientific Discoveries. Interdisciplinary Reflections , Brill | mentis.
• Minai, A., Doboli, S., Iyer, L. 2022 “Models of Creativity and Ideation: An Overview” in Ali A. Minai, Jared B. Kenworthy, Paul B. Paulus, Simona Doboli (eds.), Creativity and Innovation. Cognitive, Social, and Computational Approaches , Springer, 21–46.
• Nersessian, N.J., 1992, “How do scientists think? Capturing the dynamics of conceptual change in science”, in R. Giere (ed.), Cognitive Models of Science , Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 3–45.
• –––, 1999, “Model-based reasoning in conceptual change”, in L. Magnani, N.J. Nersessian and P. Thagard (eds.), Model-Based Reasoning in Scientific Discovery , New York: Kluwer, 5–22.
• –––, 2009, “Conceptual Change: Creativity, Cognition, and Culture ” in J. Meheus and T. Nickles (eds.), Models of Discovery and Creativity , Dordrecht: Springer, 127–66.
• Newell, A. and H. A Simon, 1971, “Human Problem Solving: The State of the Theory in 1970”, American Psychologist , 26: 145–59.
• Newton, I. 1718, Opticks; or, A Treatise of the Reflections, Inflections and Colours of Light , London: Printed for W. and J. Innys, Printers to the Royal Society.
• Nickles, T., 1984, “Positive Science and Discoverability”, PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , 1984: 13–27.
• –––, 1985, “Beyond Divorce: Current Status of the Discovery Debate”, Philosophy of Science , 52: 177–206.
• –––, 1989, “Truth or Consequences? Generative versus Consequential Justification in Science”, PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , 1988, 393–405.
• –––, 2018, “TTT: A Fast Heuristic to New Theories?” in Danks, D. & Ippoliti, E. (eds.) Building Theories: Heuristics and Hypotheses in Sciences , Cham: Springer, 213–244.
• Pasquale, J.-F. de and Poirier, P. 2016, “Convolution and Modal Representations in Thagard and Stewart’s Neural Theory of Creativity: A Critical Analysis ”, Synthese , 193: 1535–1560
• Paul, E. S. and Kaufman, S. B. (eds.), 2014a, The Philosophy of Creativity: New Essays , New York: Oxford Academic online edn., https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199836963.001.0001.
• –––, 2014b, “Introducing: The Philosophy of Creativity”, in Paul, E. S. and Kaufman, S. B. (eds.), The Philosophy of Creativity: New Essays (New York: Oxford Academic online edn., https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199836963.003.0001.
• Pietsch, W. 2015, “Aspects of Theory-Ladenness in Data-Intensive Science”, Philosophy of Science 82: 905–916.
• Popper, K., 2002 [1934/1959], The Logic of Scientific Discovery , London and New York: Routledge; original published in German in 1934; first English translation in 1959.
• Pöyhönen, S. 2017, “Value of Cognitive Diversity in Science”, Synthese , 194(11): 4519–4540. doi:10.1007/s11229–016-1147-4
• Pulte, H. 2019, “‘‘Tis Much Better to Do a Little with Certainty’: On the Reception of Newton’s Methodology”, in The Reception of Isaac Newton in Europe , Pulte, H, and Mandelbrote, S. (eds.), Continuum Publishing Corporation, 355–84.
• Reichenbach, H., 1938, Experience and Prediction. An Analysis of the Foundations and the Structure of Knowledge , Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Richardson, A., 2006, “Freedom in a Scientific Society: Reading the Context of Reichenbach’s Contexts”, in J. Schickore and F. Steinle (eds.), Revisiting Discovery and Justification. Historical and Philosophical Perspectives on the Context Distinction , Dordrecht: Springer, 41–54.
• Russell, S. 2021, “Human-Compatible Artificial Intelligence”, in Human Like Machine Intelligence , Muggleton, S. and Charter, N. (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 4–23
• Schaffer, S., 1986, “Scientific Discoveries and the End of Natural Philosophy”, Social Studies of Science , 16: 387–420.
• –––, 1994, “Making Up Discovery”, in M.A. Boden (ed.), Dimensions of Creativity , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 13–51.
• Schaffner, K., 1993, Discovery and Explanation in Biology and Medicine , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• –––, 2008 “Theories, Models, and Equations in Biology: The Heuristic Search for Emergent Simplifications in Neurobiology”, Philosophy of Science , 75: 1008–21.
• Schickore, J. and F. Steinle, 2006, Revisiting Discovery and Justification. Historical and Philosophical Perspectives on the Context Distinction , Dordrecht: Springer.
• Schiller, F.C.S., 1917, “Scientific Discovery and Logical Proof”, in C.J. Singer (ed.), Studies in the History and Method of Science (Volume 1), Oxford: Clarendon, 235–89.
• Simon, H.A., 1973, “Does Scientific Discovery Have a Logic?”, Philosophy of Science , 40: 471–80.
• –––, 1977, Models of Discovery and Other Topics in the Methods of Science , Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
• Simon, H.A., P.W. Langley, and G.L. Bradshaw, 1981, “Scientific Discovery as Problem Solving”, Synthese , 47: 1–28.
• Smith, G.E., 2002, “The Methodology of the Principia ”, in G.E. Smith and I.B. Cohen (eds), The Cambridge Companion to Newton , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 138–73.
• Simonton, D. K., “Hierarchies of Creative Domains: Disciplinary Constraints on Blind Variation and Selective Retention”, in Paul, E. S. and Kaufman, S. B. (eds), The Philosophy of Creativity: New Essays , New York: Oxford Academic online edn. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199836963.003.0013
• Snyder, L.J., 1997, “Discoverers’ Induction”, Philosophy of Science , 64: 580–604.
• Solomon, M., 2009, “Standpoint and Creativity”, Hypatia : 226–37.
• Sternberg, R J. and T. I. Lubart, 1999, “The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms,” in R. J. Sternberg (ed.) Handbook of Creativity , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3–15.
• Stokes, D., 2011, “Minimally Creative Thought”, Metaphilosophy , 42: 658–81.
• Tamaddoni-Nezhad, A., Bohan, D., Afroozi Milani, G., Raybould, A., Muggleton, S., 2021, “Human–Machine Scientific Discovery”, in Human Like Machine Intelligence , Muggleton, S. and Charter, N., (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 297–315
• Thagard, P., 1984, “Conceptual Combination and Scientific Discovery”, PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , 1984(1): 3–12.
• –––, 1999, How Scientists Explain Disease , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• –––, 2010, “How Brains Make Mental Models”, in L. Magnani, N.J. Nersessian and P. Thagard (eds.), Model-Based Reasoning in Science & Technology , Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer, 447–61.
• –––, 2012, The Cognitive Science of Science , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Thagard, P. and Stewart, T. C., 2011, “The AHA! Experience: Creativity Through Emergent Binding in Neural Networks”, Cognitive Science , 35: 1–33.
• Thoma, Johanna, 2015, “The Epistemic Division of Labor Revisited”, Philosophy of Science , 82: 454–472. doi:10.1086/681768
• Weber, M., 2005, Philosophy of Experimental Biology , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Whewell, W., 1996 [1840], The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences (Volume II), London: Routledge/Thoemmes.
• Weisberg, M. and Muldoon, R., 2009, “Epistemic Landscapes and the Division of Cognitive Labor”, Philosophy of Science , 76: 225–252. doi:10.1086/644786
• Williams, K. et al. 2015, “Cheaper Faster Drug Development Validated by the Repositioning of Drugs against Neglected Tropical Diseases”, Journal of the Royal Society Interface 12: 20141289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2014.1289.
• Zahar, E., 1983, “Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Invention?”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science , 34: 243–61.
• Zednik, C. and Jäkel, F. 2016 “Bayesian Reverse-Engineering Considered as a Research Strategy for Cognitive Science”, Synthese , 193, 3951–3985.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

[Please contact the author with suggestions.]

abduction | analogy and analogical reasoning | cognitive science | epistemology: social | knowledge: analysis of | Kuhn, Thomas | models in science | Newton, Isaac: Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica | Popper, Karl | rationality: historicist theories of | scientific method | scientific research and big data | Whewell, William

Copyright © 2022 by Jutta Schickore < jschicko @ indiana . edu >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Logo Left Content

Logo Right Content

Stanford University School of Medicine blog

How a Nobel laureate’s life story and encouraging words inspire my scientific journey

Editor's update: Emily Ashkin is featured in a podcast from The Lasker Foundation.

My legs were starting to ache from standing by my research poster for nearly ten hours. At 15, I was anxiously awaiting the possibility to speak to my biggest role model, J. Michael Bishop , MD.

I'd heard rumors from other students who had previously participated in the International Science and Engineering Fair (ISEF) that the Nobel Laureate walks around from poster to poster to speak with students during the Public Showcase Day. However, they said he usually only goes up to posters of students who scored highest the previous day of judging.

I did not believe that I had done well during the judging sessions, and was disheartened at the thought that I might not have the opportunity to meet my scientific hero.

I first learned Dr. Bishop's story at the age of 11. This was around the same time a family member was diagnosed with cancer, and I had made it my life goal to study the disease.

However, I had no means to pursue a career in science. As a Latina, with neither of my parents as scientists, I had no one to pave a path for me to follow.

Contributions that extend beyond science

With encouragement from my mom's doctors, I started learning the basics and foundations of cancer biology. And that was where I came across Dr. Bishop's paradigm-shifting scientific discoveries. Very quickly, I learned that Dr. Bishop's contributions to science extended far beyond his discoveries in the lab. Every year, Dr. Bishop serves as a mentor and speaks as part of a panel at the ISEF poster session.

He speaks about his childhood and how he had hardly been exposed to science. Throughout his college education, he never imagined himself as a scientist. He had even been denied entry into countless labs due to a lack of prior experience. He had an ambition to become a scientist, but lacked the guidance to visualize his future career. Over time, he developed relationships with mentors who believed in him. More importantly, he learned how to believe in himself.

I found inspiration in Dr. Bishop's goal of becoming a scientist and his willingness to be open and vulnerable -- he often gave talks about experiencing self-doubt. Dr. Bishop is a role model for anyone who -- like me -- comes from an unconventional background, inspiring us to persevere and work through self-doubt to pursue a career in science.

Talking with my hero

After learning Dr. Bishop's story, I realized that there is no exact mold that dictates the development of a scientist, and I became more determined to continue studying cancer biology. I also became determined to keep sharing his message with the generations of scientists who will follow me.

All of this weighed heavily on my mind as I looked up and realized that Dr. Bishop was inches away from the aisle of posters nearest to mine. I ran up to my hero and asked him to come to my poster even if I wasn't on his list. He was kind enough to spend almost an hour with me, discussing my research and ultimately my goal to pursue a PhD.

I conveyed to him my self-doubt, given my background, and how learning about his story of discovering that science was right for him gave me direction.

Dr. Bishop looked me in the eyes and made it clear to me that my background was a strength, something that I hold onto to this day.

Continuing to draw inspiration

I continue to draw inspiration from him throughout my scientific journey, especially when I face obstacles, such as difficult classes or failed experiments.

Seven years after meeting Dr. Bishop, I have the privilege of pursuing a PhD in cancer biology, and my path continues to mirror his. I find guidance in how he handled the uncertainty he faced, but also the value he places on mentoring young minds.

I am devoting my graduate and scientific career to mentoring students from underrepresented backgrounds through teaching, guiding them through their own research projects, and openly sharing my own story, just as Dr. Bishop has.

I aspire to keep paving new paths and to become a role model to other young minds. I want to inspire them to turn to science and critical thinking to solve problems affecting themselves, their families and their communities.

This piece, originally in a longer form , was among 11 winners of the 2020 Lasker Essay Contest , which recognizes writing by young scientists from around the world. It first appeared on Scope in the summer of 2020.

Emily Ashkin is a PhD candidate in the lab of Monte Winslow , PhD, and part of Stanford Medicine's Cancer Biology Program . Emily has a strong passion for inclusivity in science and science communication. Feel free to communicate at  [email protected] .

Top photo courtesy of Emily Ashkin. Photo of Bishop by General Motors Cancer Research Foundation .

Related posts

A winning essayist’s tips for keeping track of scientific facts

Brother’s brain surgery inspires Stanford MD-PhD student

Popular posts.

Are long COVID sufferers falling through the cracks?

Is an increase in penile length cause for concern?

How to Write a Scientific Essay

When writing any essay it’s important to always keep the end goal in mind. You want to produce a document that is detailed, factual, about the subject matter and most importantly to the point.

Writing scientific essays will always be slightly different to when you write an essay for say English Literature . You need to be more analytical and precise when answering your questions. To help achieve this, you need to keep three golden rules in mind.

• Analysing the question, so that you know exactly what you have to do

Planning your answer

• Writing the essay

Now, let’s look at these steps in more detail to help you fully understand how to apply the three golden rules.

Analysing the question

• Start by looking at the instruction. Essays need to be written out in continuous prose. You shouldn’t be using bullet points or writing in note form.
• If it helps to make a particular point, however, you can use a diagram providing it is relevant and adequately explained.
• Look at the topic you are required to write about. The wording of the essay title tells you what you should confine your answer to – there is no place for interesting facts about other areas.

The next step is to plan your answer. What we are going to try to do is show you how to produce an effective plan in a very short time. You need a framework to show your knowledge otherwise it is too easy to concentrate on only a few aspects.

For example, when writing an essay on biology we can divide the topic up in a number of different ways. So, if you have to answer a question like ‘Outline the main properties of life and system reproduction’

The steps for planning are simple. Firstly, define the main terms within the question that need to be addressed. Then list the properties asked for and lastly, roughly assess how many words of your word count you are going to allocate to each term.

Writing the Essay

The final step (you’re almost there), now you have your plan in place for the essay, it’s time to get it all down in black and white. Follow your plan for answering the question, making sure you stick to the word count, check your spelling and grammar and give credit where credit’s (always reference your sources).

How Tutors Breakdown Essays

An exceptional essay

• reflects the detail that could be expected from a comprehensive knowledge and understanding of relevant parts of the specification
• is free from fundamental errors
• maintains appropriate depth and accuracy throughout
• includes two or more paragraphs of material that indicates greater depth or breadth of study

A good essay

An average essay

• contains a significant amount of material that reflects the detail that could be expected from a knowledge and understanding of relevant parts of the specification.

In practice this will amount to about half the essay.

• is likely to reflect limited knowledge of some areas and to be patchy in quality
• demonstrates a good understanding of basic principles with some errors and evidence of misunderstanding

A poor essay

• contains much material which is below the level expected of a candidate who has completed the course
• Contains fundamental errors reflecting a poor grasp of basic principles and concepts

Privacy Overview

How to Write a Scientific Essay

Unlock the secrets to crafting compelling scientific essays with our comprehensive guide for school students. From structuring your argument to mastering scientific writing style, discover essential tips for success in academia. Perfect for students navigating the intricacies of scientific writing, our blog offers invaluable insights to elevate your essays to the next level.

Did you think essay-writing was confined to the sphere of the Humanities? Think again! It is crucial for scientists to be able to communicate their ideas, to share their advances in order to find solutions to make the world a better place. Good writing is hugely important to scientists, to present their data and conclusions clearly and logically. Scientists strive to have their work published in journals such as Nature , which publishes cutting-edge peer-reviewed research in all fields of science and technology - how would they do so without being able to write?

How Do I Write Like a Scientist?

Research: The most effective writers will have researched their topic in-depth. Get a subscription to an age-appropriate scientific journal such as the Young Scientist Journal , listen to the Science Weekly Guardian podcast , read journal articles: sciencejournalforkids.org , watch Ted Ed talks on scientific topics.

Plan your essay effectively: Make sure you understand the title, write down definitions of key terms, take notes when reading, only pick key information to include, find examples or evidence to demonstrate findings. Group your main points into a logical structure, writing topic sentences for each paragraph. You could also structure your essay with subheadings - plan the structure for these to ensure your argument flows logically from beginning to end.

Write clearly and concisely: Your writing should be simple and direct, not flowery and overly complex. No metaphors or long sentences.

Be analytical & critical: A successful piece of scientific writing will bring together facts, analyse them and support with evidence. The analysis is the most important bit - do not cite evidence without analysing it, give your opinion, and make sure you link your analysis back to the question at hand.

Diagrams: You may like to illustrate findings with a diagram or two. Make sure they link to your argument, and research how to properly reference them.

Logic & reasoning is almost as important as actual conclusions - demonstrate your logical thinking process in your writing - think through the problem at hand and map out your solution.

How to Plan Your Scientific Essay

When tackling your first scientific essay, it's normal to feel a bit daunted. But fear not! We're here to help you navigate through the process effectively.

Start by breaking down the essay title. Make sure you understand all the key terms involved. This will give you a clear direction for your research. Speaking of research, begin with broad sources like textbooks to get an overview of the topic. Then, delve deeper into more specialised materials as you become more comfortable with the subject.

As you read, take notes. But remember, not everything you find will be relevant to your essay. The trick is to identify the most important information and examples that support your argument . This requires some skill in discernment.

When it comes to actually starting your essay, don't feel pressured to begin at the beginning. Sometimes, it's easier to tackle the middle sections first, where the structure is clearer. You can always circle back to the introduction and conclusion later.

Here are some key points to think about during the planning stage:

Start with broad research sources like textbooks to gain an overview of the topic.

Progress to more specialised materials as comfort with the subject increases.

Take concise notes while reading, focusing on information relevant to the essay.

Identify the most crucial information and examples that support the argument.

Begin writing the essay, considering starting with the middle sections for clarity.

Circle back to the introduction and conclusion once the main body is outlined.

Ask essential questions during the planning stage:

Which terms require definition in the introduction?

How will paragraph structure enhance clarity of argument?

What level of detail is appropriate for each section?

Which visual aids will complement the explanation?

What experimental evidence is necessary to support the points?

What key points should be emphasised in the conclusion?

Remember, writing a scientific essay is a process. Take your time, stay organised, and don't hesitate to seek assistance if you need it. Minds Underground’s STEM mentors are able to host tutorial sessions on this if you need! (Contact us here to find out more). With careful planning and attention to detail, you'll craft an essay that demonstrates your understanding of the topic and your ability to analyse and communicate scientific ideas effectively.

Scientific Essay Structure

Here are some tips to guide you on the structure of a scientific essay:

Introduction: The introduction is often the most difficult section to write. Begin with a thesis statement (your key argument in answer to the question), define key words and lay out how your argument will progress through the essay (what will you say in each paragraph?)

Main body: Use subheadings or divide your essay into clearly defined sections with accompanied diagrams as in a scientific textbook. This will make it easier for you to structure your writing and is a common method used by scientists to enhance their essay’s clarity and readability. Subheadings serve as signposts, aiding both you and your readers in navigating through your essay's content seamlessly. Make sure your argument is coherent and has a logical flow from beginning to end. Refer to the question throughout.

Conclusion: Refer back to the title and summarise your argument.

Diagrams: In scientific essays, the inclusion of diagrams is not only encouraged but essential. These visual aids not only illustrate your points effectively, but also streamline your communication process. As the adage goes, "a picture is worth a thousand words," and this holds especially true in scientific writing, where time constraints can be a significant factor, such as in exam conditions. Draw these in pencil, correctly label and fit them into the text of your essay e.g. "Fig 1 shows...". You could take a picture of your diagrams and insert into your essay on the computer. When creating diagrams, ensure they adhere to the following guidelines:

Opt for large-scale diagrams to enhance visibility.

Use pencil for drawing to allow for easy adjustments.

Provide clear titles for each diagram.

Ensure accurate labelling of all components.

If you are a student at school rather than university, using diagrams from other research papers may also be permissible. If you plan to use diagrams from other sources, it's essential to provide proper attribution to the original creators . This includes citing the source of the diagram in your essay or assignment. Avoid using diagrams simply as a substitute for original work or to fill space without adding value to your assignment.

Referencing: Learn how to reference articles and books, it is important to acknowledge sources. Normally these are footnoted in the main body of the essay and recorded in a short bibliography at the end.

Be careful which resources you use - you should make sure your sources have been reviewed by professional scientists and intended for academic study.

Why not have a read through a respected scientific journal like Nature to see how actual scientists format and structure their essays?

Developing Your Scientific Prose: Key Elements of Style

There's a common misconception that academic writing demands complex language and intricate sentence structures. However, the essence of effective scientific writing lies in simplicity and clarity rather than complexity.

Striving for Clarity

Your goal should be to develop a scientific writing style that is clear, concise, and devoid of ambiguity. Scientific writing thrives on precision in terminology rather than convoluted sentence structures.

Guiding Principles

1. Direct Language: Avoid the use of overly complex language and opt for direct and straightforward expression. Precision in terminology is key to ensuring clarity.

2. Conciseness: Trim unnecessary words and phrases to achieve brevity and clarity in your writing. Focus on conveying your message succinctly without sacrificing depth.

3. Logical Structure: Organise your essay in a logical manner, with each section flowing seamlessly into the next. Clear transitions between ideas help maintain coherence and aid comprehension.

Distinguishing Styles

You may have encountered science articles tailored for general audiences in newspapers and magazines. It's crucial to discern between writing for non-specialists and the stylistic requirements for your scientific essays.

Contrasting Objectives

Popular science writers often simplify complex concepts, emphasise broad themes, and aim to captivate readers with engaging narratives. However, as a budding scientist, your objective differs:

Present complex concepts clearly without oversimplification.

Focus on scientific detail rather than historical context.

Utilise annotated diagrams to elucidate your argument.

Employ precise language and avoid unnecessary embellishments.

The Final Check: Ensuring Your Essay Shines

As you near the completion of your scientific essay, it's essential to allocate time for a thorough review before submission. While you may not have the luxury of extensive drafting and redrafting, a comprehensive review can significantly enhance the quality and coherence of your work.

Importance of Reviewing

Before your submission deadline, take the time to read through your essay with a critical eye. Ideally, allow yourself an overnight break between writing and reviewing to approach the essay with a fresh perspective. This pause can help you identify areas for improvement more effectively.

Key Elements to Review

During your review, focus on the following key aspects of your essay:

Relevance: Ensure that your essay directly addresses the question or prompt provided. Check that you haven't veered off track or failed to address certain aspects of the question.

Accuracy: Pay attention to spelling and grammar errors, as well as factual inaccuracies. Clear and concise language enhances the readability and credibility of your essay.

Coherence and Logic: Evaluate the overall flow and organisation of your argument. Ensure that each paragraph builds upon the previous one and that your ideas are presented in a logical sequence.

Evidence and Support: Assess whether your argument is adequately supported by relevant and credible evidence. Make sure that you have cited sources appropriately and integrated evidence seamlessly into your discussion.

Common Pitfalls to Avoid

Be mindful of common pitfalls that can undermine the effectiveness of your essay:

Misinterpreting the Question: Double-check that you have accurately interpreted the question and provided a focused response. Avoid tangential discussions or addressing only part of the question.

Lack of Focus: Resist the temptation to stray from the main argument or delve into unrelated topics. Stay focused on addressing the specific question at hand.

Insufficient Evidence: Ensure that you have provided enough evidence to support your claims and arguments. Avoid making unsupported assertions or relying solely on anecdotal evidence.

Final Thoughts

Thorough planning and careful review are essential steps in crafting a successful scientific essay. By dedicating time to review and refine your work, you can maximise its clarity, coherence, and effectiveness. Remember, the goal is not just to submit an essay but to present a compelling and well-supported argument that demonstrates your understanding of the subject matter. With diligent review and attention to detail, your essay will shine brightly among your peers!

The Rise in Hacking & Fake News - Is Social Media Worth It?

The ever-advancing nature of medicine: new treatments for matters of the heart.

Essays About Science: Top 12 Examples and Prompts

Science can explain almost every aspect of our lives; if you want to write essays about science, start by reading our guide.

The word “science” comes from the Latin word Scientia or “knowledge,” It does indeed leave us with no shortage of knowledge as it advances to extraordinary levels. It is present in almost every aspect of our lives, allowing us to live the way we do today and helping us improve society. 

In the 21st century, we see science everywhere. It has given us the technology we deem “essential” today, from our mobile phones to air conditioning units to lightbulbs and refrigerators. Yet, it has also allowed us to learn so much about the unknown, such as the endless vacuum of space and the ocean’s mysterious depths. It is, without a doubt, a vehicle for humanity to obtain knowledge and use this knowledge to flourish. 

To start writing essays about science, look at some of our featured essay examples below. 

1. The challenging environment for science in the 21st century by Nithaya Chetty 

2. disadvantages of science by ella gray, 3. reflections from a nobel winner: scientists need time to make discoveries by donna strickland.

• 4.  ​​The fact of cloning by Cesar Hill

5. T. Rex Like You Haven’t Seen Him: With Feathers by Jason Farago

6. common, cheap ingredients can break down some ‘forever chemicals’ by jude coleman, 1. what is science, 2. a noteworthy scientist, 3. why is it important to study science, 4. are robots a net positive for society, 5. types of sciences, 6. science’s role in warfare.

“Open-ended, unfettered science in its purest form has, over the centuries, been pursued in the interests of understanding nature in a fundamental way, and long may that continue. Scientific ideas and discoveries have often been very successfully exploited for commercial gain and societal improvements, and much of the science system today the world over is designed to push scientists in the direction of more relevance.”

For South Africa to prosper, Chetty encourages cooperation and innovation among scientists. He discusses several problems the country faces, including the politicization of research, a weak economy, and misuse of scientific discoveries. These challenges, he believes, can be overcome if the nation works as one and with the international community and if the education system is improved. 

“Technology can make people lazy. Many people are already dependent and embrace this technology. Like students playing computer games instead of going to school or study. Technology also brings us privacy issues. From cell phone signal interceptions to email hacking, people are now worried about their once private information becoming public knowledge and making profit out of video scandals.”

Gray discusses the adverse effects technology, a science product, has had on human life and society. These include pollution, the inability to communicate properly, and laziness. 

She also acknowledges that technology has made life easier for almost everyone but believes that technology, as it is used now, is detrimental; more responsible use of technology is ideal.

“We must give scientists the opportunity through funding and time to pursue curiosity-based, long-term, basic-science research. Work that does not have direct ramifications for industry or our economy is also worthy. There’s no telling what can come from supporting a curious mind trying to discover something new.”

Strickland, a Nobel Prize winner, explains that a great scientific discovery can only come with ample time for scientists to research, using her work as an example. She describes her work on chirped pulse amplification and its possible applications, including removing brain tumors. Her Nobel-awarded work was done over a long time, and scientists must be afforded ample time and funding to make breakthroughs like hers. 

4.  ​​ The fact of cloning by Cesar Hill

“Any research into human cloning would eventually need to be tested on humans. Cloning might be used to create a “perfect human”. Cloning might have a detrimental effect family relationship. However the debate over cloning has more pros out weighting the cons, giving us a over site of the many advantages cloning has and the effects of it as well. Cloning has many ups and downs nevertheless there are many different ways in which it can be used to adapt and analyse new ways of medicine.”

Hill details both the pros and cons of cloning. It can be used for medical purposes and help us understand genetics more, perhaps even allowing us to prevent genetic diseases in children. However, it is expensive, and many oppose it on religious grounds. Regardless, Hill believes that the process has more advantages than disadvantages and is a net good. 

“For the kids who will throng this new exhibition, and who will adore this show’s colorful animations and fossilized dino poop, T. rex may still appear to be a thrilling monster. But staring in the eyes of the feather-flecked annihilators here, adults may have a more uncanny feeling of identification with the beasts at the pinnacle of the food chain. You can be a killer of unprecedented savagery, but the climate always takes the coup de grâce.”

In his essay, Farago reviews an exhibition on the Tyrannosaurus Rex involving an important scientific discovery: it was a feathered dinosaur. He details the different displays in the exhibition, including models of other dinosaurs that helped scientists realize that the T-Rex had feathers. 

“Understanding this mechanism is just one step in undoing forever chemicals, Dichtel’s team said. And more research is needed: There are other classes of PFAS that require their own solutions. This process wouldn’t work to tackle PFAS out in the environment, because it requires a concentrated amount of the chemicals. But it could one day be used in wastewater treatment plants, where the pollutants could be filtered out of the water, concentrated and then broken down.”

Coleman explains a discovery by which scientists were able to break down a perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substance, a “forever chemical” dangerous to the environment. He explains how they could break the chemical bond and turn the “forever chemical” into something harmless. This is important because pollution can be reduced significantly, particularly in the water. 

Writing Prompts on Essays about Science

“Science” is quite a broad term and encompasses many concepts and definitions. Define science, explain what it involves and how we can use it, and give examples of how it is present in the world. If you want, you can also briefly discuss what science means to you personally. 

Many individuals have made remarkable scientific discoveries, contributing to the wealth of knowledge we have acquired through science. For your essay, choose one scientist you feel has made a noteworthy contribution to their field. Then, give a brief background on the scientists and explain the discovery or invention that makes them essential. 

Consider what it means to study science: how is it relevant now? What lessons can we learn from science? Then, examine the presence of science in today’s world and write about the importance of science in our day-to-day lives- be sure to give examples to support your points. Finally, in your essay, be sure to keep in mind the times we are living in today.

When we think of science, robots are often one of the first things that come to mind. However, there is much to discuss regarding safety, especially artificial intelligence. Discuss the pros and cons of robots and AI, then conclude whether or not the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. Finally, provide adequate evidence to reinforce your argument and explain it in detail. 

From biology to chemistry to physics, science has many branches, each dealing with different aspects of the world and universe. Choose one branch of science and then explain what it is, define basic concepts under this science, and give examples of how it is applied: Are any inventions requiring it? How about something we know today thanks to scientific discovery? Answer these questions in your own words for a compelling essay.

Undoubtedly, technology developed using science has had devastating effects, from nuclear weapons to self-flying fighter jets to deadly new guns and tanks. Examine scientific developments’ role in the war: Do they make it more brutal? Or do they reduce the casualties? Make sure to conduct ample research before writing your essay; this topic is debatable. 

For help with your essays, check out our round-up of the best essay checkers .

If you’re looking for inspiration, check out our round-up of essay topics about nature .

Martin is an avid writer specializing in editing and proofreading. He also enjoys literary analysis and writing about food and travel.

View all posts

Home — Essay Samples — Science — Scientists & Inventors

Essays on Scientists & Inventors

Newtons influence on religion and science, newton’s three laws of motion, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Darwins Four Components of Natural Selection

Compare and contrast galileo and copernicus, the impact of thomas edison's invention of light bulbs, robert hawking and stephen hawking, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

A Journey Through The Mind of Stephen Hawking and The Wonders of a Brief History of Time

Exploring the intellectual odyssey of stephen hawking, isaac newton: the life and legacy of a scientific pioneer, the cinematic representation of scientific genius: a comparative study of oppenheimer and other historical figures, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

The Role of Women in The "Oppenheimer" Movie: a Feminist Analysis

The cinematic portrayal of oppenheimer's complex character, oppenheimer’s tryst with science, identity, and popular culture, j. robert oppenheimer and the atomic age, cinematic and documented narratives: decoding the person behind the scientist, j. robert oppenheimer’s legacy: a reflection through modern lenses, melatonin and sleep science: andrew huberman's perspectives on the sleep hormone, andrew huberman's views and contributions to the covid vaccine discourse, andrew huberman's political commentary and activism, topics in this category.

• Alan Turing
• Albert Einstein
• Eli Whitney
• Temple Grandin
• Isaac Newton
• Charles Darwin
• Galileo Galilei
• Louis Pasteur
• Marie Curie
• Thomas Edison
• Frances Bacon
• Nikola Tesla
• Noam Chomsky
• Stephen Hawking
• Andrew Huberman
• J. Robert Oppenheimer

Popular Categories

• Scientific Method
• Scientific Theories

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Science Essay

Learn How to Write an A+ Science Essay

11 min read

People also read

150+ Engaging Science Essay Topics To Hook Your Readers

8 Impressive Science Essay Examples for Students

Science Fiction Essay: Examples & Easy Steps Guide

Essay About Science and Technology| Tips & Examples

Essay About Science in Everyday Life - Samples & Writing Tips

Check Out 5 Impressive Essay About Science Fair Examples

Did you ever imagine that essay writing was just for students in the Humanities? Well, think again! 

For science students, tackling a science essay might seem challenging, as it not only demands a deep understanding of the subject but also strong writing skills. 

However, fret not because we've got your back!

With the right steps and tips, you can write an engaging and informative science essay easily!

This blog will take you through all the important steps of writing a science essay, from choosing a topic to presenting the final work.

So, let's get into it!

• 1. What Is a Science Essay?
• 2. How To Write a Science Essay?
• 3. How to Structure a Science Essay?
• 4. Science Essay Examples
• 5. How to Choose the Right Science Essay Topic
• 6. Science Essay Topics
• 7. Science Essay Writing Tips

What Is a Science Essay?

A science essay is an academic paper focusing on a scientific topic from physics, chemistry, biology, or any other scientific field.

Science essays are mostly expository. That is, they require you to explain your chosen topic in detail. However, they can also be descriptive and exploratory.

A descriptive science essay aims to describe a certain scientific phenomenon according to established knowledge.

On the other hand, the exploratory science essay requires you to go beyond the current theories and explore new interpretations.

So before you set out to write your essay, always check out the instructions given by your instructor. Whether a science essay is expository or exploratory must be clear from the start. Or, if you face any difficulty, you can take help from a science essay writer as well. 

Moreover, check out this video to understand scientific writing in detail.

Now that you know what it is, let's look at the steps you need to take to write a science essay. 

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That's our Job!

How To Write a Science Essay?

Writing a science essay is not as complex as it may seem. All you need to do is follow the right steps to create an impressive piece of work that meets the assigned criteria.

Here's what you need to do:

Choose Your Topic

A good topic forms the foundation for an engaging and well-written essay. Therefore, you should ensure that you pick something interesting or relevant to your field of study. 

To choose a good topic, you can brainstorm ideas relating to the subject matter. You may also find inspiration from other science essays or articles about the same topic.

Conduct Research

Once you have chosen your topic, start researching it thoroughly to develop a strong argument or discussion in your essay. 

Make sure you use reliable sources and cite them properly . You should also make notes while conducting your research so that you can reference them easily when writing the essay. Or, you can get expert assistance from an essay writing service to manage your citations. 

Create an Outline

A good essay outline helps to organize the ideas in your paper. It serves as a guide throughout the writing process and ensures you don’t miss out on important points.

An outline makes it easier to write a well-structured paper that flows logically. It should be detailed enough to guide you through the entire writing process.

However, your outline should be flexible, and it's sometimes better to change it along the way to improve your structure.

Start Writing

Once you have a good outline, start writing the essay by following your plan.

The first step in writing any essay is to draft it. This means putting your thoughts down on paper in a rough form without worrying about grammar or spelling mistakes.

So begin your essay by introducing the topic, then carefully explain it using evidence and examples to support your argument.

Don't worry if your first draft isn't perfect - it's just the starting point!

Proofread & Edit

After finishing your first draft, take time to proofread and edit it for grammar and spelling mistakes.

Proofreading is the process of checking for grammatical mistakes. It should be done after you have finished writing your essay.

Editing, on the other hand, involves reviewing the structure and organization of your essay and its content. It should be done before you submit your final work.

Both proofreading and editing are essential for producing a high-quality essay. Make sure to give yourself enough time to do them properly!

After revising the essay, you should format it according to the guidelines given by your instructor. This could involve using a specific font size, page margins, or citation style.

Most science essays are written in Times New Roman font with 12-point size and double spacing. The margins should be 1 inch on all sides, and the text should be justified.

In addition, you must cite your sources properly using a recognized citation style such as APA , Chicago , or Harvard . Make sure to follow the guidelines closely so that your essay looks professional.

Following these steps will help you create an informative and well-structured science essay that meets the given criteria.

Tough Essay Due? Hire Tough Writers!

How to Structure a Science Essay?

A basic science essay structure includes an introduction, body, and conclusion. 

Let's look at each of these briefly.

• Introduction

Your essay introduction should introduce your topic and provide a brief overview of what you will discuss in the essay. It should also state your thesis or main argument.

For instance, a thesis statement for a science essay could be, 

"The human body is capable of incredible feats, as evidenced by the many athletes who have competed in the Olympic games."

The body of your essay will contain the bulk of your argument or discussion. It should be divided into paragraphs, each discussing a different point.

For instance, imagine you were writing about sports and the human body. 

Your first paragraph can discuss the physical capabilities of the human body. 

The second paragraph may be about the physical benefits of competing in sports. 

Similarly, in the third paragraph, you can present one or two case studies of specific athletes to support your point. 

Once you have explained all your points in the body, it’s time to conclude the essay.

Your essay conclusion should summarize the main points of your essay and leave the reader with a sense of closure.

In the conclusion, you reiterate your thesis and sum up your arguments. You can also suggest implications or potential applications of the ideas discussed in the essay. 

By following this structure, you will create a well-organized essay.

Check out a few example essays to see this structure in practice.

Science Essay Examples

A great way to get inspired when writing a science essay is to look at other examples of successful essays written by others. 

Here are some examples that will give you an idea of how to write your essay.

Science Essay About Genetics - Science Essay Example

Environmental Science Essay Example | PDF Sample

The Science of Nanotechnology

Science, Non-Science, and Pseudo-Science

The Science Of Science Education

Science in our Daily Lives

Short Science Essay Example

Let’s take a look at a short science essay: 

Want to read more essay examples? Here, you can find more science essay examples to learn from.

How to Choose the Right Science Essay Topic

Choosing the right science essay topic is a critical first step in crafting a compelling and engaging essay. Here's a concise guide on how to make this decision wisely:

• Consider Your Interests: Start by reflecting on your personal interests within the realm of science. Selecting a topic that genuinely fascinates you will make the research and writing process more enjoyable and motivated.
• Relevance to the Course: Ensure that your chosen topic aligns with your course or assignment requirements. Read the assignment guidelines carefully to understand the scope and focus expected by your instructor.
• Current Trends and Issues: Stay updated with the latest scientific developments and trends. Opting for a topic that addresses contemporary issues not only makes your essay relevant but also demonstrates your awareness of current events in the field.
• Narrow Down the Scope: Science is vast, so narrow your topic to a manageable scope. Instead of a broad subject like "Climate Change," consider a more specific angle like "The Impact of Melting Arctic Ice on Global Sea Levels."
• Available Resources: Ensure that there are sufficient credible sources and research materials available for your chosen topic. A lack of resources can hinder your research efforts.
• Discuss with Your Instructor: If you're uncertain about your topic choice, don't hesitate to consult your instructor or professor. They can provide valuable guidance and may even suggest specific topics based on your academic goals.

Science Essay Topics

Choosing an appropriate topic for a science essay is one of the first steps in writing a successful paper.

Here are a few science essay topics to get you started:

• How space exploration affects our daily lives?
• How has technology changed our understanding of medicine?
• Are there ethical considerations to consider when conducting scientific research?
• How does climate change affect the biodiversity of different parts of the world?
• How can artificial intelligence be used in medicine?
• What impact have vaccines had on global health?
• What is the future of renewable energy?
• How do we ensure that genetically modified organisms are safe for humans and the environment?
• The influence of social media on human behavior: A social science perspective
• What are the potential risks and benefits of stem cell therapy?

Important science topics can cover anything from space exploration to chemistry and biology. So you can choose any topic according to your interests!

Need more topics? We have gathered 100+ science essay topics to help you find a great topic!

Continue reading to find some tips to help you write a successful science essay. 

Science Essay Writing Tips

Once you have chosen a topic and looked at examples, it's time to start writing the science essay.

Here are some key tips for a successful essay:

• Research thoroughly

Make sure you do extensive research before you begin writing your paper. This will ensure that the facts and figures you include are accurate and supported by reliable sources.

• Use clear language

Avoid using jargon or overly technical language when writing your essay. Plain language is easier to understand and more engaging for readers.

• Referencing

Always provide references for any information you include in your essay. This will demonstrate that you acknowledge other people's work and show that the evidence you use is credible.

Make sure to follow the basic structure of an essay and organize your thoughts into clear sections. This will improve the flow and make your essay easier to read.

• Ask someone to proofread

It’s also a good idea to get someone else to proofread your work as they may spot mistakes that you have missed.

These few tips will help ensure that your science essay is well-written and informative!

You've learned the steps to writing a successful science essay and looked at some examples and topics to get you started. 

Make sure you thoroughly research, use clear language, structure your thoughts, and proofread your essay. With these tips, you’re sure to write a great science essay! 

Do you still need expert help writing a science essay? Our science essay writing service is here to help. With our team of professional writers, you can rest assured that your essay will be written to the highest standards.

Contact our online writing service now to get started!

Also, do not forget to try our essay typer tool for quick and cost-free aid with your essays!

Write Essay Within 60 Seconds!

Betty is a freelance writer and researcher. She has a Masters in literature and enjoys providing writing services to her clients. Betty is an avid reader and loves learning new things. She has provided writing services to clients from all academic levels and related academic fields.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That’s our Job!

Keep reading

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

Scientists Just Gave Humanity an Overdue Reality Check. The World Will Be Better for It.

By Stephen Lezak

Mr. Lezak is a researcher at the University of Cambridge and the University of Oxford who studies the politics of climate change.

The world’s leading institution on geology declined a proposal on Wednesday to confirm that the planet has entered a new geologic epoch , doubling down on its bombshell announcement earlier this month. The notion that we’re in the “Anthropocene” — the proposed name for a geologic period defined by extensive human disturbance — has become a common theme in environmental circles for the last 15 years. To many proponents, the term is an essential vindication, the planetary equivalent of a long-sought diagnosis of a mysterious illness. But geologists weren’t convinced.

The international geology commission’s decision this week to uphold its vote of 12 to 4 may seem confusing, since by some measures humans have already become the dominant geologic force on the earth’s surface. But setting the science aside for a moment, there’s a reason to celebrate, because the politics behind the Anthropocene label were rotten to begin with.

For starters, the word Anthropocene problematically implies that humans as a species are responsible for the sorry state of the earth’s environments. While technically true, only a fraction of humanity, driven by greed and rapacious capitalism, is responsible for burning through the planet’s resources at an unsustainable rate. Billions of humans still lead lives with relatively modest environmental footprints, yet the terminology of the Anthropocene wrongly lays blame at their feet. Responding to the vote, a group of outside scientists wisely noted in the journal Nature Ecology and Evolution that “our impacts have less to do with being human and more to do with ways of being human.”

What’s more, inaugurating a new geologic epoch is an unacceptable act of defeatism. Geologic epochs are not fleeting moments. The shortest one, the Holocene — the one we live in — is 11,700 years long and counting. The idea that we are entering a new epoch defined by human-caused environmental disaster implies that we won’t be getting out of this mess anytime soon. In that way, the Anthropocene forecloses on the possibility that the geologic future might be better than the present.

By placing Homo sapiens center stage, the Anthropocene also deepens a stark and inaccurate distinction between humanity and the planet that sustains us. The idea of “nature” as something separate from humankind is a figment of the Western imagination. We should be wary of language that further separates us from the broader constellation of life to which we belong.

Before the recent vote, the Anthropocene epoch had cleared several key hurdles on the path to scientific consensus. The International Commission on Stratigraphy, the global authority on demarcating the planet’s history, established a dedicated working group in 2009. Ten years later, the group formally recommended adopting the new epoch. But the proposal still had to be approved by a matryoshka doll of committees within the commission and its parent body, the International Union of Geological Sciences.

By all accounts, the process leading up to the vote was highly contentious. After the initial vote was held, scientists in the minority called for it to be annulled , citing procedural issues. This week, the committee’s parent authority stepped in to uphold the results.

Ultimately, what scuttled the proposal was disagreement about where to mark the end of the Holocene. The Anthropocene Working Group had settled on 1952, the year that airborne plutonium residue from testing hydrogen bombs fell across broad stretches of the planet. That ash, scientists reasoned, would leave a sedimentary signature akin to the boundaries that mark ancient geologic transitions. But scientists at the stratigraphy commission objected — what about the dawn of agriculture or the Industrial Revolution? After all, the human footprint on the planet long predates the atomic age.

“It’s very obvious to me that human activity started long before 1952,” Phil Gibbard, a founding member of the Anthropocene Working Group who is the secretary-general of the commission, said when we spoke on Thursday. “It just didn’t make sense to draw a rigid boundary within my lifetime.”

In recent years, philosophers have bandied about alternative names: the Capitalocene , the Plantationocene and even the Ravencene , a reference to the raven who figures widely in North Pacific Indigenous mythology as a trickster figure, reminding humans to be humble amid our destructive capacity. For my part, I’m partial to “post-Holocene,” an admission that the world is vastly different than it was 10,000 years ago, but that we can’t possibly predict — or name — what it might look like in another 10,000 years.

In the end, it might be too late to find a better term. The “Anthropocene” has already entered the popular lexicon, from the cover of The Economist to the title of a Grimes album. The scientists who coined the term do not have the power to extinguish it.

Whatever we choose to call these troubled times, what matters most is that we keep an open mind about what the future holds and maintain an appreciation for the complexity of the issues we face. The scars humanity leaves upon the earth are much too fraught to be represented with a single line drawn across time.

Looking ahead, we should follow the geologists’ lead and keep a healthy skepticism of the A-word. After all, nothing is more hubristic than reckless tyrants who names the world after themselves — think Stalingrad, Constantinople or Alexandria.

Geologists will continue to disagree over what to call the present era. The rest of us must continue the difficult politics of caring for a planet that can (still) support a panoply of life.

Stephen Lezak is a researcher at the University of Cambridge and the University of Oxford who studies the politics of climate change.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

Home › Science Quotes

Science Quotes for Inquiring Minds

Some of the links in this post may be affiliate links. See our disclosure for more info.

Curious about science? These science quotes show the importance of science and scientific endeavors in our daily lives.

From the first wheel to the International Space Station, scientific inquiry has advanced the human condition and pushed us to new frontiers.

The search for knowledge, advancement, and satisfaction of curiosity have all shaped the broad field of science and continue to do so today.

So here are the best quotes about science, scientists, and scientific fields to encourage you to find new ways to think and explore the world and beyond.

Page Contents

Top 15 Science Quotes

The science of today is the technology of tomorrow. Edward Teller

Science is the systematic classification of experience. George Henry Lewes

Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life. Immanuel Kant

Reason, observation, and experience; the holy trinity of science. Robert Green Ingersoll

Equipped with his five senses, man explores the universe around him and calls the adventure Science. Edwin Powell Hubble

The great tragedy of science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact. Thomas Huxley

Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge. Carl Sagan

Science is not only a disciple of reason but, also, one of romance and passion. Stephen Hawking

The heart of science is measurement. Erik Brynjolfsson

Science is magic that works. Kurt Vonnegut

Science is not finished until it is communicated. Mark Walport

Science does not permit exceptions. Claude Bernard

Quotes about Science

What is science? Find out what it is, how it’s done, and why it’s important with the best quotes about science. At it’s heart, science is about asking questions and applying data to draw conclusions with the Scientific Method .

Sure, we may have had a class or two that tripped us up in high school, but science is also fun! From paper mache volcanoes to model rockets, we can all remember a time when we enjoyed putting our minds to scientific thought.

Science is a beautiful gift to humanity; we should not distort it. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam

Science is fun. Science is curiosity. We all have natural curiosity. Science is a process of investigating. It’s posing questions and coming up with a method. It’s delving in. Sally Ride

Science knows no country, because knowledge belongs to humanity, and is the torch which illuminates the world. Louis Pasteur

Science, like art, religion, commerce, warfare, and even sleep, is based on presuppositions. Gregory Bateson

No science is immune to the infection of politics and the corruption of power . Jacob Bronowski

Science without conscience is the death of the soul. Francois Rabelais

In all science, error precedes the truth, and it is better it should go first than last. Horace Walpole

In science, the credit goes to the man who convinces the world, not to whom the idea first occurs. Francis Darwin

Science is not, despite how it is often portrayed, about absolute truths. It is about developing an understanding of the world, making predictions, and then testing these predictions. Brian Schmidt

There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance. Hippocrates

Science is wonderfully equipped to answer the question ‘How?’ but it gets terribly confused when you ask the question ‘Why?’ Erwin Chargaff

Science has not yet taught us if madness is or is not the sublimity of the intelligence. Edgar Allan Poe

I am among those who think that science has great beauty . Marie Curie

Science and technology are the keys to both our longevity and our demise. Our entire existence on this planet is a double-edged sword. Rhys Darby

Science gives us knowledge, but only philosophy can give us wisdom. Will Durant

The difference between science and the fuzzy subjects is that science requires reasoning while those other subjects merely require scholarship. Robert A. Heinlein

Every great advance in science has issued from a new audacity of imagination. John Dewey

Science, my lad, is made up of mistakes, but they are mistakes which it is useful to make, because they lead little by little to the truth. Jules Verne

Scientific research is one of the most exciting and rewarding of occupations. Frederick Sanger

The nineteenth century believed in science but the twentieth century does not. Gertrude Stein

Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic. Thomas Huxley

Art is I ; science is we. Claude Bernard

Science has made us gods even before we are worthy of being men. Jean Rostand

I believe there are no questions that science can’t answer about a physical universe. Stephen Hawking

Science is like a love affair with nature ; an elusive, tantalising mistress. It has all the turbulence, twists and turns of romantic love, but that’s part of the game. Vilayanur S. Ramachandran

If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it? Albert Einstein

Science is organized common sense where many a beautiful theory was killed by an ugly fact. Thomas Huxley

Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage the arts and commerce. John F. Kennedy

There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere. Isaac Asimov

The virtues of science are skepticism and independence of thought. Walter Gilbert

Science is the great antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition. Adam Smith

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof. Ashley Montague

Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power; religion gives man wisdom which is control. Martin Luther King, Jr.

When science finally locates the center of the universe, some people will be surprised to learn they’re not it. Bernard Bailey

Science is always wrong. It never solves a problem without creating ten more. George Bernard Shaw

We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology. Carl Sagan

The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom. Isaac Asimov

Science is a way of life. Science is a perspective. Science is the process that takes us from confusion to understanding in a manner that’s precise, predictive and reliable – a transformation, for those lucky enough to experience it, that is empowering and emotional. Brian Greene

Science has explained nothing; the more we know the more fantastic the world becomes and the profounder the surrounding darkness. Aldous Huxley

Scientist Quotes

If I could remember the names of all these tiny particles, I’d be a botanist. Albert Einstein

Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds. Richard P. Feynman

To me there has never been a higher source of earthly honor or distinction than that connected with advances in science. Isaac Newton

What is required of a working hypothesis is a fine capacity for discrimination. Jean-Francois Lyotard

There are no such things as applied sciences, only applications of science. Louis Pasteur

The scientist is motivated primarily by curiosity and a desire for truth. Irving Langmuir

Science commits suicide when it adopts a creed. Thomas Huxley

Most people say that it is the intellect which makes a great scientist. They are wrong: it is character. Albert Einstein

I think what a life in science really teaches you is the vastness of our ignorance. David Eagleman

Statistics is the grammar of science. Karl Pearson

In the spirit of science, there really is no such thing as a ‘failed experiment.’ Any test that yields valid data is a valid test. Adam Savage

In science, nothing is ever 100% proven. Michio Kaku

Science is the search for truth, that is the effort to understand the world: it involves the rejection of bias, of dogma, of revelation, but not the rejection of morality. Linus Pauling

A true scientist would never put away a dirty test tube or falsify a report. Virginia L. Mullen

Rocket science has been mythologized all out of proportion to its true difficulty. John Carmack

But I don’t see myself as a woman in science. I see myself as a scientist. Donna Strickland

Science literacy is the artery through which the solutions of tomorrow’s problems flow. Neil deGrasse Tyson

Quotes about Scientists

Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge. Stephen Hawking

Few scientists acquainted with the chemistry of biological systems at the molecular level can avoid being inspired. Donald Cram

Facts are the air of scientists. Without them you can never fly. Linus Pauling

If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong. Arthur C. Clarke

It is inexcusable for scientists to torture animals; let them make their experiments on journalists and politicians. Henrik Ibsen

No one should approach the temple of science with the soul of a money changer. Thomas Browne

What is a scientist after all? It is a curious man looking through a keyhole, the keyhole of nature, trying to know what’s going on. Jacques Yves Cousteau

If your science experiment needs a statistician, you need to design a better experiment. Ernest Rutherford

Defintiion of a scientist: a man who understood nothing, until there was nothing left to understand. Anthony Zerbe, The Omega Man

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei

No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong. Albert Einstein

The best scientist is open to experience and begins with romance – the idea that anything is possible. Ray Bradbury

When I find myself in the company of scientists, I feel like a shabby curate who has strayed by mistake into a room full of dukes. W. H. Auden

Some dreamers demand that scientists only discover things that can be used for good. John Polanyi

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith , but by verification. Thomas Huxley

When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. Arthur C. Clarke

The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence. Nikola Tesla

A first-rate laboratory is one in which mediocre scientists can produce outstanding work. Patrick M.S. Blackett

The scientist is not a person who gives the right answers, he’s one who asks the right questions. Claude Levi-Strauss

Scientific Quotes

These scientific quotes celebrate the soundness and structure of the scientific method and the values it brings to different fields like chemistry and physics.

Over the decades, great scientists have shaped scientific discourse with their rigorous standards, ethics, and respect for the consequences of their work.

These opinions help us to share the reverence for the sciences with those who worked in them.

Scientific theory is a contrived foothold in the chaos of living phenomena. Wilhelm Reich

Scientific advancement should aim to affirm and to improve human life. Nathan Deal

The characteristic of scientific progress is our knowing that we did not know. Gaston Bachelard

Science and mindfulness complement each other in helping people to eat well and maintain their health and well-being. Thich Nhat Hanh

A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. Max Planck

Every time tiny particles swing through time and space , something is changing. Neale Donald Walsch

All science requires mathematics. The knowledge of mathematical things is almost innate in us. This is the easiest of sciences, a fact which is obvious in that no one’s brain rejects it; for laymen and people who are utterly illiterate know how to count and reckon. Roger Bacon

Science is about knowing; engineering is about doing. Henry Petroski

Bad times have a scientific value. These are occasions a good learner would not miss. Ralph Waldo Emerson

Nothing is less predictable than the development of an active scientific field. Charles Francis Richter

Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: ‘Ye must have faith.’ Max Planck

True science teaches, above all, to doubt and to be ignorant. Miguel de Unamuno

By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox. Galileo Galilei

This means that to entrust to science – or to deliberate control according to scientific principles – more than scientific method can achieve may have deplorable effects. Friedrich August von Hayek

It is right that we be concerned with the scientific probity of metaphysics. Gabriel Marcel

Medicine is a science of uncertainty and an art of probability. William Osler

Science and technology are going to be the basis for many of the solutions to social problems. Frances Arnold

Science is exploration. The fundamental nature of exploration is that we don’t know what’s there. We can guess and hope and aim to find out certain things, but we have to expect surprises. Charles H. Townes

America’s space program is a symbol of our success as a scientifically and technologically advanced nation. Randy Forbes

Science will explain how but not why. It talks about what is, not what ought to be. Science is descriptive, not prescriptive; it can tell us about causes but it cannot tell us about purposes. Indeed, science disavows purposes. Jonathan Sacks

The folly of mistaking a paradox for a discovery, a metaphor for a proof, a torrent of verbiage for a spring of capital truths, and oneself for an oracle, is inborn in us. Paul Valery

Science is the acceptance of what works and the rejection of what does not. That needs more courage than we might think. Jacob Bronkowski

Chemistry Quotes

Chemistry is not torture but instead the amazing and beautiful science of stuff, and if you give it a chance, it will not only blow your mind but also give you a deeper understanding of your world. Hank Green

Living organisms are created by chemistry. We are huge packages of chemicals. David Christian

Chemistry was always my weakest subject in high school and college. Eric Betzig

Our cells engage in protein production, and many of those proteins are enzymes responsible for the chemistry of life. Randy Schekman

Chemical synthesis is uniquely positioned at the heart of chemistry, the central science, and its impact on our lives and society is all pervasive. Elias James Corey

I believe that the science of chemistry alone almost proves the existence of an intelligent creator. Thomas Edison

Chemistry is necessarily an experimental science: its conclusions are drawn from data, and its principles supported by evidence from facts. Michael Faraday

Every man who receives a liberal education now counts chemistry among the most indispensable objects of his studies. Antoine Francois Fourcroy

The country which is in advance of the rest of the world in chemistry will also be foremost in wealth and in general prosperity. William Ramsay

The laws of physics and chemistry must be the same in a crucible as in the larger laboratory of Nature. Alfred Harker

All theoretical chemistry is really physics, and all theoretical chemists know it. Richard P. Feynman

Chemistry, unlike other sciences, sprang originally from delusions and superstitions, and was at its commencement exactly on a par with magic and astrology. Thomas Thomson

To my disappointment, not many young people seem to be interested in science, especially chemistry. Akira Suzuki

Physics Quotes

Physics is experience, arranged in economical order. Ernst Mach

Physics is, hopefully, simple. Physicists are not. Edward Teller

In science there is only physics; all the rest is stamp collecting. Lord Kelvin

Physics is becoming too difficult for the physicists. David Hilbert

A person who isn’t outraged on first hearing about quantum theory doesn’t understand what has been said. Neils Bohr

Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who sets the planets in motion. Isaac Newton

It should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid. Albert Einstein

It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how Nature is. Physics concerns what we say about Nature. Niels Bohr

Physics is really figuring out how to discover new things that are counterintuitive, like quantum mechanics. Elon Musk

We live in a Newtonian world of Einsteinian physics ruled by Frankenstein logic. David Russell

Quantum physics thus reveals a basic oneness of the universe. Erwin Schrodinger

Studying physics, mathematics, and chemistry is worshipping God. Fethullah Gulen

Physics is the only profession in which prophecy is not only accurate but routine. Neil deGrasse Tyson

I am now convinced that theoretical physics is actually philosophy. Max Born

Funny Science Quotes

One thing to be said for scientists is despite the seriousness and meticulous nature of their work, many of them haven’t lost their senses of humor.

From Albert Einstein to Neil deGrasse Tyson, these fun lines show even the best scientists know how to bring some levity to their fields.

Even if you think the Big Bang created the stars, don’t you wonder who sent the flowers? Robert Breault

Basic research is what I am doing when I don’t know what I am doing. Wernher von Braun

If I were ever abducted by aliens, the first thing I’d ask is whether they came from a planet where people also deny science. Neil deGrasse Tyson

Science is basically an inoculation against charlatans. Neil deGrasse Tyson

The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn’t have a space program. Larry Niven

A bacteriologist is a man whose conversation always starts with the germ of an idea. Evan Esar

Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one’s living at it. Albert Einstein

Science never solves a problem without creating ten more. George Bernard Shaw

Science may never come up with a better office communication system than the coffee break. Earl Wilson

A fool’s brain digests philosophy into folly, science into superstition, and art into pedantry. Hence University education. George Bernard Shaw

Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Pope John Paul II

Facts are not science – as the dictionary is not literature. Martin H. Fischer

Great moments in science: Einstein discovers that time is actually money. Gary Larson

Still looking for laughs? Check out more funny quotes here!

Other than the laws of physics, rules have never really worked out for me. Craig Ferguson

Science and religion are not at odds. Science is simply too young to understand. Dan Brown

Hypotheses, like professors, when they are seen not to work any longer in the laboratory, should disappear. Henry Edward Armstrong

Statistics: The only science that enables different experts using the same figures to draw different conclusions. Evan Esar

An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field. Neils Bohr

My theory of evolution is that Darwin was adopted. Steven Wright

If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe. Carl Sagan

Scientists are toms, peeping toms at the keyhole of eternity in human stupidity. Arthur Koestler

We hope these quotes from great scientists gave you a new appreciation for the scientific method and all science has given humanity.

Science allowed the most intrepid minds to go from gazing at stars to soaring among them. The curiosity and experimentation of great scientific minds is a cornerstone of all our advances as a species.

While it takes time for ideas to form, hypotheses to be tested, and thoughts to develop into technologies, science is how it happens.

So the next time you use that iPhone, visit the doctor, or even flick a light switch, remember to be thankful for the science that provided it.

Quincy Seale

Essay on Science for Students and Children

500+ words essay on science.

Essay on science:  As we look back in our ancient times we see so much development in the world. The world is full of gadgets and machinery . Machinery does everything in our surroundings. How did it get possible? How did we become so modern? It was all possible with the help of science. Science has played a major role in the development of our society. Furthermore, Science has made our lives easier and carefree.

Science in our Daily Lives

As I have mentioned earlier Science has got many changes in our lives. First of all, transportation is easier now. With the help of Science it now easier to travel long distances . Moreover, the time of traveling is also reduced. Various high-speed vehicles are available these days. These vehicles have totally changed. The phase of our society. Science upgraded steam engines to electric engines. In earlier times people were traveling with cycles. But now everybody travels on motorcycles and cars. This saves time and effort. And this is all possible with the help of Science.

Secondly, Science made us reach to the moon. But we never stopped there. It also gave us a glance at Mars. This is one of the greatest achievements. This was only possible with Science. These days Scientists make many satellites . Because of which we are using high-speed Internet. These satellites revolve around the earth every day and night. Even without making us aware of it. Science is the backbone of our society. Science gave us so much in our present time. Due to this, the teacher in our schools teaches Science from an early age.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Science as a Subject

In class 1 only a student has Science as a subject. This only tells us about the importance of Science. Science taught us about Our Solar System. The Solar System consists of 9 planets and the Sun. Most Noteworthy was that it also tells us about the origin of our planet. Above all, we cannot deny that Science helps us in shaping our future. But not only it tells us about our future, but it also tells us about our past.

When the student reaches class 6, Science gets divided into three more subcategories. These subcategories were Physics, Chemistry, and Biology. First of all, Physics taught us about the machines. Physics is an interesting subject. It is a logical subject.

Furthermore, the second subject was Chemistry . Chemistry is a subject that deals with an element found inside the earth. Even more, it helps in making various products. Products like medicine and cosmetics etc. result in human benefits.

Last but not least, the subject of Biology . Biology is a subject that teaches us about our Human body. It tells us about its various parts. Furthermore, it even teaches the students about cells. Cells are present in human blood. Science is so advanced that it did let us know even that.

Leading Scientists in the field of Science

Finally, many scientists like Thomas Edison , Sir Isaac Newton were born in this world. They have done great Inventions. Thomas Edison invented the light bulb. If he did not invent that we would stay in dark. Because of this Thomas Edison’s name marks in history.

Another famous Scientist was Sir Isaac Newton . Sir Isaac Newton told us about Gravity. With the help of this, we were able to discover many other theories.

In India Scientists A..P.J Abdul was there. He contributed much towards our space research and defense forces. He made many advanced missiles. These Scientists did great work and we will always remember them.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

Employees converse in the cleanroom of a microchip manufacturing plant in Germany, 2 May 2023. Photo Robert Michael/dpa/Getty

Why not scientism?

Science is not the only form of knowledge but it is the best, being the most successful epistemic enterprise in history.

by Moti Mizrahi   + BIO

‘Philosophy is dead,’ Stephen Hawking once declared , because it ‘has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics.’ It is scientists, not philosophers, who are now ‘the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge’. The response from some philosophers was to accuse Hawking of ‘scientism’. The charge of ‘scientism’ is meant to convey disapproval of anyone who values scientific disciplines, such as physics, over non-scientific disciplines, such as philosophy. The philosopher Tom Sorell writes that scientism is ‘a matter of putting too high a value on science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture’. But what’s wrong with putting a higher value on science compared with other academic disciplines? What is so bad about scientism? If physics is in fact a better torch in the quest for knowledge than philosophy, as Hawking claimed, then perhaps it should be valued over philosophy and other non-scientific fields of enquiry.

Before we can address these questions, however, we need to get our definitions straight. For, much like other philosophical -isms, ‘scientism’ means different things to different philosophers. Now, the question of whether science is the only way of knowing about reality, or at least better than non-scientific ways of knowing, is an epistemological question. Construed as an epistemological thesis, then, scientism can be broadly understood as either the view that scientific knowledge is the only form of knowledge we have, or the view that scientific knowledge is the best form of knowledge we have. But scientism comes in other varieties as well, including methodological and metaphysical ones. As a methodological thesis, scientism is either the view that scientific methods are the only ways of knowing about reality we have, or the view that scientific methods are the best ways of knowing about reality we have. And, construed as a metaphysical thesis, scientism is either the view that science is our only guide to what exists, or the view that science is our best guide to what exists.

Without a clear understanding of the aforementioned varieties of scientism, philosophical parties to the scientism debate are at risk of merely talking past each other. That is, some defenders of scientism might be arguing for weaker varieties of scientism, in terms of scientific knowledge or methods being the best ones, while their opponents interpret them as arguing for stronger varieties of scientism, in terms of scientific knowledge or methods being the only ones. My own position, for example, is a weak variety of scientism. In my paper ‘What’s So Bad about Scientism?’ (2017), I defend scientism as an epistemological thesis, which I call ‘Weak Scientism’. This is the view that scientific knowledge is the best form of knowledge we have (as opposed to ‘Strong Scientism’, which is the view that scientific knowledge is the only knowledge we have).

A ccording to Weak Scientism, while non-scientific disciplines such as philosophy do produce knowledge, scientific disciplines such as physics produce knowledge that is superior – both quantitatively and qualitatively – to non-scientific knowledge. It is important to note that ‘knowledge’ does not refer to justified true belief (or any other analysis of knowledge, for that matter). Rather, ‘knowledge’ means disciplinary knowledge or the research produced by practitioners in an academic field of enquiry. All academic disciplines are in the business of producing knowledge (or research) in this sense. The knowledge of each academic discipline is what we find in the academic publications of the practitioners of an academic discipline. Proponents of Strong Scientism would deny that non-scientific disciplines produce ‘real knowledge’, as Richard Williams puts it in the introduction to the anthology Scientism: The New Orthodoxy (2014), whereas proponents of Weak Scientism would grant that non-scientific disciplines produce knowledge but argue that scientific knowledge is better than non-scientific knowledge along several dimensions.

Now, whether any of these epistemological, methodological and metaphysical theses – weak (‘best’) or strong (‘only’) – is true should be a matter of debate, not definition by fiat. Each claim needs to be put forward, examined, criticised and debated. It can’t be what some have unfortunately sought to do, which is to make scientism a misguided view by definition . Take the psychologist Steve Taylor who wrote in 2019:

One of the characteristics of dogmatic belief systems is that their adherents accept assumptions as proven facts. This is certainly true of scientism. For example, it is a fact that consciousness exists, and that it is associated with neurological activity. But the assumption that consciousness is produced by neurological activity is questionable.

Here, Taylor asserts that scientism is a dogmatic belief system. But why is that? None of the epistemological, methodological and metaphysical theses mentioned above is dogmatic. These theses can be questioned, of course. However, if merely being questionable were sufficient to make a belief dogmatic, then many if not most of our beliefs would be dogmatic. To see why, consider my (and, in all likelihood, your) belief that there is an external world, a world that is there independently of our minds. Our belief in the existence of an external world is notoriously difficult to prove, as any epistemologist will tell you, but that doesn’t mean that our belief in an external world is nothing more than mere (religious) dogma.

Likewise, in her book Defending Science – Within Reason (2003), Susan Haack asserts that, by definition, scientism is ‘an exaggerated kind of deference towards science, an excessive readiness to accept as authoritative any claim made by the sciences, and to dismiss any kind of criticism of science or its practitioners as anti-scientific prejudice’. But this runs into the same problem above. None of the epistemological, methodological and metaphysical theses mentioned above are exaggerated or excessive. To have an exaggerated deference toward something is misguided, and to have an excessive readiness to accept as authoritative any claims made by some source is foolhardy. After all, that’s just what the words ‘exaggerated’ and ‘excessive’ imply.

Instead of condemning scientism by definition, opponents need to show what is wrong with it

To assert that scientism is merely a dogmatic belief, as Taylor does, or an inherently misguided attitude, as Haack does, is to weaponise it, not to argue against it. There is an important history here. In the mid-20th century , theologians and religious scholars weaponised scientism in an attempt to defend their academic territory from what they perceived as a threat of scientific encroachment. In their book Roadblocks to Faith (1954) James Pike and John McGill Krumm distinguished science from scientism and claim that the latter is ‘a threat to the humanities no less than to religion’. Around the same time, in his paper ‘The Preacher Talks to the Man of Science’ (1954), H Richard Rasmusson characterised scientism as ‘a cult that has made a religion out of science’. These religious scholars weaponised scientism out of a concern that science is encroaching on areas of enquiry that presuppose the existence of the very things whose existence they take science to be questioning or denying, such as God, the supernatural, and the like. That is why, according to Ian Barbour, ‘it is [considered] scientism when Richard Dawkins says that the presence of chance in evolution shows that this is a purposeless universe,’ for this claim is taken to be questioning the belief in a providential God.

Some philosophers are now playing a similar game, that is, using scientism as a weapon in the fight against scientists who are critical of academic philosophy. Philosophers who level the charge of ‘scientism’ typically identify prominent scientists, such as Hawking and Neil deGrasse Tyson, as exhibiting this kind of misguided attitude toward science; the philosopher Ian James Kidd called them mere ‘cheerleaders for science’. The problem with thinking of scientism as these philosophers do – as exaggerated deference toward science – is that it is a persuasive conception of scientism. To assert that scientism is ‘putting too high a value on science’ or ‘an exaggerated kind of deference towards science’ is to express disapproval of what could, after all, be a reasonable view to hold.

In argumentation studies, definitions that are intended to transfer emotive force, such as feelings of approval or disapproval, are known as persuasive definitions. To say that scientism just is ‘putting too high a value on science’ is akin to saying that abortion is murder – the definition is overloaded with emotional force. Just as pro-choice advocates would object to saying that abortion is murder, since it expresses disapproval of abortion, advocates of scientism would object to saying that scientism is ‘putting too high a value on science’ since it expresses disapproval of scientism. Instead of condemning scientism by definition, as Sorell and Haack do, opponents of scientism need to show precisely what is wrong with it.

In their introduction to the anthology Scientism: Prospects and Problems (2018), René van Woudenberg, Rik Peels and Jeroen de Ridder agree that scientism should not be weaponised when they write: ‘no one will accept this notion of “scientism” as an adequate characterisation of their own views, as no one will think that their deference to science is exaggerated , or their readiness to accept claims made by the sciences is excessive .’ In fact, in the paper ‘Six Signs of Scientism’ (2012), Haack herself observes that, before it was weaponised by those who sought to defend religion and philosophy from science trespassing on their territories, ‘the word “scientism” was neutral.’

U nlike pejorative conceptions of scientism, Weak Scientism – the view I defend – is a neutral framing according to which scientific disciplines, when compared with non-scientific disciplines, such as philosophy, are better along several dimensions. Briefly, the argument runs as follows. One thing can be said to be better than another thing either quantitatively or qualitatively . Scientific knowledge is quantitatively better than non-scientific knowledge because scientific disciplines produce more knowledge, and the knowledge they produce has more impact than the knowledge produced by non-scientific disciplines. This claim is supported by data on the research output (that is, number of publications) and research impact (that is, number of citations) of scientific and non-scientific academic disciplines. These data show that scientific disciplines produce more publications, and those publications get cited more than the publications of non-scientific disciplines.

In their paper ‘Humanities: The Outlier of Research Assessment’ (2020), Güleda Doğan and Zehra Taşkın use publication and citation data in 255 subjects on the Web of Science from 1980 to 2020 to find that the distribution of publications is such that ‘ 81 per cent were published in three main pure sciences categories: natural sciences ( 33 per cent), medical sciences ( 27 per cent), and engineering and technology ( 21 per cent)’, and that ‘[t]he total number of humanities publications was almost similar to a relatively small pure science area’, namely, agricultural sciences. As far as the distribution of citations is concerned, the ‘[h]umanities had only 0.52 per cent of whole citations in the dataset, while natural sciences had 44 per cent, medical sciences had 30 per cent, engineering and technology had 17 per cent, social sciences had 6 per cent, and agriculture had 1.5 per cent.’ When compared with the natural sciences, engineering and technology, medical and health sciences, and social sciences, the humanities have the lowest values of research output (measured by publication counts), with the exception of agricultural sciences, and research impact (measured by citation counts), without exception. While most scientific publications are cited, only 16 per cent of publications in the humanities are cited. Within the humanities, philosophy, ethics and religion have the highest percentages of uncited publications.

Scientific knowledge can be said to be qualitatively better than non-scientific knowledge because scientific knowledge is explanatorily, predictively and instrumentally more successful than non-scientific knowledge. This is the sort of success that philosophers of science talk about, as they often do, when they say that science is successful. Consider, for example, Albert Einstein ’s theory of relativity. The theory is explanatorily successful insofar as it provides a comprehensive explanation for phenomena that would otherwise seem mysterious, such as gravity, planetary orbits, black holes, electromagnetism, and more. The theory is instrumentally successful insofar as it allows us to intervene in nature as when we use GPS to navigate our world and gravitational lensing to look for new worlds. The theory is predictively successful insofar as it makes novel predictions that are borne out by observation or experimentation, such as the perihelion precession of Mercury, the deflection of light by massive objects, the gravitational redshifting of light, the relativistic delay of light (also known as the Shapiro effect), gravitational waves, and more. One would be hard pressed to find a non-scientific theory that is as explanatorily, instrumentally and predictively successful as the theory of relativity.

This argument for Weak Scientism is not meant to be the final word on the question of scientism. There may be other arguments for and against the varieties of scientism mentioned above, which is exactly what we should want. What we do not want is for scientism to be weaponised. Unfortunately, the ‘scientism’ charge is already being used in the war against science as it is fought on the internet and social media. Anti-vaxxers use it to create mass doubt and disbelief regarding any claim about the COVID-19 vaccines made by public health officials and organisations, such as the World Health Organization. Climate change deniers use it to sow seeds of doubt about the scientific consensus on the anthropogenic climate crisis.

For example, when the tennis player Novak Djokovic posted on Twitter that he would not be going to the 2022 US Open because he is not vaccinated for COVID-19 , the actor Rob Schneider quoted his Tweet and wrote: ‘Because science… And by science, of course I mean the religion of scientism, which is the opposite of science.’ Since then, Schneider’s Tweet was deleted, and for good reason. That is because Schneider had used ‘scientism’ as a weapon against the recommendation of public health officials to get vaccinated for COVID-19 . His use of ‘scientism’ is meant to imply that the United States Tennis Association has no good reasons to require tennis players to get vaccinated for COVID-19 before they can compete in the US Open. It is meant to suggest that the requirement to get vaccinated for COVID-19 is mere dogma that is not supported by scientific evidence.

Academic philosophers who weaponise ‘scientism’ are playing a dangerous game

Similarly, the law professor John O McGinnis uses ‘scientism’ as a weapon of science denial in his essay ‘Blinded by Scientism’ (2020), when he writes:

The mantra of ‘follow the science’ [which he labels ‘scientism’] is not unique to the politics of the virus [namely, the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 ]. Politicians offer a similar justification for policies on climate change. Just as the science about COVID-19 ‘justifies’ lockdowns, the science of climate change is used to support spending and regulatory policy that will deliver zero net emissions.

This is another example of the use of ‘scientism’ as an anti-science weapon. McGinnis’s use of ‘scientism’ is meant to raise doubts about the scientific consensus over anthropogenic climate change. It is meant to imply that policymakers and lawmakers have no good reasons to enact any policies or legislate any laws that are informed by the science of climate change.

For these reasons, academic philosophers who weaponise ‘scientism’ are playing a dangerous game. In their valiant attempt to defend academic philosophy from the criticism of some celebrity scientists, such as Hawking, they may be providing ammunition to science deniers. Not only philosophers but also scientists seem to occasionally fall into the trap of weaponising scientism, thereby enabling science deniers to use ‘scientism’ as an anti-science weapon of doubt and disbelief. In the article ‘What Is Scientism, and Why Is it a Mistake?’ (2021), the professor of astrophysics Adam Frank quotes the Google definition of ‘scientism’ as ‘excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques’ with approval, and then goes on to say that scientism

is a mistake […] because it is confused about what it’s defending. Without doubt, science is unique, powerful, and wonderful. It should be celebrated, and it needs to be protected. Scientism, on the other hand, is just metaphysics, and there are lots and lots of metaphysical beliefs.

Of course, there are many metaphysical beliefs. There are also many scientific beliefs, just as there are many religious, perceptual, testimonial and other kinds of beliefs as well. The mere fact that there are many beliefs of a certain type doesn’t necessarily mean that some beliefs of that type cannot be said to be better than other beliefs of the same type. The question is whether belief in the power of science to produce knowledge (or some other epistemic good) is justified, warranted or reasonable.

N ow, philosophers who weaponise ‘scientism’ tend to find scientism threatening to non-scientific academic disciplines. Again, Haack is a case in point. In her paper ‘The Real Question: Can Philosophy Be Saved?’ (2017) she claims that ‘the rising tide of scientistic philosophy […] spells shipwreck for philosophy itself.’ However, there is a continuum between a dogmatic acceptance of science, or ‘science worship’, which is often mistakenly referred to as ‘scientism’, and a dogmatic rejection of science, or ‘science denial’. If a dogmatic acceptance of science is an epistemic threat, as academic philosophers who weaponise ‘scientism’ tend to claim, then a dogmatic rejection of science is an epistemic threat, too. In fact, a dogmatic rejection of science is a bigger epistemic threat than a dogmatic acceptance of science. Why? Because science is the most successful epistemic enterprise human beings have ever had, as almost all philosophers of science agree.

Neutral conceptions of scientism cannot become anti-science weapons of doubt and disbelief

As Anjan Chakravartty puts it in his entry on scientific realism for the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , it is a ‘widely accepted premise that our best [scientific] theories are extraordinarily successful: they facilitate empirical predictions, retrodictions, and explanations of the subject matters of scientific investigation, often marked by astounding accuracy and intricate causal manipulations of the relevant phenomena.’ In other words, the flip side of dogmatic ‘science worship’ is dogmatic ‘science denial’. Surely, both are misguided. But the latter is a much riskier mistake to make than the former.

Rather than conceive of scientism in ways that could be weaponised, then, we should think about it along the lines I have proposed above. Epistemological scientism is the view that scientific knowledge is superior to non-scientific knowledge either because scientific knowledge is the only form of knowledge we have, and so non-scientific knowledge is not really knowledge at all, or because scientific knowledge is better than non-scientific knowledge. Unlike pejorative conceptions of scientism, these neutral conceptions cannot be weaponised, and thus cannot become anti-science weapons of doubt and disbelief in the hands of anti-vaxxers, climate-change deniers, and others who harbour anti-science sentiments. This would allow us to keep the following question open and up for debate: what sort of attitude or stance should we have toward science? As far as this question is concerned, the term ‘scientism’ is a useful term, and it would be a shame to let this live and important debate get derailed by pejorative conceptions of scientism that do nothing but provide ammunition to science deniers.

The cell is not a factory

Scientific narratives project social hierarchies onto nature. That’s why we need better metaphors to describe cellular life

Charudatta Navare

Stories and literature

Terrifying vistas of reality

H P Lovecraft, the master of cosmic horror stories, was a philosopher who believed in the total insignificance of humanity

Sam Woodward

The dangers of AI farming

AI could lead to new ways for people to abuse animals for financial gain. That’s why we need strong ethical guidelines

Virginie Simoneau-Gilbert & Jonathan Birch

Thinkers and theories

A man beyond categories

Paul Tillich was a religious socialist and a profoundly subtle theologian who placed doubt at the centre of his thought

Public health

It’s dirty work

In caring for and bearing with human suffering, hospital staff perform extreme emotional labour. Is there a better way?

Susanna Crossman

Social psychology

The magic of the mundane

Pioneering sociologist Erving Goffman realised that every action is deeply revealing of the social norms by which we live

Lucy McDonald

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Meet top uk universities from the comfort of your home, here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

• School Education /

Essay on Science: Sample for Students in 100,200 Words

• Updated on  
• Oct 28, 2023

Science, the relentless pursuit of knowledge and understanding, has ignited the flames of human progress for centuries. It’s a beacon guiding us through the uncharted realms of the universe, unlocking secrets that shape our world. In this blog, we embark on an exhilarating journey through the wonders of science. We’ll explore the essence of science and its profound impact on our lives. With this we will also provide you with sample essay on science in 100 and 200 words.

Must Read: Essay On Internet   

What Is Science?

Science is a systematic pursuit of knowledge about the natural world through observation, experimentation, and analysis. It aims to understand the underlying principles governing the universe, from the smallest particles to the vast cosmos. Science plays a crucial role in advancing technology, improving our understanding of life and the environment, and driving innovation for a better future.

Branches Of Science

The major branches of science can be categorized into the following:

• Physical Science: This includes physics and chemistry, which study the fundamental properties of matter and energy.
• Biological Science : Also known as life sciences, it encompasses biology, genetics, and ecology, focusing on living organisms and their interactions.
• Earth Science: Geology, meteorology, and oceanography fall under this category, investigating the Earth’s processes, climate, and natural resources.
• Astronomy : The study of celestial objects, space, and the universe, including astrophysics and cosmology.
• Environmental Science : Concentrating on environmental issues, it combines aspects of biology, chemistry, and Earth science to address concerns like climate change and conservation. 
• Social Sciences : This diverse field covers anthropology, psychology, sociology, and economics, examining human behavior, society, and culture.  
• Computer Science : Focused on algorithms, data structures, and computing technology, it drives advancements in information technology. 
• Mathematics : A foundational discipline, it underpins all sciences, providing the language and tools for scientific analysis and modeling.  

Wonders Of Science

Science has numerous applications that profoundly impact our lives and society: Major applications of science are stated below:

• Medicine: Scientific research leads to the development of vaccines, medicines, and medical technologies, improving healthcare and saving lives.
• Technology: Science drives technological innovations, from smartphones to space exploration.
• Energy: Advances in physics and chemistry enable the development of renewable energy sources, reducing reliance on fossil fuels.
• Agriculture: Biology and genetics improve crop yields, while chemistry produces fertilizers and pesticides.
• Environmental Conservation : Scientific understanding informs efforts to protect ecosystems and combat climate change.
• Transportation : Physics and engineering create efficient and sustainable transportation systems.
• Communication : Physics and computer science underpin global communication networks.
• Space Exploration : Astronomy and physics facilitate space missions, expanding our understanding of the cosmos.

Must Read: Essay On Scientific Discoveries  

Sample Essay On Science in 100 words

Science, the bedrock of human progress, unveils the mysteries of our universe through empirical investigation and reason. Its profound impact permeates every facet of modern life. In medicine, it saves countless lives with breakthroughs in treatments and vaccines. Technology, a child of science, empowers communication and innovation. Agriculture evolves with scientific methods, ensuring food security. Environmental science guides conservation efforts, preserving our planet. Space exploration fuels dreams of interstellar travel.

Yet, science requires responsibility, as unchecked advancement can harm nature and society. Ethical dilemmas arise, necessitating careful consideration. Science, a double-edged sword, holds the potential for both salvation and destruction, making it imperative to harness its power wisely for the betterment of humanity.

Sample Essay On Science in 250 words

Science, often regarded as humanity’s greatest intellectual endeavor, plays an indispensable role in shaping our world and advancing our civilization.

At its core, science is a methodical pursuit of knowledge about the natural world. Through systematic observation, experimentation, and analysis, it seeks to uncover the underlying principles that govern our universe. This process has yielded profound insights into the workings of the cosmos, from the subatomic realm to the vastness of space.

One of the most remarkable contributions of science is to the field of medicine. Through relentless research and experimentation, scientists have discovered vaccines, antibiotics, and groundbreaking treatments for diseases that once claimed countless lives. 

Furthermore, science has driven technological advancements that have reshaped society. The rapid progress in computing, for instance, has revolutionized communication, industry, and research. From the ubiquitous smartphones in our pockets to the complex algorithms that power our digital lives, science, and technology are inseparable partners in progress.

Environmental conservation is another critical arena where science is a guiding light. Climate change, a global challenge, is addressed through rigorous scientific study and the development of sustainable practices. Science empowers us to understand the impact of human activities on our planet and to make informed decisions to protect it.

In conclusion, science is not just a field of study; it is a driving force behind human progress. As we continue to explore the frontiers of knowledge, science will remain the beacon guiding us toward a brighter future.

Science is a boon due to innovations, medical advancements, and a deeper understanding of nature, improving human lives exponentially.

Galileo Galilei is known as the Father of Science.

Science can’t address questions about personal beliefs, emotions, ethics, or matters of subjective experience beyond empirical observation and measurement.

We hope this blog gave you an idea about how to write and present an essay on science that puts forth your opinions. The skill of writing an essay comes in handy when appearing for standardized language tests. Thinking of taking one soon? Leverage Edu provides the best online test prep for the same via Leverage Live . Register today to know more!

Amisha Khushara

With a heart full of passion for writing, I pour my emotions into every piece I create. I strive to connect with readers on a personal level, infusing my work with authenticity and relatability. Writing isn't just a skill; it's my heartfelt expression to touch hearts and minds.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Contact no. *

Connect With Us

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today.

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

January 2024

September 2024

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Have something on your mind?

Make your study abroad dream a reality in January 2022 with

India's Biggest Virtual University Fair

Essex Direct Admission Day

Why attend .

Don't Miss Out

Essay on Scientist

Students are often asked to write an essay on Scientist in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Scientist

Who is a scientist.

A scientist is a person who studies the world around us. They ask questions about nature, conduct experiments to find answers, and discover new things. Their work helps us understand everything from tiny atoms to vast galaxies.

What Do Scientists Do?

Scientists work in many areas. Some study plants, others study stars, and some work on making medicines. They use tools like microscopes and telescopes to observe things we can’t see with our eyes. Their discoveries can lead to new technologies and solutions to problems.

Why Are Scientists Important?

Scientists are important because their discoveries improve our lives. They help us understand how the world works, which can lead to better medicines, new inventions, and solutions to environmental issues. Their work makes our future brighter and more exciting.

Also check:

• 10 Lines on Scientist
• Paragraph on Scientist

250 Words Essay on Scientist

A scientist is a person who studies the world around us. They are very curious, always asking questions like why the sky is blue, how plants grow, or what makes the earth spin. Scientists use experiments to find answers. Their main goal is to learn new things and share their discoveries with others.

Scientists work in many areas. Some study space and planets, while others look at tiny germs with microscopes. There are also scientists who study animals, the ocean, or the weather. They collect data, which means they gather information by observing and experimenting. Then, they think carefully about what this information means.

Scientists help us understand the world. Thanks to them, we have medicines, technology like computers and smartphones, and knowledge about how to take care of our planet. They solve problems and invent things that make our lives better. For example, scientists developed vaccines to protect us from diseases.

Becoming a Scientist

Anyone who loves to ask questions and find answers can become a scientist. It starts with being curious about everything. In school, studying subjects like science, math, and computer science is important. Later, scientists usually go to college and study even more. Being a scientist means always learning, even after school is finished.

Scientists are like explorers, always on a journey to discover new things. Their work is very important because it helps us understand our world and improve our lives.

500 Words Essay on Scientist

A scientist is a person who studies different parts of the world to learn how they work. They ask a lot of questions and try to find the answers by doing experiments. Scientists can work in many areas, like studying the stars in the sky, learning how plants grow, or finding out how to make medicines that can help sick people feel better.

Scientists spend a lot of their time doing research. This means they collect information, run tests, and use special tools to help them understand more about the world. For example, a scientist who studies animals might spend time watching them in their natural home or a scientist who studies space might use a big telescope to look at the stars. After they gather all their information, scientists think about what it means and share their findings with other people by writing reports or giving talks.

Scientists are very important because they help us understand how the world works. Their discoveries make our lives better in many ways. For instance, scientists have found ways to cure diseases that once made a lot of people very sick. They have also invented things like computers and smartphones that help us communicate with each other. Without scientists, we wouldn’t know a lot of things we do today, and we wouldn’t have many of the tools and technologies that make our lives easier.

How to Become a Scientist?

Becoming a scientist takes a lot of hard work and study. First, you need to be curious about the world and always ask questions about why things happen. In school, it’s important to do well in subjects like science and math. After finishing school, you usually need to go to college and study the subject you’re interested in even more deeply. Many scientists also go to special schools after college to learn even more and do their own research projects.

Some Famous Scientists

Throughout history, there have been many famous scientists who have made big discoveries. For example, Isaac Newton discovered the laws of motion that explain how things move. Marie Curie was the first woman to win a Nobel Prize for her work on radioactivity. And Albert Einstein came up with the theory of relativity, which helps us understand how space and time work. These scientists and many others have changed the world with their ideas.

In conclusion, scientists are very important people who help us understand the world. They use experiments and research to find answers to questions about everything from tiny bugs to the vast universe. Becoming a scientist requires a lot of learning and hard work, but it can be a very exciting and rewarding job. Thanks to scientists, we know a lot more about the world today, and we can look forward to even more discoveries in the future.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Sea Pollution
• Essay on Sea Life
• Essay on Sea Creatures

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• CBSE Class 10th
• CBSE Class 12th
• UP Board 10th
• UP Board 12th
• Bihar Board 10th
• Bihar Board 12th
• Top Schools in India
• Top Schools in Delhi
• Top Schools in Mumbai
• Top Schools in Chennai
• Top Schools in Hyderabad
• Top Schools in Kolkata
• Top Schools in Pune
• Top Schools in Bangalore

Products & Resources

• JEE Main Knockout April
• Free Sample Papers
• Free Ebooks
• NCERT Notes
• NCERT Syllabus
• NCERT Books
• RD Sharma Solutions
• Navodaya Vidyalaya Admission 2024-25
• NCERT Solutions
• NCERT Solutions for Class 12
• NCERT Solutions for Class 11
• NCERT solutions for Class 10
• NCERT solutions for Class 9
• NCERT solutions for Class 8
• NCERT Solutions for Class 7
• JEE Main 2024
• JEE Advanced 2024
• BITSAT 2024
• View All Engineering Exams
• Colleges Accepting B.Tech Applications
• Top Engineering Colleges in India
• Engineering Colleges in India
• Engineering Colleges in Tamil Nadu
• Engineering Colleges Accepting JEE Main
• Top IITs in India
• Top NITs in India
• Top IIITs in India
• JEE Main College Predictor
• JEE Main Rank Predictor
• MHT CET College Predictor
• AP EAMCET College Predictor
• GATE College Predictor
• KCET College Predictor
• JEE Advanced College Predictor
• View All College Predictors
• JEE Main Question Paper
• JEE Main Mock Test
• JEE Main Registration
• JEE Main Syllabus
• Download E-Books and Sample Papers
• Compare Colleges
• B.Tech College Applications
• GATE 2024 Result
• MAH MBA CET Exam
• View All Management Exams

Colleges & Courses

• MBA College Admissions
• MBA Colleges in India
• Top IIMs Colleges in India
• Top Online MBA Colleges in India
• MBA Colleges Accepting XAT Score
• BBA Colleges in India
• XAT College Predictor 2024
• SNAP College Predictor
• NMAT College Predictor
• MAT College Predictor 2024
• CMAT College Predictor 2024
• CAT Percentile Predictor 2023
• CAT 2023 College Predictor
• CMAT 2024 Registration
• TS ICET 2024 Registration
• CMAT Exam Date 2024
• MAH MBA CET Cutoff 2024
• Download Helpful Ebooks
• List of Popular Branches
• QnA - Get answers to your doubts
• IIM Fees Structure
• AIIMS Nursing
• Top Medical Colleges in India
• Top Medical Colleges in India accepting NEET Score
• Medical Colleges accepting NEET
• List of Medical Colleges in India
• List of AIIMS Colleges In India
• Medical Colleges in Maharashtra
• Medical Colleges in India Accepting NEET PG
• NEET College Predictor
• NEET PG College Predictor
• NEET MDS College Predictor
• DNB CET College Predictor
• DNB PDCET College Predictor
• NEET Application Form 2024
• NEET PG Application Form 2024
• NEET Cut off
• NEET Online Preparation
• Download Helpful E-books
• LSAT India 2024
• Colleges Accepting Admissions
• Top Law Colleges in India
• Law College Accepting CLAT Score
• List of Law Colleges in India
• Top Law Colleges in Delhi
• Top Law Collages in Indore
• Top Law Colleges in Chandigarh
• Top Law Collages in Lucknow

Predictors & E-Books

• CLAT College Predictor
• MHCET Law ( 5 Year L.L.B) College Predictor
• AILET College Predictor
• Sample Papers
• Compare Law Collages
• Careers360 Youtube Channel
• CLAT Syllabus 2025
• CLAT Previous Year Question Paper
• AIBE 18 Result 2023
• NID DAT Exam
• Pearl Academy Exam

Animation Courses

• Animation Courses in India
• Animation Courses in Bangalore
• Animation Courses in Mumbai
• Animation Courses in Pune
• Animation Courses in Chennai
• Animation Courses in Hyderabad
• Design Colleges in India
• Fashion Design Colleges in Bangalore
• Fashion Design Colleges in Mumbai
• Fashion Design Colleges in Pune
• Fashion Design Colleges in Delhi
• Fashion Design Colleges in Hyderabad
• Fashion Design Colleges in India
• Top Design Colleges in India
• Free Design E-books
• List of Branches
• Careers360 Youtube channel
• NIFT College Predictor
• UCEED College Predictor
• NID DAT College Predictor
• IPU CET BJMC
• JMI Mass Communication Entrance Exam
• IIMC Entrance Exam
• Media & Journalism colleges in Delhi
• Media & Journalism colleges in Bangalore
• Media & Journalism colleges in Mumbai
• List of Media & Journalism Colleges in India
• CA Intermediate
• CA Foundation
• CS Executive
• CS Professional
• Difference between CA and CS
• Difference between CA and CMA
• CA Full form
• CMA Full form
• CS Full form
• CA Salary In India

Top Courses & Careers

• Bachelor of Commerce (B.Com)
• Master of Commerce (M.Com)
• Company Secretary
• Cost Accountant
• Charted Accountant
• Credit Manager
• Financial Advisor
• Top Commerce Colleges in India
• Top Government Commerce Colleges in India
• Top Private Commerce Colleges in India
• Top M.Com Colleges in Mumbai
• Top B.Com Colleges in India
• IT Colleges in Tamil Nadu
• IT Colleges in Uttar Pradesh
• MCA Colleges in India
• BCA Colleges in India

Quick Links

• Information Technology Courses
• Programming Courses
• Web Development Courses
• Data Analytics Courses
• Big Data Analytics Courses
• RUHS Pharmacy Admission Test
• Top Pharmacy Colleges in India
• Pharmacy Colleges in Pune
• Pharmacy Colleges in Mumbai
• Colleges Accepting GPAT Score
• Pharmacy Colleges in Lucknow
• List of Pharmacy Colleges in Nagpur
• GPAT Result
• GPAT 2024 Admit Card
• GPAT Question Papers
• NCHMCT JEE 2024
• Mah BHMCT CET
• Top Hotel Management Colleges in Delhi
• Top Hotel Management Colleges in Hyderabad
• Top Hotel Management Colleges in Mumbai
• Top Hotel Management Colleges in Tamil Nadu
• Top Hotel Management Colleges in Maharashtra
• B.Sc Hotel Management
• Hotel Management
• Diploma in Hotel Management and Catering Technology

Diploma Colleges

• Top Diploma Colleges in Maharashtra
• UPSC IAS 2024
• SSC CGL 2024
• IBPS RRB 2024
• Previous Year Sample Papers
• Free Competition E-books
• Sarkari Result
• QnA- Get your doubts answered
• UPSC Previous Year Sample Papers
• CTET Previous Year Sample Papers
• SBI Clerk Previous Year Sample Papers
• NDA Previous Year Sample Papers

Upcoming Events

• NDA Application Form 2024
• UPSC IAS Application Form 2024
• CDS Application Form 2024
• CTET Admit card 2024
• HP TET Result 2023
• SSC GD Constable Admit Card 2024
• UPTET Notification 2024
• SBI Clerk Result 2024

Other Exams

• SSC CHSL 2024
• UP PCS 2024
• UGC NET 2024
• RRB NTPC 2024
• IBPS PO 2024
• IBPS Clerk 2024
• IBPS SO 2024
• Top University in USA
• Top University in Canada
• Top University in Ireland
• Top Universities in UK
• Top Universities in Australia
• Best MBA Colleges in Abroad
• Business Management Studies Colleges

Top Countries

• Study in USA
• Study in UK
• Study in Canada
• Study in Australia
• Study in Ireland
• Study in Germany
• Study in China
• Study in Europe

Student Visas

• Student Visa Canada
• Student Visa UK
• Student Visa USA
• Student Visa Australia
• Student Visa Germany
• Student Visa New Zealand
• Student Visa Ireland
• CUET PG 2024
• IGNOU B.Ed Admission 2024
• DU Admission
• UP B.Ed JEE 2024
• DDU Entrance Exam
• IIT JAM 2024
• IGNOU Online Admission 2024
• Universities in India
• Top Universities in India 2024
• Top Colleges in India
• Top Universities in Uttar Pradesh 2024
• Top Universities in Bihar
• Top Universities in Madhya Pradesh 2024
• Top Universities in Tamil Nadu 2024
• Central Universities in India
• CUET PG Admit Card 2024
• IGNOU Date Sheet
• CUET Mock Test 2024
• CUET Application Form 2024
• CUET PG Syllabus 2024
• CUET Participating Universities 2024
• CUET Previous Year Question Paper
• CUET Syllabus 2024 for Science Students
• E-Books and Sample Papers
• CUET Exam Pattern 2024
• CUET Exam Date 2024
• CUET Syllabus 2024
• IGNOU Exam Form 2024
• IGNOU Result
• CUET PG Courses 2024

Engineering Preparation

• Knockout JEE Main 2024
• Test Series JEE Main 2024
• JEE Main 2024 Rank Booster

Medical Preparation

• Knockout NEET 2024
• Test Series NEET 2024
• Rank Booster NEET 2024

Online Courses

• JEE Main One Month Course
• NEET One Month Course
• IBSAT Free Mock Tests
• IIT JEE Foundation Course
• Knockout BITSAT 2024
• Career Guidance Tool

Top Streams

• IT & Software Certification Courses
• Engineering and Architecture Certification Courses
• Programming And Development Certification Courses
• Business and Management Certification Courses
• Marketing Certification Courses
• Health and Fitness Certification Courses
• Design Certification Courses

Specializations

• Digital Marketing Certification Courses
• Cyber Security Certification Courses
• Artificial Intelligence Certification Courses
• Business Analytics Certification Courses
• Data Science Certification Courses
• Cloud Computing Certification Courses
• Machine Learning Certification Courses
• View All Certification Courses
• UG Degree Courses
• PG Degree Courses
• Short Term Courses
• Free Courses
• Online Degrees and Diplomas
• Compare Courses

Top Providers

• Coursera Courses
• Udemy Courses
• Edx Courses
• Swayam Courses
• upGrad Courses
• Simplilearn Courses
• Great Learning Courses

Access premium articles, webinars, resources to make the best decisions for career, course, exams, scholarships, study abroad and much more with

Plan, Prepare & Make the Best Career Choices

Essay on Science - 100, 200, 500 Words

• Science Essay in English

Scientific knowledge gives people confidence and makes them aware of their surroundings. Those who know science know the origin and reason of natural phenomena, they are not afraid of natural phenomena. Science also plays an important role in the country's technological development and in removing obstacles to growth such as unemployment and illiteracy. Here are a few sample essays on Science.

100 Words Essay on Science

200 words essay on science, 500 words essay on science.

Science is a systematic and logical approach to discovering new knowledge and understanding the natural world . It involves observation, experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. Science has transformed the way we live and has led to countless advancements in medicine, technology, and industry. Scientific discoveries have helped us to understand the origins of the universe, the complexity of life, and the intricacies of the human body. Science has also opened up new frontiers in areas such as space exploration, renewable energy, and artificial intelligence. Science is a continuous process of discovery and it will always be at the forefront of human progress, shaping our future and improving our lives.

From cars to washing machines, mobile phones to microwave ovens, refrigerators to laptops, everything we use in our daily lives is a scientific wonder. There is nothing in our lives that science cannot do. Science plays a very important role in our life. Here are some examples of how science affects our daily lives—

Gas stoves, which are routinely used for food preparation, are as much a scientific development as microwaves, grills and freezers.

2. Medical Care

Advances in technology have made it possible to treat a wide variety of diseases and disorders. Learn how science supports healthy living and extends life.

3. Communication

Mobile phones and Internet connectivity, which have become an integral part of our daily lives, are all scientific innovations. These advances have made communication easier and made the world a closer one.

4. Energy source

The discovery of nuclear power paved the way for the development and use of many energy sources. Electricity is one of their most important creations and their influence on our daily lives is well known.

All of this shows the importance of science, and it cannot be separated from everyday life. It's truly a miracle, life without science is unthinkable nowadays.

Science is the study of the structure and behavior of various physical and natural aspects. Scientists study these aspects, observe closely, conduct experiments, and then draw conclusions. There have been several scientific discoveries and inventions in the past that have proven to benefit mankind.

Science and Religious Concept

Science takes a logical and systematic approach to coming up with new ideas and inventions , religion is based solely on belief systems and beliefs. In science there is exhaustive observation, analysis and experimentation to arrive at results, but in religion there is little logic. So their perspective on things is completely different.

Science vs Religion

Science and religion are often at odds because they have conflicting views on certain issues. Unfortunately, these conflicts sometimes lead to social upheaval and afflict innocent people. Some of the major conflicts that have arisen between adherents of religion and adherents of the scientific method are listed below.

Earth as Center of the Universe

This is one of the most famous conflicts. The Roman Catholic Church believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. According to them, the sun, moon, stars and other planets revolve around them. The dispute arose when the famous Italian astronomer and mathematician Galileo Galilei discovered the heliocentric system, in which the sun forms the center of the solar system and the earth and other planets form the center of the solar system. Unfortunately, Galileo was convicted as a heretic and put under house arrest for the rest of his life.

Apart from these, there are several other areas where scholars and religious advocates hold conflicting views. Not only are religious advocates often vocal against the scientific method and ideology, but scientific inventions are superseded by a variety of social, political, environmental, and health problems. has also been criticized by many other sections of society.

Importance of Science

Science is important because it helps to understand the natural world, make informed decisions, and develop new technologies that improve our lives and benefit society. Science also plays a crucial role in solving global problems such as disease, hunger, and climate change. By using the scientific method and testing theories with evidence, science provides a systematic way of understanding and explaining the world, and leads to advancements in medicine, energy, transportation, communication, and many other areas.

The role of science in our daily lives cannot be overstated. Science helps us to understand the workings of the natural world and provides us with the knowledge and tools to address a wide range of practical problems.

For example, medical science has led to the development of vaccines, cures, and treatments for many diseases, greatly improving public health and increasing life expectancy . The field of agriculture has used science to increase food production, feed a growing global population, and develop new and more efficient farming methods.

In addition, science has helped to address environmental problems and improve energy efficiency. The use of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power has become more widespread, reducing dependence on fossil fuels and mitigating their negative impact on the environment.

Explore Career Options (By Industry)

• Construction
• Entertainment
• Manufacturing
• Information Technology

Bio Medical Engineer

The field of biomedical engineering opens up a universe of expert chances. An Individual in the biomedical engineering career path work in the field of engineering as well as medicine, in order to find out solutions to common problems of the two fields. The biomedical engineering job opportunities are to collaborate with doctors and researchers to develop medical systems, equipment, or devices that can solve clinical problems. Here we will be discussing jobs after biomedical engineering, how to get a job in biomedical engineering, biomedical engineering scope, and salary. 

Data Administrator

Database professionals use software to store and organise data such as financial information, and customer shipping records. Individuals who opt for a career as data administrators ensure that data is available for users and secured from unauthorised sales. DB administrators may work in various types of industries. It may involve computer systems design, service firms, insurance companies, banks and hospitals.

Ethical Hacker

A career as ethical hacker involves various challenges and provides lucrative opportunities in the digital era where every giant business and startup owns its cyberspace on the world wide web. Individuals in the ethical hacker career path try to find the vulnerabilities in the cyber system to get its authority. If he or she succeeds in it then he or she gets its illegal authority. Individuals in the ethical hacker career path then steal information or delete the file that could affect the business, functioning, or services of the organization.

Data Analyst

The invention of the database has given fresh breath to the people involved in the data analytics career path. Analysis refers to splitting up a whole into its individual components for individual analysis. Data analysis is a method through which raw data are processed and transformed into information that would be beneficial for user strategic thinking.

Data are collected and examined to respond to questions, evaluate hypotheses or contradict theories. It is a tool for analyzing, transforming, modeling, and arranging data with useful knowledge, to assist in decision-making and methods, encompassing various strategies, and is used in different fields of business, research, and social science.

Geothermal Engineer

Individuals who opt for a career as geothermal engineers are the professionals involved in the processing of geothermal energy. The responsibilities of geothermal engineers may vary depending on the workplace location. Those who work in fields design facilities to process and distribute geothermal energy. They oversee the functioning of machinery used in the field.

Remote Sensing Technician

Individuals who opt for a career as a remote sensing technician possess unique personalities. Remote sensing analysts seem to be rational human beings, they are strong, independent, persistent, sincere, realistic and resourceful. Some of them are analytical as well, which means they are intelligent, introspective and inquisitive. 

Remote sensing scientists use remote sensing technology to support scientists in fields such as community planning, flight planning or the management of natural resources. Analysing data collected from aircraft, satellites or ground-based platforms using statistical analysis software, image analysis software or Geographic Information Systems (GIS) is a significant part of their work. Do you want to learn how to become remote sensing technician? There's no need to be concerned; we've devised a simple remote sensing technician career path for you. Scroll through the pages and read.

Geotechnical engineer

The role of geotechnical engineer starts with reviewing the projects needed to define the required material properties. The work responsibilities are followed by a site investigation of rock, soil, fault distribution and bedrock properties on and below an area of interest. The investigation is aimed to improve the ground engineering design and determine their engineering properties that include how they will interact with, on or in a proposed construction. 

The role of geotechnical engineer in mining includes designing and determining the type of foundations, earthworks, and or pavement subgrades required for the intended man-made structures to be made. Geotechnical engineering jobs are involved in earthen and concrete dam construction projects, working under a range of normal and extreme loading conditions. 

Cartographer

How fascinating it is to represent the whole world on just a piece of paper or a sphere. With the help of maps, we are able to represent the real world on a much smaller scale. Individuals who opt for a career as a cartographer are those who make maps. But, cartography is not just limited to maps, it is about a mixture of art , science , and technology. As a cartographer, not only you will create maps but use various geodetic surveys and remote sensing systems to measure, analyse, and create different maps for political, cultural or educational purposes.

Budget Analyst

Budget analysis, in a nutshell, entails thoroughly analyzing the details of a financial budget. The budget analysis aims to better understand and manage revenue. Budget analysts assist in the achievement of financial targets, the preservation of profitability, and the pursuit of long-term growth for a business. Budget analysts generally have a bachelor's degree in accounting, finance, economics, or a closely related field. Knowledge of Financial Management is of prime importance in this career.

Product Manager

A Product Manager is a professional responsible for product planning and marketing. He or she manages the product throughout the Product Life Cycle, gathering and prioritising the product. A product manager job description includes defining the product vision and working closely with team members of other departments to deliver winning products.  

Underwriter

An underwriter is a person who assesses and evaluates the risk of insurance in his or her field like mortgage, loan, health policy, investment, and so on and so forth. The underwriter career path does involve risks as analysing the risks means finding out if there is a way for the insurance underwriter jobs to recover the money from its clients. If the risk turns out to be too much for the company then in the future it is an underwriter who will be held accountable for it. Therefore, one must carry out his or her job with a lot of attention and diligence.

Finance Executive

Operations manager.

Individuals in the operations manager jobs are responsible for ensuring the efficiency of each department to acquire its optimal goal. They plan the use of resources and distribution of materials. The operations manager's job description includes managing budgets, negotiating contracts, and performing administrative tasks.

Bank Probationary Officer (PO)

Investment director.

An investment director is a person who helps corporations and individuals manage their finances. They can help them develop a strategy to achieve their goals, including paying off debts and investing in the future. In addition, he or she can help individuals make informed decisions.

Welding Engineer

Welding Engineer Job Description: A Welding Engineer work involves managing welding projects and supervising welding teams. He or she is responsible for reviewing welding procedures, processes and documentation. A career as Welding Engineer involves conducting failure analyses and causes on welding issues. 

Transportation Planner

A career as Transportation Planner requires technical application of science and technology in engineering, particularly the concepts, equipment and technologies involved in the production of products and services. In fields like land use, infrastructure review, ecological standards and street design, he or she considers issues of health, environment and performance. A Transportation Planner assigns resources for implementing and designing programmes. He or she is responsible for assessing needs, preparing plans and forecasts and compliance with regulations.

An expert in plumbing is aware of building regulations and safety standards and works to make sure these standards are upheld. Testing pipes for leakage using air pressure and other gauges, and also the ability to construct new pipe systems by cutting, fitting, measuring and threading pipes are some of the other more involved aspects of plumbing. Individuals in the plumber career path are self-employed or work for a small business employing less than ten people, though some might find working for larger entities or the government more desirable.

Construction Manager

Individuals who opt for a career as construction managers have a senior-level management role offered in construction firms. Responsibilities in the construction management career path are assigning tasks to workers, inspecting their work, and coordinating with other professionals including architects, subcontractors, and building services engineers.

Urban Planner

Urban Planning careers revolve around the idea of developing a plan to use the land optimally, without affecting the environment. Urban planning jobs are offered to those candidates who are skilled in making the right use of land to distribute the growing population, to create various communities. 

Urban planning careers come with the opportunity to make changes to the existing cities and towns. They identify various community needs and make short and long-term plans accordingly.

Highway Engineer

Highway Engineer Job Description:  A Highway Engineer is a civil engineer who specialises in planning and building thousands of miles of roads that support connectivity and allow transportation across the country. He or she ensures that traffic management schemes are effectively planned concerning economic sustainability and successful implementation.

Environmental Engineer

Individuals who opt for a career as an environmental engineer are construction professionals who utilise the skills and knowledge of biology, soil science, chemistry and the concept of engineering to design and develop projects that serve as solutions to various environmental problems. 

Naval Architect

A Naval Architect is a professional who designs, produces and repairs safe and sea-worthy surfaces or underwater structures. A Naval Architect stays involved in creating and designing ships, ferries, submarines and yachts with implementation of various principles such as gravity, ideal hull form, buoyancy and stability. 

Orthotist and Prosthetist

Orthotists and Prosthetists are professionals who provide aid to patients with disabilities. They fix them to artificial limbs (prosthetics) and help them to regain stability. There are times when people lose their limbs in an accident. In some other occasions, they are born without a limb or orthopaedic impairment. Orthotists and prosthetists play a crucial role in their lives with fixing them to assistive devices and provide mobility.

Veterinary Doctor

Pathologist.

A career in pathology in India is filled with several responsibilities as it is a medical branch and affects human lives. The demand for pathologists has been increasing over the past few years as people are getting more aware of different diseases. Not only that, but an increase in population and lifestyle changes have also contributed to the increase in a pathologist’s demand. The pathology careers provide an extremely huge number of opportunities and if you want to be a part of the medical field you can consider being a pathologist. If you want to know more about a career in pathology in India then continue reading this article.

Speech Therapist

Gynaecologist.

Gynaecology can be defined as the study of the female body. The job outlook for gynaecology is excellent since there is evergreen demand for one because of their responsibility of dealing with not only women’s health but also fertility and pregnancy issues. Although most women prefer to have a women obstetrician gynaecologist as their doctor, men also explore a career as a gynaecologist and there are ample amounts of male doctors in the field who are gynaecologists and aid women during delivery and childbirth. 

An oncologist is a specialised doctor responsible for providing medical care to patients diagnosed with cancer. He or she uses several therapies to control the cancer and its effect on the human body such as chemotherapy, immunotherapy, radiation therapy and biopsy. An oncologist designs a treatment plan based on a pathology report after diagnosing the type of cancer and where it is spreading inside the body.

Audiologist

The audiologist career involves audiology professionals who are responsible to treat hearing loss and proactively preventing the relevant damage. Individuals who opt for a career as an audiologist use various testing strategies with the aim to determine if someone has a normal sensitivity to sounds or not. After the identification of hearing loss, a hearing doctor is required to determine which sections of the hearing are affected, to what extent they are affected, and where the wound causing the hearing loss is found. As soon as the hearing loss is identified, the patients are provided with recommendations for interventions and rehabilitation such as hearing aids, cochlear implants, and appropriate medical referrals. While audiology is a branch of science that studies and researches hearing, balance, and related disorders.

Hospital Administrator

The hospital Administrator is in charge of organising and supervising the daily operations of medical services and facilities. This organising includes managing of organisation’s staff and its members in service, budgets, service reports, departmental reporting and taking reminders of patient care and services.

For an individual who opts for a career as an actor, the primary responsibility is to completely speak to the character he or she is playing and to persuade the crowd that the character is genuine by connecting with them and bringing them into the story. This applies to significant roles and littler parts, as all roles join to make an effective creation. Here in this article, we will discuss how to become an actor in India, actor exams, actor salary in India, and actor jobs. 

Individuals who opt for a career as acrobats create and direct original routines for themselves, in addition to developing interpretations of existing routines. The work of circus acrobats can be seen in a variety of performance settings, including circus, reality shows, sports events like the Olympics, movies and commercials. Individuals who opt for a career as acrobats must be prepared to face rejections and intermittent periods of work. The creativity of acrobats may extend to other aspects of the performance. For example, acrobats in the circus may work with gym trainers, celebrities or collaborate with other professionals to enhance such performance elements as costume and or maybe at the teaching end of the career.

Video Game Designer

Career as a video game designer is filled with excitement as well as responsibilities. A video game designer is someone who is involved in the process of creating a game from day one. He or she is responsible for fulfilling duties like designing the character of the game, the several levels involved, plot, art and similar other elements. Individuals who opt for a career as a video game designer may also write the codes for the game using different programming languages.

Depending on the video game designer job description and experience they may also have to lead a team and do the early testing of the game in order to suggest changes and find loopholes.

Radio Jockey

Radio Jockey is an exciting, promising career and a great challenge for music lovers. If you are really interested in a career as radio jockey, then it is very important for an RJ to have an automatic, fun, and friendly personality. If you want to get a job done in this field, a strong command of the language and a good voice are always good things. Apart from this, in order to be a good radio jockey, you will also listen to good radio jockeys so that you can understand their style and later make your own by practicing.

A career as radio jockey has a lot to offer to deserving candidates. If you want to know more about a career as radio jockey, and how to become a radio jockey then continue reading the article.

Choreographer

The word “choreography" actually comes from Greek words that mean “dance writing." Individuals who opt for a career as a choreographer create and direct original dances, in addition to developing interpretations of existing dances. A Choreographer dances and utilises his or her creativity in other aspects of dance performance. For example, he or she may work with the music director to select music or collaborate with other famous choreographers to enhance such performance elements as lighting, costume and set design.

Videographer

Multimedia specialist.

A multimedia specialist is a media professional who creates, audio, videos, graphic image files, computer animations for multimedia applications. He or she is responsible for planning, producing, and maintaining websites and applications. 

Social Media Manager

A career as social media manager involves implementing the company’s or brand’s marketing plan across all social media channels. Social media managers help in building or improving a brand’s or a company’s website traffic, build brand awareness, create and implement marketing and brand strategy. Social media managers are key to important social communication as well.

Copy Writer

In a career as a copywriter, one has to consult with the client and understand the brief well. A career as a copywriter has a lot to offer to deserving candidates. Several new mediums of advertising are opening therefore making it a lucrative career choice. Students can pursue various copywriter courses such as Journalism , Advertising , Marketing Management . Here, we have discussed how to become a freelance copywriter, copywriter career path, how to become a copywriter in India, and copywriting career outlook. 

Careers in journalism are filled with excitement as well as responsibilities. One cannot afford to miss out on the details. As it is the small details that provide insights into a story. Depending on those insights a journalist goes about writing a news article. A journalism career can be stressful at times but if you are someone who is passionate about it then it is the right choice for you. If you want to know more about the media field and journalist career then continue reading this article.

For publishing books, newspapers, magazines and digital material, editorial and commercial strategies are set by publishers. Individuals in publishing career paths make choices about the markets their businesses will reach and the type of content that their audience will be served. Individuals in book publisher careers collaborate with editorial staff, designers, authors, and freelance contributors who develop and manage the creation of content.

In a career as a vlogger, one generally works for himself or herself. However, once an individual has gained viewership there are several brands and companies that approach them for paid collaboration. It is one of those fields where an individual can earn well while following his or her passion. 

Ever since internet costs got reduced the viewership for these types of content has increased on a large scale. Therefore, a career as a vlogger has a lot to offer. If you want to know more about the Vlogger eligibility, roles and responsibilities then continue reading the article. 

Individuals in the editor career path is an unsung hero of the news industry who polishes the language of the news stories provided by stringers, reporters, copywriters and content writers and also news agencies. Individuals who opt for a career as an editor make it more persuasive, concise and clear for readers. In this article, we will discuss the details of the editor's career path such as how to become an editor in India, editor salary in India and editor skills and qualities.

Linguistic meaning is related to language or Linguistics which is the study of languages. A career as a linguistic meaning, a profession that is based on the scientific study of language, and it's a very broad field with many specialities. Famous linguists work in academia, researching and teaching different areas of language, such as phonetics (sounds), syntax (word order) and semantics (meaning). 

Other researchers focus on specialities like computational linguistics, which seeks to better match human and computer language capacities, or applied linguistics, which is concerned with improving language education. Still, others work as language experts for the government, advertising companies, dictionary publishers and various other private enterprises. Some might work from home as freelance linguists. Philologist, phonologist, and dialectician are some of Linguist synonym. Linguists can study French , German , Italian . 

Public Relation Executive

Travel journalist.

The career of a travel journalist is full of passion, excitement and responsibility. Journalism as a career could be challenging at times, but if you're someone who has been genuinely enthusiastic about all this, then it is the best decision for you. Travel journalism jobs are all about insightful, artfully written, informative narratives designed to cover the travel industry. Travel Journalist is someone who explores, gathers and presents information as a news article.

Quality Controller

A quality controller plays a crucial role in an organisation. He or she is responsible for performing quality checks on manufactured products. He or she identifies the defects in a product and rejects the product. 

A quality controller records detailed information about products with defects and sends it to the supervisor or plant manager to take necessary actions to improve the production process.

Production Manager

Merchandiser.

A QA Lead is in charge of the QA Team. The role of QA Lead comes with the responsibility of assessing services and products in order to determine that he or she meets the quality standards. He or she develops, implements and manages test plans. 

Metallurgical Engineer

A metallurgical engineer is a professional who studies and produces materials that bring power to our world. He or she extracts metals from ores and rocks and transforms them into alloys, high-purity metals and other materials used in developing infrastructure, transportation and healthcare equipment. 

Azure Administrator

An Azure Administrator is a professional responsible for implementing, monitoring, and maintaining Azure Solutions. He or she manages cloud infrastructure service instances and various cloud servers as well as sets up public and private cloud systems. 

AWS Solution Architect

An AWS Solution Architect is someone who specializes in developing and implementing cloud computing systems. He or she has a good understanding of the various aspects of cloud computing and can confidently deploy and manage their systems. He or she troubleshoots the issues and evaluates the risk from the third party. 

Computer Programmer

Careers in computer programming primarily refer to the systematic act of writing code and moreover include wider computer science areas. The word 'programmer' or 'coder' has entered into practice with the growing number of newly self-taught tech enthusiasts. Computer programming careers involve the use of designs created by software developers and engineers and transforming them into commands that can be implemented by computers. These commands result in regular usage of social media sites, word-processing applications and browsers.

ITSM Manager

Information security manager.

Individuals in the information security manager career path involves in overseeing and controlling all aspects of computer security. The IT security manager job description includes planning and carrying out security measures to protect the business data and information from corruption, theft, unauthorised access, and deliberate attack 

Business Intelligence Developer

Applications for admissions are open..

JEE Main Important Chemistry formulas

As per latest 2024 syllabus. Chemistry formulas, equations, & laws of class 11 & 12th chapters

Aakash iACST Scholarship Test 2024

Get up to 90% scholarship on NEET, JEE & Foundation courses

Resonance Coaching

Enroll in Resonance Coaching for success in JEE/NEET exams

TOEFL ® Registrations 2024

Thinking of Studying Abroad? Think the TOEFL® test. Register now & Save 10% on English Proficiency Tests with Gift Cards

ALLEN JEE Exam Prep

Start your JEE preparation with ALLEN

NEET 2024 Most scoring concepts

Just Study 32% of the NEET syllabus and Score upto 100% marks

Everything about Education

Latest updates, Exclusive Content, Webinars and more.

Download Careers360 App's

Regular exam updates, QnA, Predictors, College Applications & E-books now on your Mobile

Cetifications

We Appeared in

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• CAREER FEATURE
• 01 April 2024

How scientists are making the most of Reddit

• Hannah Docter-Loeb 0

Hannah Docter-Loeb is a freelance writer in Washington DC.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

You have full access to this article via your institution.

Reddit’s many ‘subreddit’ communities offer channels for discussing science and are of interest to social-media scholars. Credit: Amy Lombard/New York Times/Redux/eyevine

It has been almost 18 months since Elon Musk purchased Twitter, now known as X. Since the tech mogul took ownership, in October 2022, the number of daily active users of the platform’s mobile app has fallen by around 15%, and in April 2023 the company cut its workforce by 80%. Thousands of scientists are reducing the time they spend on the platform ( Nature 613 , 19–21; 2023 ). Some have gravitated towards newer social-media alternatives, such as Mastodon and Bluesky. But others are finding a home on a system that pre-dates Twitter: Reddit.

The site was founded in 2005, originally as one all-encompassing forum where users (known as redditors) could post content such as links, texts, images and videos. Anonymous user upvote (or downvote) and comment on each other’s content, deciding on what performs well enough to reach others’ feeds.

Social media for scientists

Today, Reddit is divided into communities, called subreddits, each with volunteer moderators who review content. These subreddits have names that begin with ‘r/’ and are devoted to all sorts of subjects, such as literature, solo travel and Washington DC. Reddit is regularly irreverent: r/trees is for people to share content about marijuana, whereas r/marijuanaenthusiasts is the place to look at trees. It is sometimes dangerous — some communities have amplified conspiracy theories. And there are subreddits devoted to science, ranging from the broad r/science to more specific ones, such as r/bacteriophages.

As of December 2023, according to Reddit’s own statistics, the site had 73 million daily active users, more than 100,000 active communities and had amassed over 16 billion posts and comments. In February 2024, it was the eighth most visited website in the world, ahead of both Amazon and TikTok (see go.nature.com/3tugxbq ). And on 20 March, the company floated on the New York Stock Exchange, where it was initially valued at US$6.4 billion. With most researchers now needing to pay to download useful amounts of data on X, Reddit is another option to survey the Internet hivemind. Although changes made last year threaten researchers’ ability to pull data as easily as they once did, Reddit says access to its data continues to be free for non-commercial researchers and academics.

“As the social-media landscape started changing, we really started thinking about the other spaces besides Twitter that people are using,” says Nicholas Proferes, a social media researcher at Arizona State University’s School of Social and Behavioral Sciences in Phoenix, who co-authored reviews on the use of Reddit for research 1 , 2 . Here, Nature reports on how Reddit is providing scientists with continued avenues for connecting with other researchers, gathering data and engaging with the public.

Networking and collaboration

Yvette Cendes’s journey on Reddit began in 2014. Cendes, who is currently a postdoctoral scholar at the Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts, found herself with some downtime during her PhD studies in astronomy, and started poking around on the platform. She came across a thread in which users were panicking over how imminent γ-ray bursts from supernovae were going to wreak havoc and kill people — something that she knew to be untrue. She resolved to jump into the comments and clear things up, and this was the start of her science-communication career.

Since then, Cendes has made a name for herself on Reddit and even created her own subreddit, with nearly 17,000 members. “It’s a very good way to get good knowledge out there,” she says.

Scientists also use Reddit to get tips and tricks from other scientists. The r/biotech subreddit features news about biotechnology innovations and career advice; r/datascience is a community specifically for data-science professionals. There’s even a subreddit devoted to electron microscopy, from which users can seek guidance on the technology.

Yvette Cendes discusses astronomy as a science and a career on Reddit. Credit: Floris Looijesteijn

Not everyone is as forthcoming with their names and credentials on Reddit, which can make networking a bit more challenging than on other sites, says Cendes. But the pseudoanonymity can also be beneficial. Groups such as r/labrats offer safe spaces for scientists to discuss their research or dilemmas with others of similar backgrounds (and these groups are sometimes used by science journalists looking for article ideas). The anonymity provides some protection for people to post without fear of retaliation, and to seek counsel. In one discussion, for instance, a user laments how their principal investigator published a paper based on their research without giving credit, and considers hiring legal support.

Reddit can also be a great jumping-off point for early-career scientists or those trying to pivot between specialties. Kevin Ortiz Ceballos, a graduate student at Harvard University’s Department of Astronomy, happened upon one of Cendes’ posts about how to become an astronomer back when he was in secondary school. He credits it with helping him to switch from literature to physics and eventually astrophysics. Engaging in conversations about professional astronomy before entering the field himself was a huge asset.

“The fact that Yvette made it so accessible gave me the tools I needed to take the necessary steps to study and prepare what I needed to get into astronomy grad school,” he says. The two have since connected in person, and even collaborated on a project that was recently submitted for publication.

With all of its subspaces, Reddit can be overwhelming at first. Cendes encourages potential users to take it slowly, find the communities they are most interested in and go from there — putting keywords in the search function and perusing the different subreddits that come up.

Research and analysis

The information embedded in posts and comments from Reddit’s millions of users can also be a treasure trove for researchers studying online behaviours. In 2022, NASA collaborated with master’s students at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, to use Reddit data to locate landslides (see go.nature.com/3tlum6t ). The team scraped the site for mentions of ‘landslide’, before analysing and validating relevant mentions to add to the NASA landslides database. According to the team, this verification was needed because a Reddit post about the song ‘Landslide’ by the rock band Fleetwood Mac might “give us insight about the changes and challenges of life, but it doesn’t do much for global disaster detection”.

TikTok for physics: influencers aim to spark interest in science

A 2021 review 2 in Social Media + Society , co-authored by Proferes, chronicled 727 manuscripts published between 2010 and 2020, that made use of Reddit data. These studies spanned all sorts of disciplines — from computer science to medicine to social science.

One reason that Reddit is ripe for research is that there are few bureaucratic hurdles to clear compared with what’s required for other studies involving human beings. “It is a publicly accessible web forum in the US and so is not considered to be human-subjects research,” says Proferes. Institutional review boards view Reddit research as “exempt from ethical review”, he says.

However, Proferes and his co-authors emphasize the need for intentionality and sensitivity when collecting data from the site. Consider a subreddit such as r/opiates. Data on substance use are often difficult to procure from in-person interviews or other social science methods, but because of Reddit’s anonymity, people are more open to sharing such information on the platform. However, using the subreddit for research could be seen as invasive by a community that considers itself a semi-private anonymous support network. Certain communities on Reddit are also wary of scientific researchers.

The 2024 review co-authored by Proferes 1 lists some of these considerations and suggests steps such as obfuscating usernames in published work and collaborating with moderators.

“Academia and data populations have a very sore history of, frankly, academics coming in and just taking,” says Proferes. The online community “is not getting any benefit whatsoever. It is very exploitative. There’s some real historical reasons, too, why folks may be highly suspicious or dubious about researchers coming in, even in these digital spaces.”

Research findings derived from Reddit posts should be shared with users, says Sarah Gilbert. Credit: Steven Shea

“It’s really easy when you’re working with these large data sets to just think of the data points in them as literal data,” says Sarah Gilbert, research director of the Citizens and Technology Lab at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, and a co-author of the review. “Spending time in the community and learning the norms and actually reading it, it turns that data into people. It gives a better sense of who is going to be included, more like human-subject research.”

Gilbert also recommends sharing whatever published research comes out of trawling through Reddit data with those who provided the information. “Hopefully what you learnt is beneficial to the community so they can see data is used for something,” she says.

Connecting with non-scientists

Reddit can be a way for scientists to use their expertise to answer any questions the general public might have, says Cendes. She is a regular on r/space, educating users about topics such as the James Webb Space Telescope.

Kelly Zimmerman, a PhD candidate in ecology at Montclair State University in New Jersey, has connected with and educated other users on Reddit. When she started on the platform about 12 years ago, she mostly used it to find journal articles of interest on r/ecology and r/biology. But, like Cendes, she noticed how curious users were about scientific topics that were in her area of expertise, and she now often engages in discussions on subreddits such as r/whatisthisbug.

Thousands of scientists are cutting back on Twitter, seeding angst and uncertainty

Although she previously used X, Zimmerman thinks that Reddit provides a more engaging experience. “I felt like I was just talking into a void — there wasn’t a lot of response on Twitter,” she says.

One way for scientists to try their hand at science communication on Reddit is through ‘ask me anything’ (AMA) sessions, in which researchers answer users’ questions in their own time. Moderators pull in verified researchers to provide responses — even renowned theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking participated. (To schedule an AMA with r/askscience, you can e-mail the moderators.)

With both AMAs and general discussion forums, there is an art to making sure that information is communicated effectively and succinctly. “We’re trying to keep it as scientific as possible, but in layman’s terms, so that non-scientists can understand cutting-edge science that’s coming out right now,” says Zimmerman, who also moderates some science subreddits.

Nathan Allen, a synthetic chemist based in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and a former moderator at r/science, likens it to writing a persuasive e-mail. “On Reddit, you have got to convince the general public that this has some general interest to them, and you’ve got to develop it and build the message and make sure people stay on point,” he says. “You get a lot of practice writing concise explanations of complicated things that people who aren’t necessarily scientists are able to digest and understand.”

When using Reddit in any capacity, Zimmerman encourages scientists to make sure to read the rules before making a post or comment, and to mind their manners, just as they would on any other social-media platform. “Be polite,” she says. “Just because you’re an anonymous username doesn’t mean you should be rude to other people.”

Jennifer Cole, a biologist and anthropologist at Royal Holloway University of London, notes that using Reddit for scientific communication is not without its problems. Moderators do a lot of work behind the scenes and often face a torrent of abuse for trying to maintain standards, says Cole. And although using people’s real names can help with credibility, it can also make academics and experts targets for harassment and abuse. Although the site does not provide support for users who experience abuse, a spokesperson for Reddit noted that the platform has policies to prohibit both harassment and the sharing of personal or confidential information, and that these policies are enforced by the internal safety teams.

It can also be used to spread falsehoods. R/conspiracy has repeatedly posted misinformation about COVID-19 and vaccines. Climate deniers are also present on the platform, although a decade ago the science forum specifically banned climate change deniers. Asked about misinformation, the Reddit spokesperson said that because Reddit is governed by upvotes and downvotes, quality and accurate information tend to rise to the top.

Interviewees agree that Reddit is at its core a social media platform, and social media has the potential to be toxic. But when scientists engage, there’s also a lot of great scientific communication and debunking of misinformation. “Don’t be afraid to talk to the people,” Zimmerman says. Those “who are not scientists are just as curious as we are. There’s nothing special about being a scientist. We are like everybody else, and sometimes folks forget that.”

Nature 628 , 221-223 (2024)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00906-y

Fiesler, C., Zimmer, M., Proferes, N., Gilbert, S. & Jones, N. Proc. ACM Hum. Comp. Interact. 8 , 5 (2024).

Article   Google Scholar  

Proferes, N., Jones, N., Gilbert, S., Fiesler, C. & Zimmer, M. Soc. Media Soc . https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051211019004 (2021).

Download references

Related Articles

• Information technology

Overcoming low vision to prove my abilities under pressure

Career Q&A 28 MAR 24

How a spreadsheet helped me to land my dream job

Career Column 28 MAR 24

Maple-scented cacti and pom-pom cats: how pranking at work can lift lab spirits

Career Feature 27 MAR 24

A global timekeeping problem postponed by global warming

Article 27 MAR 24

AI image generators often give racist and sexist results: can they be fixed?

News Feature 19 MAR 24

Why scientists trust AI too much — and what to do about it

Editorial 06 MAR 24

Faculty Positions & Postdocs at Institute of Physics (IOP), Chinese Academy of Sciences

IOP is the leading research institute in China in condensed matter physics and related fields. Through the steadfast efforts of generations of scie...

Beijing, China

Institute of Physics (IOP), Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS)

Postdoctoral Scholar - PHAST Alzheimer

Memphis, Tennessee

The University of Tennessee Health Science Center (UTHSC)

Postdoctoral Associate- Neurodevelopmental Disease

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Supervisory Bioinformatics Specialist, CTG Program Head

National Institutes of Health (NIH) National Library of Medicine (NLM) National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) Information Engineering...

Washington D.C. (US)

National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information

Postdoc Research Associates in Single Cell Multi-Omics Analysis and Molecular Biology

The Cao Lab at UT Dallas is seeking for two highly motivated postdocs in Single Cell Multi-Omics Analysis and Molecular Biology to join us.

Dallas, Texas (US)

the Department of Bioengineering, UT Dallas

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Skip to main content
• Skip to secondary menu
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

Study Today

Largest Compilation of Structured Essays and Exams

Essay on My Favourite Scientist | Short Paragraph

December 3, 2017 by Study Mentor 3 Comments

Of all the scientists I have read about, I like Thomas Alva Edison (born on 11 February 1847,) the best, because he was a hard worker and a very fine human being.

He is credited with inventing the telegraph, the electric bulb, the telephone, the dynamo, the motion picture machine and the electric train.

There are hundreds of other minor appliances that he invented. Such a great and genius personality. By the way, in school life  he was not very clever, but he was hardworking. As a scientist, he was patient and humble and kind.

He encouraged the youth to work hard and to learn from their mistake. He is the only man who first provided the entire city of New York with electricity. The next city he electrified was Paris.

Even though he met with failure many a time, he was not discouraged. He tried every possible known metal to make the filament of the electric bulb. Every time the bulb would glow for a short time and then burn out.

Just by chance he decides to use a non-metal. Carbon. Wonder of wonder – the bulb not only emitted light, but kept on doing so for a long time.  It was his patience that gave him victory over darkness.

He is my role model too. Just because of his patience and dedication towards work lead’s him to be successful.

In today’s life whether we used electric bulb, or the latest Led bulb, no matter, but we should always recall this man, who gave path to light over the darkness.

I do hope that when I grow up I become a scientist like Thomas Edison and work like him.

Some of Thomas Edison Inventions

• Autographic printer
• Carbon microphone
• Kinetoscope
• Electric Bulb

Awards Edison got for his successful inventions

• Edward Longstreth Medal
• Albert Medal

Many more to be listed, but I have describe few of them above.

Table of Contents

My Favourite Scientist Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam

It is very important to have a role model in our lives who will inspire us to be someone in future so as to leave an everlasting mark on history. Having a knack for science, my favorite scientist and role model had always been the late Dr.A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, one of the leading scientists of India’s space program, and also the former President of India

The life of Dr.Kalam is a tale of perseverance and has numerous things that we can learn from both from the perspective of science as well as for the betterment of ourselves and an individual.

HIS EARLY LIFE AND STRUGGLES

He was born into a middle class Tamil family in an island town of Rameswaram in the state of Madras. His father Jainulabdeen didn’t have any kind of formal education, nor was he wealthy. In spite of all these hindrances, he had in himself great wisdom and had a truly generous spirit.

His mother Ashiiamma was a lady full of care for everyone around. She loved to feed people and every day at home far more number of people ate than the total members of their family.

Young Dr.Kalam had many siblings. He was short with undistinguished looks. His father always preached and practiced to live a life devoid of all unnecessary luxuries.

HIS STUDENT LIFE

After completing his bachelors in science in Physics, he wanted to study engineering. In order to fund this desire of his, his sister, had mortgaged her gold bangles to procure money. While in the first year of engineering at the Madras Institute of Technology, Kalam always

desired to fly and had subsequently chosen aerospace engineering as his field of specialization.

After graduating from the Madras institute of Technology, Dr. Kalam joined the Defense Research and Space Organization (DRDO).

His work was of such vigour and prominence that just after nine years of service there, he was transferred to the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) as the project director of India’s first Satellite Launch Vehicle (SLV-III) which after 10 years of hard work came into reality placing the Rohini Satellite in the near-earth orbit.

The story of this SLV development also teaches us something greatly about Dr.Kalam, that how he was a person of immense hope and indomitable spirit. The ISRO team had faced many setbacks before the Rohini satellite was finally successfully orbited in 1980.

During the mid-70s, when they had prepared a launch vehicle, instead of going to the orbit, the satellite failed and landed into the Bay of Bengal. Everyone but Dr.Kalam was disappointed. When time came for the press conference, he did not let any of his team members go to the stage, he himself faced all the criticisms and ill-talks.

Few years later when the mission was successful, at the press conference, Dr.Kalam was at the back and he told his team to go to stage and take the credit. This spirit of Dr. Kalam is truly remarkable, both as a scientist as well as a human being. He was an ideal leader when time came to face the harsh setbacks; he was the one who took responsibility for it, whereas when success was achieved, he gave the credit to his team.

HIS INDOMITABLE SPIRIT

Dr.Kalam since the days of his early student hood had a desire to fly. So he applied for the test for being a fighter jet pilot. He was rejected narrowly. He placed nine for the post which had only eight vacancies.

Post this defeat he was extremely disappointed and for once thought of quitting everything and becoming a saint. But it was only because of his indomitable spirit that he did not give up and tried other avenues where his skills were put to better use.

His achievements as a scientist

Dr.Kalam had a very illustrious career as a scientist successfully launched satellite Rohini to orbit through the SLV-III.

In the 1980s he led India’s missile programme. Under his leadership, India became a major military power after the successes of Agni and Prithvi.

Not only in the field of aviation and defense. Dr.Kalam’s work toward the development of nation knew no bounds and had no limit to his scope of work. In 1998, along with cardiologist Dr.Soma Raju, Kalam developed a low cost Coronary stent. It was named as “Kalam-Raju Stent” honouring them

In 1998, the Pokhran-II tests showcased India’s nuclear capabilities to the world. Mr Kalam’s role was instrumental in the project.

His views on war

Dr.APJ Abdul Kalam, had a very interesting opinion about war and weapons. He was a peace loving man till death and never ever had resorted to any form of violence to achieve some specific target. However he was of the opinion that every country should be self-sufficient in terms of armory and their inventory of weapons should be as powerful. He always said that weapons are necessary to prevent war. He used to call nuclear weapons as ‘weapons of peace’.

His love for Everyone

Dr. Kalam while serving his term of Presidency did everything in his power to not only spread love for science but also bring the masses closer to the government.

He was known for making trips pan India meeting students and addressing gatherings inspiring them with his words of wisdom. He loved children and the children loved him too. Till date he is considered by many to be the most knowledgeable and approachable President that the country has ever seen.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Top Trending Essays in March 2021

• Essay on Pollution
• Essay on my School
• Summer Season
• My favourite teacher
• World heritage day quotes
• my family speech
• importance of trees essay
• autobiography of a pen
• honesty is the best policy essay
• essay on building a great india
• my favourite book essay
• essay on caa
• my favourite player
• autobiography of a river
• farewell speech for class 10 by class 9
• essay my favourite teacher 200 words
• internet influence on kids essay
• my favourite cartoon character

Brilliantly

Content & links.

Verified by Sur.ly

Essay for Students

• Essay for Class 1 to 5 Students

Scholarships for Students

• Class 1 Students Scholarship
• Class 2 Students Scholarship
• Class 3 Students Scholarship
• Class 4 Students Scholarship
• Class 5 students Scholarship
• Class 6 Students Scholarship
• Class 7 students Scholarship
• Class 8 Students Scholarship
• Class 9 Students Scholarship
• Class 10 Students Scholarship
• Class 11 Students Scholarship
• Class 12 Students Scholarship

STAY CONNECTED

• About Study Today
• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions

Scholarships

• Apj Abdul Kalam Scholarship
• Ashirwad Scholarship
• Bihar Scholarship
• Canara Bank Scholarship
• Colgate Scholarship
• Dr Ambedkar Scholarship
• E District Scholarship
• Epass Karnataka Scholarship
• Fair And Lovely Scholarship
• Floridas John Mckay Scholarship
• Inspire Scholarship
• Jio Scholarship
• Karnataka Minority Scholarship
• Lic Scholarship
• Maulana Azad Scholarship
• Medhavi Scholarship
• Minority Scholarship
• Moma Scholarship
• Mp Scholarship
• Muslim Minority Scholarship
• Nsp Scholarship
• Oasis Scholarship
• Obc Scholarship
• Odisha Scholarship
• Pfms Scholarship
• Post Matric Scholarship
• Pre Matric Scholarship
• Prerana Scholarship
• Prime Minister Scholarship
• Rajasthan Scholarship
• Santoor Scholarship
• Sitaram Jindal Scholarship
• Ssp Scholarship
• Swami Vivekananda Scholarship
• Ts Epass Scholarship
• Up Scholarship
• Vidhyasaarathi Scholarship
• Wbmdfc Scholarship
• West Bengal Minority Scholarship
• Click Here Now!!

Mobile Number

Have you Burn Crackers this Diwali ? Yes No

CBSE Board Exam 2024: Check High Mark Questions From Previous Year Computer Science Paper

Papers are available from the board year 2019 on the official website of the cbse..

The Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) will conduct the board exam for Class 12 Computer Science on April 2, 2024. Students appearing in the exam can visit the official website of the CBSE to check question papers of the previous years to familiarise themselves with the paper pattern. Papers are available from the board year 2019 on the official website of the CBSE .

High mark Computer Science questions from previous year paper:

Q) Write one difference between OSV and text files. Write a program in Python that defines and calls the following user defined functions: (i) COURIER ADD: It takes the values from the user and adds the details to a cv file 'courier. csv'. Each record consists of a list with field clements as cid, s_name, Source, destination to store Courier ID, Sender name, Source and destination address respectively. (ii) COURIER SEARCH() : Takes the destination as the input and displays all the courier records going to that destination. OR Q) Why it is important to close a file before exiting? Q) Write a program in Python that defines and calls the following user defined functions: (i) Add_Book: Takes the details of the books and adds them to a csv file 'Book.csv. Each record consists of a list with field elements as book_ID, B_name and pub to store book ID, book name and publisher respectively. (ii) Search_Book : Takes publisher name as input and counts and displays number of books published by them.

Q) Shreyas is a programmer, who has recently been given a task to write a user defined function named write bin() to create a binary file called Cust_file.dat containing customer information - customer number (c_ no), name (c _name), quantity (qty), price (price) and amount (amt) of each customer. The function accepts customer number, name, quantity and price. Thereafter, it displays the message 'Quantity less than 10....Cannot SAVE', if quantity entered is less than 10. Otherwise the function calculates amount as price*quantity and then writes the record in the form of a list into the binary file.

Promoted Listen to the latest songs, only on JioSaavn.com

import pickle  def write bin(): bin file= ___ #statement 1 while True: c_no-int (input("enter customer number") ) c_name=input ("enter customer name") qty=int(input ("enter qty") price-int (input ("'enter price")) if ___#Statement  2 print ("Quantity less than 10. .Cannot SAVE") else: amt= price   *qty c_detail = [c_no, c_name, qty, price, amt] _____ #Statement 3 ans-input ("Do you wish to enter more records y/n")  if ans. Lower ()= =-'n': # Statement 4 # Statement 5 # Statement 6

Students can check the complete question paper on the official website of the CBSE. The board has also published sample papers and marking scheme for the Computer Science exam.

Track Budget 2023 and get Latest News Live on NDTV.com.

Track Latest News Live on NDTV.com and get news updates from India and around the world .

Track Latest News and Election Results Coverage Live on NDTV.com and get news updates from India and around the world.

Watch Live News:

• Mobile Site
• Staff Directory
• Advertise with Ars

Filter by topic

• Biz & IT
• Gaming & Culture

Front page layout

image processing —

Playboy image from 1972 gets ban from ieee computer journals, use of "lenna" image in computer image processing research stretches back to the 1970s..

Benj Edwards - Mar 29, 2024 9:16 pm UTC

On Wednesday, the IEEE Computer Society announced to members that, after April 1, it would no longer accept papers that include a frequently used image of a 1972 Playboy model named Lena Forsén. The so-called " Lenna image ," (Forsén added an extra "n" to her name in her Playboy appearance to aid pronunciation) has been used in image processing research since 1973 and has attracted criticism for making some women feel unwelcome in the field.

Further Reading

In an email from the IEEE Computer Society sent to members on Wednesday, Technical & Conference Activities Vice President Terry Benzel wrote , "IEEE's diversity statement and supporting policies such as the IEEE Code of Ethics speak to IEEE's commitment to promoting an including and equitable culture that welcomes all. In alignment with this culture and with respect to the wishes of the subject of the image, Lena Forsén, IEEE will no longer accept submitted papers which include the 'Lena image.'"

An uncropped version of the 512×512-pixel test image originally appeared as the centerfold picture for the December 1972 issue of Playboy Magazine. Usage of the Lenna image in image processing began in June or July 1973 when an assistant professor named Alexander Sawchuck and a graduate student at the University of Southern California Signal and Image Processing Institute scanned a square portion of the centerfold image with a primitive drum scanner, omitting nudity present in the original image. They scanned it for a colleague's conference paper, and after that, others began to use the image as well.

The image's use spread in other papers throughout the 1970s, '80s, and '90s , and it caught Playboy's attention, but the company decided to overlook the copyright violations. In 1997, Playboy helped track down Forsén, who appeared at the 50th Annual Conference of the Society for Imaging Science in Technology, signing autographs for fans. "They must be so tired of me... looking at the same picture for all these years!" she said at the time. VP of new media at Playboy Eileen Kent told Wired , "We decided we should exploit this, because it is a phenomenon."

The image, which features Forsén's face and bare shoulder as she wears a hat with a purple feather, was reportedly ideal for testing image processing systems in the early years of digital image technology due to its high contrast and varied detail. It is also a sexually suggestive photo of an attractive woman, and its use by men in the computer field has garnered criticism over the decades, especially from female scientists and engineers who felt that the image (especially related to its association with the Playboy brand) objectified women and created an academic climate where they did not feel entirely welcome.

Due to some of this criticism, which dates back to at least 1996 , the journal Nature banned the use of the Lena image in paper submissions in 2018.

The comp.compression Usenet newsgroup FAQ document claims that in 1988, a Swedish publication asked Forsén if she minded her image being used in computer science, and she was reportedly pleasantly amused. In a 2019 Wired article , Linda Kinstler wrote that Forsén did not harbor resentment about the image, but she regretted that she wasn't paid better for it originally. "I’m really proud of that picture," she told Kinstler at the time.

Since then, Forsén has apparently changed her mind. In 2019, Creatable and Code Like a Girl created an advertising documentary titled Losing Lena , which was part of a promotional campaign aimed at removing the Lena image from use in tech and the image processing field. In a press release for the campaign and film, Forsén is quoted as saying, "I retired from modelling a long time ago. It’s time I retired from tech, too. We can make a simple change today that creates a lasting change for tomorrow. Let’s commit to losing me."

It seems like that commitment is now being granted. The ban in IEEE publications, which have been historically important journals for computer imaging development, will likely further set a precedent toward removing the Lenna image from common use. In the email, IEEE's Benzel recommended wider sensitivity about the issue, writing, "In order to raise awareness of and increase author compliance with this new policy, program committee members and reviewers should look for inclusion of this image, and if present, should ask authors to replace the Lena image with an alternative."

reader comments

Channel ars technica.