What you call a "breakthrough" could either be a discovery of a material fact, which is most likely the result of hard work and a prepared mind, or a conceptual breakthrough. Conceptual breakthroughs, a form of inductive reasoning, occur because you see a relationship that was not seen before. How does that happen? Personally, I am convinced that the stimulus for a conceptual breakthrough is analogy.

The analogy can be with other scientific phenomena, with art, with personal experience, even with music. But when you see something that reminds you of something you have seen before in a different context, even if you don't realize it, it triggers an association that leads to insight.

Not just my opinion. Analogy has been called "the core of cognition".

I suspect that is why most top-level scientists I know also appreciate the arts and history. With the exception of a few mathematicians, the very best scientists seem to have broad interests. Perhaps that provides them with a rich inventory of analogies.

When we begin to learn about science, we tend to do so in a historical context, replete with examples of role models who made breakthrough discoveries by accident, or otherwise were struck by a moment of genius, and who radically changed the thoughts and theorems in their field. People like Marie Curie, and Louis Pasteur. This gives us the impression that it is a sudden phenomenon, and it occasionally has been.

When we delve a little deeper, we find historical accounts where we have a major discovery, and we attribute a big name to it. Consider the theory of evolution, championed by Charles Darwin. But he was an emergent in a surprisingly large field of observational biologists, and happened to write a solid treatise on the subject, but we cannot doubt that he was influenced, at least, by competitors in his field.

Further, I know there are examples where we have named a convention or formula by the name of its discoverer, only to find that he was lucky enough to bring to light theories that went largely unnoticed until restated. I unfortunately cannot recall any names, but these do pop up in historical context from time to time.

These days, of course, the foundation for science research is strong, and so new discoveries are rarely, if ever, instantaneous and world changing. Science is certainly built upon the shoulders of giants, and most discoveries are pain-staking and shared among a community of collaborators. There are certainly theories postulated that have the potential to change our current viewpoints (consider the recent, and largely considered successful, search for the Higg's Boson). Most bodies of research have amassed a great background of knowledge from which to build upon.

So, as scientists, we need to work hard to make our contributions to our respective fields, since the state of the art is a deliberate search for truths. That said, it is not impossible to make revolutionary discoveries, just statistically unlikely.

What you call a "breakthrough" could either be a discovery of a material fact, which is most likely the result of hard work and a prepared mind, or a conceptual breakthrough. Conceptual breakthroughs, a form of inductive reasoning, occur because you see a relationship that was not seen before. How does that happen? Personally, I am convinced that the stimulus for a conceptual breakthrough is analogy.

The analogy can be with other scientific phenomena, with art, with personal experience, even with music. But when you see something that reminds you of something you have seen before in a different context, even if you don't realize it, it triggers an association that leads to insight.

Not just my opinion. Analogy has been called "the core of cognition".

I suspect that is why most top-level scientists I know also appreciate the arts and history. With the exception of a few mathematicians, the very best scientists seem to have broad interests. Perhaps that provides them with a rich inventory of analogies.

Breakthroughs are mostly stumbling upon some thing of great significance, suddenly (Eureka !), while sometimes it may be the result of long and tedious experiments! Difficult to generalize !

Probably should mention Thomas Kuhn and "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" [ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn ].

Louis Pasteur once said, "chance favors the prepared mind." That's the genius behind all these accidental inventions - the scientists were prepared. They did their science on the brink and were able to see the magic in a mistake, set-back, or coincidence.

One of the most famous and fortunate accidents of the 20th century, is the discovery of penicillin. Alexander Fleming didn't clean up his workstation before going on vacation one day in 1928. When he came back, Fleming noticed that there was a strange fungus on some of his cultures. Even stranger was that bacteria didn't seem to thrive near those cultures. Penicillin became the first and is still one of the most widely used antibiotics.

Other well known accidental discoveries includes radioactivity and plastic.

The analogy part I described comes before Kuhn, in the conceptualization of theory, formulation of hypothesis and insight into interpretation, and is important in one persons thinking. However analogy is also a good way to communicate thought and especially novel ideas, so to the degree that an analogous situation is familiar to the audience and understood, it might make it easier to accept a shift in paradigm. .

The famous Pasteur quote can mean a mind full of facts and knowledge that knows what it is looking at (compare Goethe's ,,Man sieht was man weiss" (One sees what one knows.) but it can also mean a mind flexible and trained to see patterns in the unexpected, which is again thought to relate to being comfortable with analogy.

Dear All Participants,

Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts. I have very mixed feelings talking about breakthroughs. Everything has a cultural background. When ground braking work happens and people are not prepared for it he best idea can be lost. So, every idea recognized by the peers has to be anticipated in some sense. I believe that the nature of creativity is not very well defined in a regular everyday language and only metaphors truly work. On the other hand I believe that only sudden illumination brings the distant or disconnected things together to create new reality of a discovery. Regardless of the experimental or theoretical breakthrough are considered both elements must be present, an element of expectation and the element of illumination. This is precisely why successful rediscoveries occur, as one of the participants noted.

There is no one reason. Two come to my mind. It can be due to big money and many good people. A good exxample maybe Ernest Lawrence and the Lawrence Berkeley Lab of the past.

Another reason is for a breakthrough in some area that uncovers a technique that enables a breakthrough in a different area.

If we take the great ideas that have revolutionized science in the past we see that all the pieces of the puzzle were put in place by a group of scientists in a scientific community and when the assembling of the puzzle is riped, one and often two or three scientists of that community independently come up with the idea that assembled the puzzle.

A scientific breakthrough is a combination of scientific, technological and social origins. A discovery of a fact or an object is typically accidental. However, some discoveries mate with theories (in a broad sense), confirm or defeat them, some can be utilized by present technologies and practices, and finally, they can be accepted by society and culture or not. In this context, the same discovery may represent a scientific breakthrough or not. The latter ones, if not forgotten, we often name born before their time.

So, the permissive environment for scientific breakthroughs is a culturally open society with developed and branched theories and powerful technology facilitated by society.

I think similar to Isaam's opinion.

Breakthrough occurs when Your mind is prepared.

So many years of detailed examinations, and - if the breakthrough is huge - suddenly someone tries to think in a new way. This is not sudden, because this person spend so much time on the subject, and in the same time this is sudden - cause change of point of view may be one decision.

Still after this moment there is even more work to do...

Sometimes we should take a moment, rest and clear our mind, if we are dealing with problem, but solution may appear only if our mind is prepared.

If I would ever program a robot for making creative research, I'd set three main blocks in it.

1. A generator of random ideas (statements) and their associations. Ideas or facts may also come from experience; for the algorithm they will appear random.

2. A random whipping mechanism, which will arbitrary delete associations between facts or statements produced on the previous step, removing random links from the graph.

3. A block, which will try to recover connection between statements (nodes of the graph) using links survived at previous step.

4. The nodes (facts or ideas, or statements) remaining connected after several cycles of the above procedure, the algorithm will consider "logically" connected. Thereafter they will undergo checkup for compliance with Aristotle's logic rules.

Dear all participants,

I would answer the question in a hermeneutic way: as we understand a topic in a hermeneutic spiral (not circle: Jürgen Bolten, Die Hermeneutische Spirale. Überlegungen zu einer integrativen Literaturtheorie, in: Poetica 17 (1985), 362 f.), so breakthroughs develop due to both your own skills, knowledge and experiences (which are the collective addition of small facts) that lead to the big bang and suddenly meet new dimensions.

Since "breakthroughs in science" appear at different levels of generality and abstraction, by not discriminating between various levels, I don't believe you can get any clear picture.

For example, think of the difference between how the biological theory of evolution and Einstein's general relativity were 'discovered'.

Molodets, LEVA ! Good answer !

They can happen by accident. Donald Glaser was at Michigan when he invented the bubble chamber and later won the 1960 Nobel Prize in Physics. Fermi had claimed it would not work; however Fermi made a mistake in a calculation. Glaser later said,he may have not pursued the bubble chamber if he knew of Fermi's mistaken calculation.

Glaser changed his interest to moleculer biology at Berkeley. Using computer technology he could do more experiments than the rest of the world combined. Somebody commented he was naive enough to be really original. Tecnology and support enabled Glaser to be successful in his later venture.

I totally agree that discoveries can be realized through evolutionary, revolutionary, and accidental ways. I might add that it can also be realized through 'serendipity'. This is sometimes described as the researchers 'luck'. serendipitous discoveries are so profound. they are discoveries made even when the researcher is not looking for them. The researcher is not in even in any frame of mind to expect them. they just appear.

I agree with Gabriel, as that happened to me. I tried my best to solve a problem for over 40 years, failing misirably any time I tried. Then, over 2 years ago, solution came by itself, as a vision, while I crossed a street in Tel Aviv. I stopped, then heard car clacsones. Not much of a discovery, as effect is known since 1928, but there was no explecete formula for quantification. Result is published in Paper #1 in my RG site.

A Description of His Own Creativity

by Henri Poincar

http://www.is.wayne.edu/DRBOWEN/CRTVYW99/POINCARE.HTM

Some years ago, while studying mathematics in biology from a VERY competent professor, it was mentioned that to do research in biology, one needed to get their feet wet. Biology can be tough!

The discoveries I value most are those explaining what everybody sees, not the effect of collaborative work of literally thousands of researchers operating some really big facilities of today's physics. Such machines are in a sense forcing new discoveries, but there must be a single "prepared mind" (and "naive enough") to see the light.

Neither Einstein, nor Newton had (m)any collaborators to make their ideas true.

Well, every one can pin down his/her best idea. So, just think how you came to it.

I feel space for freelance researchers in modern science has become like the proverbial eye of a needle. We are giving undue importance to university degrees for a researcher to get access to good laboratories. Aren't we neglecting original thinkers? By the way what was the educational qualifications of Aristotle?

Sumodan, I agree original thinkers are limited, but am wholly confident that any truth out there will see the light of day. Also, Aristotle was educated at Plato's Academy, where "None but Geometers enter," and became Alexander the Great's teacher. From Wikipedia-Platonic Academy: "Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC) studied there for twenty years (367 BC – 347 BC) before founding his own school, the Lyceum." However, at the Academy, original thinking was its 'curriculum': "In at least Plato's time, the school did not have any particular doctrine to teach; rather, Plato (and probably other associates of his) posed problems to be studied and solved by the others."

Furthermore, worth including, from Wikipedia-Aristotle:

"...a Greek philosopher and polymath, a student of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great. His writings cover many subjects, including physics, metaphysics, poetry, theater, music, logic, rhetoric, linguistics, politics, government, ethics, biology, and zoology. Together with Plato and Socrates (Plato's teacher), Aristotle is one of the most important founding figures in Western philosophy. Aristotle's writings were the first to create a comprehensive system of Western philosophy, encompassing ethics, aesthetics, logic, science, politics, and metaphysics.

"Aristotle's views on the physical sciences profoundly shaped medieval scholarship, and their influence extended well into the Renaissance, although they were ultimately replaced by Newtonian physics. In the zoological sciences, some of his observations were confirmed to be accurate only in the 19th century. His works contain the earliest known formal study of logic, which was incorporated in the late 19th century into modern formal logic.

"In metaphysics, Aristotelianism had a profound influence on philosophical and theological thinking in the Islamic and Jewish traditions in the Middle Ages, and it continues to influence Christian theology, especially the scholastic tradition of the Catholic Church. Aristotle was well known among medieval Muslim intellectuals and revered as 'المعلم الأول' – "The First Teacher".

"His ethics, though always influential, gained renewed interest with the modern advent of virtue ethics. All aspects of Aristotle's philosophy continue to be the object of active academic study today. Though Aristotle wrote many elegant treatises and dialogues (Cicero described his literary style as "a river of gold"),[2] it is thought that the majority of his writings are now lost and only about one-third of the original works have survived."

In fact there is school of Philosophy , originated by Karl R. Popper which strongly recommends that there is a logic in scientific discovery. However according to many theoreticians it is a good Philosophy . Herman Bondi is one of the ardent supporters of the Popperian Philosophy.

In my personal opinion I agree with Koestler's comment in 'The Sleepwalkers' that scientific discovery is highly non linear. There is no logical explanation why the brain cells were really inactive during the Dark Ages or why a Theoretical Physicist changed our perception about natural philosophy almost single handed in 20th Century.

Hard work is a necessary, not a sufficient condition. Regarding the stymulus, analogy is not the only case, and actually, by analogy usual results are obtained, while conceptual breakthroughs result from the careful consideration of paradoxes, contradictions and limitations. Failures contain breakthroughs, and once you have located the failure, you know half of the solution. The act of invention is also highly non-linear: many average scientists working on a same topic will not produce a breakthrough, but few bright scientists will, instead. I personally find it much more interesting to do research, rather than to think on the act of cognition in natural sciences. The possible excuse for such unlogical behavior probably comes from the fact that I am physicist by education. :-D

THIS IS NOT MY ANSWER, BUT AN ANSWER GIVEN BY PHYSICIST E.C.G. SUDARSHAN (DIRAC MEDALIST). I PLACE IT HERE AS IT INSPIRED ME

"When you make the discovery you find the discovery came to you; you did not make the discovery. But why doesn’t it come all the time? The thing is that you have to wait for a long time. There is this meeting of Isaiah with God. He waited for a long time to find God. God said come do this and that. Then he heard the sound of thunder and he knew God was not in it. Then he heard the sound of torrent of water and he knew God wasn’t there. He saw lightning and he knew God was not there in it. Then he heard a soft voice. He said oh! This is God, and covered his face. This I have always felt a very touching thing, that when knowledge comes to you it comes. You become grateful that it has come to you".

Robley Evans was born in1907 and was educated at California Institue of Technology.

He is the author of a fantastic book "The Atomic Nucleus" which was published in about 1955. Useful concepts in measurement in radioactivity are included. Years ago young women were hired and well paid to coat instrument faces with radium; this process involved having the women use their mouths to shape the paint brush. Needless to say the women became seriously ill. Evans became involved in and became a leader in nuclear medicine and was able to decribe the movement of Radium in the body.. He passed away in 1995. Evans was from University City Nebraska. Upon reading his death notice, it was questioned how he could be so successful. One reason was that his father was an author and Admirak in the US Navy. The Health Physics Society has a Robley Evans Award..

Hi Tee!

IMO, one useful example of the "analogy" approach was Niels Bohr's work on complementarity, uncertainty, and the measurement problem in quantum mechanics.

Bohr also had a background in psychology and philosophy, and some of the problems that he met in quantum mechanics already had well-discussed analogous counterparts in those subjects - for instance the measurement problem in QM was analogous to the measurement problem in psychoanalysis, where the questions that you ask are liable change the state of the system that you are attempting to measure. The act of trying to obtain the answer means that the answer that you get relates to a state that might not have existed if you hadn't asked the question.

This would have given Bohr a pre-existing conceptual vocabulary for dealing with some of the "new" problems being thrown up by QM, which would probably have been more difficult to cope with if he'd had a purely "hard science" background.

Hi Boguslaw,

I think it's complicated.  Even if you create something and know it to be beautiful, you could argue nothing is a breakthrough until the community adopts it. 

c.f., 

Boris Pavlovich Belousov and Anatol Zhabotinsky

George Foreman and the Grill

Charles Sanders Peirce, CP 5.189 and lanterna pedibus