The Key To Astronomy Has Often Been Serendipity 51
Ars Technica has a great look at just how often serendipity plays a part in major astronomy advances. From Galileo to the accidental discovery of cosmic microwaves, it seems that it is still better to be lucky than good. "But what's stunning is a catalog of just how common this sort of event has been. Herschell was looking for faint stars when he happened across the planet Uranus, while Piazi was simply creating a star catalog when he observed the object that turned out to be the first asteroid to ever be described, Ceres I."
This is surprising? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This is surprising? (Score:5, Insightful)
My point too... How is this news? As has often been said, science is less about "Eureka!" and more about "Hmm, that's odd..."
Re:This is surprising? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even more: astronomy is mainly an observational science. If something does not happen (or more preciselly, the information of the event arrives) right when you are looking out, you will never discover it. You cannot set up an experiment to test your ideas you always need to be lucky enough to see things happen.
Ok. So that theory about the big bang is nice. Let's make another big bang so we can test it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, that is close to one of the objectives: of this gadget [wikipedia.org]
Re:This is surprising? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's funny how "lucky" things often happen to those striving to do new and interesting things in various pursuits. In order for luck to cause anything to happen you have to be set up to take advantage of the lucky situation. The more you do the "luckier" you'll get. (As long as you keep your eyes open while you do it.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"Chance favors the prepared mind" - Loius Pasteur
Re:This is surprising? (Score:5, Insightful)
In addition to luck you must also have a flexible mind. This to be able to interpret the unexpected data. Otherwise you can only dismiss it as magic.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Arthur C. Clarke, "Profiles of The Future", 1961 (Clarke's third law)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not impossible that you're remembering correctly, and it's simply that your sources were hopelessly ill-informed to the extent that it's almost malicious.
Yeah, like, that happens? I did a course in observatio
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that the first blood transfusion happened to work was mostly luck, had it not worked out well it would've probably been quite some time before somebody tried again.
You're thinking of the successful blood transfusions in the 19th century. Nobody remembers the first blood transfusions in 1667, which did not work out well at all. Jean-Baptiste Denys gave four people blood transfusions from sheep. (It was thought that lamb's blood would quiet the spirit of a tempestuous person, while the shy would be made more outgoing by blood from more sociable creatures.) Surprisingly most of his patients recovered and felt great. Except for one guy who felt so good he went to a tavern
Serendipity != Luck (Score:2)
There is more to scientific serendipity than just luck. A degree of luck is certainly involved, as by definition the process involves observing something one did not plan to see. However, that is why scientists do research: If we only ever saw what we expected to see, then why bother?
But there is an important additional ingredient to it, and that is being able to actually absorb the unexpected and to be able to think of a reasonable explanation for it. The ability to give unexpected data a rational interpre
Re: (Score:2)
Not surprising at all. Astronomy is still a field where there is a lot of "discovery" going on. In many other sciences, we basically know what everything does, and we are trying to find out how those things happen, whereas in astronomy, we're still trying to discover what's out there. When you don't know what you're looking for, the only way that you can find it is luck.
The Sky is Big (Score:3, Insightful)
Odds are if an astronomer is going to be looking around for evidence to support one hypothesis, they'll come across lots of other stuff while they're at it.
Its not the same as staring at the sludge in the bottom of a test tube.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Its not the same as staring at the sludge in the bottom of a test tube.
Are you kidding? Do you not realize how many scientific discoveries occur because scientists were looking at one thing and found something totally unexpected? It kind of defines "discovery".
Not all things are predicted, in fact most things aren't.
Look at vulcanized rubber for example, it was a complete accident. Goodyear had the basics in place, but it wasn't until he accidentally dropped some of it on the iron stove he was using to boil it in sulphur, and bingo! It was perfect. Without that invention w
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Look at vulcanized rubber for example, it was a complete accident. Goodyear had the basics in place, but it wasn't until he accidentally dropped some of it on the iron stove he was using to boil it in sulphur, and bingo!
But that discovery was limited in that it could only find things involving a hot stove and a piece of rubber. Astronomers have to search everywhere for evidence to support their research.
Imagine what might have been growing in the refrigerator that your Goodyear scientist missed by not looking there as well.
In the fields of observation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, what a succinct expression of my thought when reading this headline, You've got to be competent to take advantage of serendipity!.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I beg to differ.
How can chance, any truly random event, favor anyone ?
I have always wondered how odd little quote was ascribed to Loius Pasteur, I doubt that he meant it as it was translated.
Successful discovery, may indeed favor a knowledgeable and persistent observer.
Those ready, willing and able to say "That's Odd" because their preparedness allows them to know why some event seems anomalous...
Whereas other other, perhaps less knowledgable or persistent (or both), may fail to see an anomaly in the data a
Similarly... (Score:1)
The harder I work, the luckier I get. --Samuel Goldwyn
the surprise is what defines a "breakthrough" (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe important findings get publicity and "breakthrough!" status only if they're somewhat surprising? If folks chip away at a problem for 20 years, even if the result is the same as waiting 19 years and then having a eureka discovery, is it still called a breakthrough?
Re:the surprise is what defines a "breakthrough" (Score:4, Insightful)
First post ever, finally took the leap after two years worth of lurking.
Serendipity's Guide to the Galaxy (Score:4, Informative)
Prof. Andy Fabian's (of the Institute of Astronomy at the University of Cambridge and president of the Royal Astronomical Society) entertaining lecture on this very topic, entitled Serendipity's Guide to the Galaxy is available on-line in a range of formats. [cam.ac.uk]. Enjoy!
Meh (Score:3, Interesting)
There are so many things going on out there that you are likely to stumble upon something that in hindsight appears serendipitous. You may have won a lottery, but since you have tickets to million different ones, it's not that amazing really.
Re: (Score:2)
There are so many things going on out there that you are likely to stumble upon something that in hindsight appears serendipitous. You may have won a lottery, but since you have tickets to million different ones, it's not that amazing really.
Did BadAnalogyGuy change his name?
Re: (Score:2)
Explain, guy.
A dozen lucky breaks in 400 years? (Score:2)
This sort of pop-sci is really insulting to the huge number of dedicated scientists and technicians who spend their whole lives carefully taking measurements, building and proving (or disproving) theories, based on painstaking work. Even worse is that it makes it harder for people to get grants if the bodies holding the purse strings (or the public who's money it eventually is) thinks it's basically a lottery.
Re: (Score:2)
Those discoveries are by "the huge number of dedicated scientists and technicians who spend their whole lives carefully taking measurements, building and proving (or disproving) theories, based on painstaking work". They just are not always the expected discoveries. The giant 1859 solar flare Richard Carrington and Richard Hodgson was seen by both of them because they were - watching. Nevertheless it was serendipity, not only that they were watching but (from the preserved ice record) that the flare even
But, to be lucky... (Score:2)
...you must be good first.
Great Excuse (Score:5, Funny)
War, yeah right. More likely Galileo wanted to peep at the neighbor's bosomy daughter. Porn drove new tech back then also.
Re: (Score:1)
A Million Monkeys (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
KEY!? OFTEN!? SENSATIONALISM IN /. ?? (Score:1)
Uranus and a Asteroid does not sound to me like KEY or OFTEN...
Or Serendipity AND Omnipotence combined.... (Score:2)