Even though I haven't studied one of the so called hard science (I have a science degree) I think creativity is necessary in natural science. May I mention Albert Einstein?

Haha, yeah, ol' Einstein, a classic example! Do you have any "stories"?

It also seems to me, that the more anecdotes I hear, the more work of any kind seems to have (or can be explained with) a creative part. But, as mentioned in the "question", creativity is a growing field of study and have more or less become a study of it self, with departments, Ph.D, and so forth. In my experience, creativity confronts very much the same challenges that discussions of consciousness does: both are evidently experiences of most humans. Everyone have an opinion about it. But no general theory is accepted. Nor does one specific theory seem to be more dominant than others. While in the study of consciousness, many theories are available and many have strong dominance, no single one seems to be more dominating than others - at least not through out whole paradigms.

I believe that the challenge of such pursuits of constant theories to be accepted by all is with the "questioning" of, as well as with the concept it self - as it is commonly understood. Most of all it is to me a linguistic or even more a philological problem.

Consciousness, as we use it in indo-european language, derives from latin con 'with' + scire 'know'. Thus "having knowledge", might be understood as consciousness. But that is of course not enough. The paradox of translations is that there's always a discourse, moving from one to another. If we for example are to accept the translation scire = "know", then we might be tempted to examine "know". Most dictionaries will tell you that it originates from Old English cnāwan (earlier gecnāwan) [recognize, identify,] of Germanic origin; from an Indo-European root shared by Latin (g)noscere, Greek gignōskein, also by can and ken. It doesn't say much directly, but we might reflect upon that the root is shared with "can" and "ken". Both are in my experience very physical, as they are practical and physical embodied, active related to ability as to "do/doing". The irony is, though, that "scire" is being translated to "know", which in it's own meaning have a etymological reference to latin different from "scire". The meanings them self intertwine each other. And even more, translations might change, while we with research develops or expands our "knowledge" and ideas of how those words where once used. As an example: using the word "spirit" in science today is taboo, but in german "geist", which also exists in english but is exclusively understood as "spirit/ghost", is still used in german-spoken discussions of consciousness, in relation to "mind", "psyche", "wit", and more - maybe Gudrun, can comment/have experience on that? (To give this transfusion of meaning and relations a third degree burn, one might take a look at "spirit" which originates from latin meaning "breathe", and as such doesn't really seem (to us, today) to be anything supernatural or strange, but rather an unavoidable experience of being alive. Still, that is not how we usually conceptualize "spirit"). Some hundred years ago, you where a fool, though, if you didn't talk about "spirit", in discussions about "the mind", just as most physician of ancient greece took the concept of "gods" to be a natural phenomenon. Even more we might question whether a early 1800 philosopher actually though of spirits as we do today, or rather that the philosopher experienced it and used it as we would use consciousness today - that is to say, without supernaturalism. Also a reading of earlier generation in general request abundance of respect and knowledge about the time in which it was written, Otherwise it is easy to condemn them unnecessarily. To criticizes a 1850 scientist with knowledge standards of 2012 is quite ironic and not very useful. It is like criticizing a colorblind for choosing the GREEN apple instead of the RED apple, because the color obviously indicates it's ripeness.

In a madness of words, continuous regressions and relation, I think my point is clear by now. Words carry meaning, meaning structured by humans. To apply a word is to apply meaning. Knowing that such words once where used in other relations or with another meaning, must form the insight that they might change again. And more over it would imply that active use of words in specific relations only integrates them even more into that discourse. But most of all, one would become aware that words, are representations of experience; words are created constantly and meaning is what we make of it. Natural science is not a natural occurring phenomenon by it self. It is a human concept. Paradoxically studies in natural science are dependent of language and structures of meaning created by humans. With such a logic, it is also ironic to believe that science can be "objective" as in the sense of constructing static, everlasting truths, but rather that objectivity is something generally accepted with a common understanding within a certain paradigm. Former generations certainly concerned some things to be "objective truth", which we today would laugh about for days. And days. And days. But what might the future generations not think of us today?

I'm not suggestion that objectivity should be avoided - for it certainly is a very functional concept! But rather that knowing that meaning changes and there's a variability to everything. With such an understanding one might also be more inclined to "think out side the box", try new ideas, experiment with new methods of research, play with concepts and be, yes, creative. All in all without being destroyed by suddenly conceiving or experiencing something as fundamentally different, than before; because you know, that things change and that meaning is an relation of relations.

It all depends on structure of meaning - even "hard" science.

Consciousness has develop into a concept, to be used in many relations, and have as such become an umbrella term, more than a specific simple concept. The eclecticism of the "consciousness" makes it difficult to agree upon one conventional theory, and even harder for natural science to structure a physical theory. Creativity confronts, in my experience, the same challenges. Without going in depth with "creativity" I would like though, to briefly direct focus upon that "creative" relates very much to "create". And as such I might have structured a meaning in which creativity is to be in the essence of everything we do, when we do, as long as we are "with knowing", being conscious, and even being in the laboratory thinking about HOW to solve a problem, creating new methods, apparatuses and so forth.

If creativity is in the process of creating and experimenting, it seems to me that natural sciences is very much creative indeed.

Good evening Johannes

Sorry I did not respond for such a long time, but because if the amount of projects there is not much time at the moment left for studing.

I am not deeply involved into languages. Therefore I am not able to comment on your comment to the origin of the word create. Language is of course a very important part in creativity. But I am convinced that beside language it is shemata as well, because they let as create picture of ideas and mix what we have learned. Creativity is mainly used when schemata don't work anymore and we need to find new concepts. When we are looking for new ideas we talk to people that have expierence with the subject we are thinking of or searching a solution for.

An interesting matter of creativity is unconcious problem solving. Studying a problen thoroughly means to work on it hard and then let it rest. While we are doing something different our mind will work on the solution. My example: Einstein sometimes found the answer to a question while he was sailing.

Creativity also means playing, trial and error. An example may be the Nobel Price of Physics of the year 2010. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2010/press.html

They found the result by chance when they were playing with Graphene.