Daniel Gilbert, professor of Psychology at the Harvard University, explains the relation between creativity and scientific rigor.
Read the full transcript »
[Music playing] Title: How do you do strike the balance between creativity and scientific rigor? I do not understand creativity in scientific rigor as antonyms and I am not even sure they have a relationship. They seem to me to be two attributes of good science. A good science is creative, it tells about things we do not already know, it is surprises as with solutions. We would not have thought of buy the moment we hear them we go, back and see it is right. That is the creative part. In science is of course about rigor. Anybody can be creative in anyway but science has a lot of rules within which we have to be creative. In this sense, science is like hi-co. You know it is a highly constrained form and the question is can you be creative within the rules? That is what science asks as to do. [Music playing] Title: How can you be sure that what you are teaching as right is right? Oh, we do not. Right now we believe all of its right. But if science -- if the history is any guide, we are going to find out that half of what we believe now based on scientific evidence is wrong. The other half, we will find out was right. It is a slow accumulation of knowledge and revision of mistakes. But it is progress. It is not like we just keep throwing everything out and starting out all over again. The accumulative progress is slower than any would but and any one would like but it is undeniable. [Music playing]