Dear Roland, another great question, like we know you can put them!

In accordance to some ideas of Heisenberg and  slightly changed, it must be asked:

And for this the studies should not put you in a bad Situation with "learning straight from the horses mouth" covering all your time, but enhance the ability for free and associating thinking as well and dare as well as allow to follow it for a certain while and teach you to learn the interdisciplinary ways of looking at things...

Well may be this is a part of the answer for you?

I think self belief, faith, hard work, understand the fundamental of the subject, etc. help.

Sincerely, Roland, I also had thought in your question. And now, I think that the illusion and humour can be the keys for bring the creativity in classroom, for example. Certainly, the self-esteem and work must be presents, but I think the another characteristics too. More soon or more late the new ideas will appear.

Thanks for asking me to give an answer to this question.

Best regards.

A man without creative abilities can not do science.

Discovering new contexts, their application (implementation) gives one immense intellectual satisfaction. It is a creative mental (and sometimes manual) work that is useful and very often beautiful. Who claims to the contrary, does not have the good fortune to be a scientist (and wise man - sorry).

You can be very creative in science: search for new topics/problems to solve, try to find new ways to solve old problems... and writing an article is also a creative process: an "art" in itself. Also, teaching can be a very creative "art", too.

Creativity is a way of life .It is so to say our footstep & in-this line in our science can remain silent without creativity .

Creativity is important for us .It is only a creativity which can also helps us to play our part in our action of our life .It is at these stage we can confirm that for our achievement if any performance & also for our life line action we cannot afford to ignore creativity & this substantially applicable to science .

This is personal opinion  

Creativity is a way of life .It is so to say our footstep & in-this line in our science can remain silent without creativity .

Creativity is important for us .It is only a creativity which can also helps us to play our part in our action of our life .It is at these stage we can confirm that for our achievement if any performance & also for our life line action we cannot afford to ignore creativity & this substantially applicable to science .

This is personal opinion  

Knowledge has three degrees—opinion, science, and illumination. The means or instrument of the first is sense; of the second, dialectic; of the third, intuition. This last is absolute knowledge founded on the identity of the mind knowing with the object known.  ~ Plotinus

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

"The difference between science and the arts is not that they are different sides of the same coin even, or even different parts of the same continuum, but rather, they are manifestations of the same thing. The arts and sciences are avatars of human creativity."

                                                                       ------  Mae Jemison

I am reminded of the wise old adage "necessity is the mother of invention" ... since creativity is synonymous with invention, then necessity/need is likely also the mother of creativity. Disregarding divine inspiration/revelation, all new ideas/inventions/creations are sparked by the fulfillment of a NEED within a human individual. In the creation of new inventions (technology) such needs may often be physical (tangible/real), but in the creation of new ideas (arts/politics/theology/religion/science), the creations rarely are physical (or responsive to a physical need), but more often answer some psychological need/yearning of the individual psyche (perhaps a lofty and altruistic need/yearning/goal, but mostly only to boost selfish pride, ego, self-esteem, and often completely esoteric).  

From a vision, scientific research is a systematic, critical and controlled activity. It is also a creative activity par excellence. Creativity will is essential and unavoidable; as this allows you to rearrange some original way elements of the perceptual field. The concept of creativity involves the essential ideas of novelty and value; if what is produced is nothing new or valuable, then we do not talk about creation. Within the field of science, creation is hypothesis formulation, experimentation, research, invention, discovery.

Scientific creativity is expressed not only in the objectives and results, but also in the processes. In the fields of creativity, the habit of asking themselves questions become more important than knowledge solutions. The wonder, wonder, squinting and perceive confrontations (opposing each other things and theories, "against" beliefs), not only justified but is recommended as a launching pad into the adventure of the invention.

The development of human perceptions and raise the cultural and scientific level is the goal of both art and science. This change leads to the world's perception of the mental and the other concrete. The ancient philosophers discussed this relationship out of date. Currently, scientific progress is a lot of things in our life, including the arts.

Yes, the public might see science as a dry, repetitive routine, and in later stages of testing/proving hypotheses/theories it can be just that. However, as many of you have expounded, we cannot have science without creativity, for the two are intertwined. We observed things in the physical world, but we then have to wonder how or why it is that way and then create ways to test various those ideas. Sometimes this creative process is simple, other times it is a complex symphony, but it all starts with the human mind.

Year ago I had prehistoric ceramic sherds with non-random random punctations (I'll explain that statement if needed). In poring over volume after volume of archaeological reports from the region, I discovered that this type of decoration had either not been reported or it had been misidentified as maize-cob-impressed. I then took various size maize cobs and impressed discs of clay approximating the ceramic paste in order to prove the new decoration was not produced with a cob. I then listed everything that occurred in nature in that region that possibly could produce the markings. I then tested these materials until I positively identified the culprit. This is the creative process that many scientist go through day after day.

Dear @Roland. A very interesting question. To give my share, here are three inspiring Quotations about Creativity in Science I found:

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."- Albert Einstein

"To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle, requires creative imagination and marks real advance in science." — Albert Einstein

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

Here is yet another great quote about your question: "There is no doubt that creativity is the most important human resource of all. Without creativity, there would be no progress, and we would be forever repeating the same patterns." — Edward de Bono

Dear Roland !

What a question !!!

I should think that creativity fits anywhere.

It is essencial for good art, it is essencial for good research, it is essencial for Science. It should be part of every human endeavour, as long as it is directed with wise  thoughts.

Because creativity in association with wisdom is a sign of intelligence.

Boredom is the worst human emotion, because it leads to stagnation.

Thank you for your creative question, dear Roland!

Downvoting is NOT creative.

Yes, it does

Creativity means that divergent thinking is working in an active way to give solution to so many problems we have, in science specially. 

As the questioner Roland himself writes, creativity largely contributes to the process of finding scientific problems to study. I believe that creativity is important in the following processes as well: Finding a rule from observed results, making up a scientific theory and writing an understandable article about scientific finding.

To be a scientist is to be a peculiar type of artist.  It is not like the other form of arts which produce artwork whose appreciation is very emotional. It is not to say that a scientist cannot be emotionally moved by the  beauty of a scientific theory.  He/She can be moved when encountering for the first time a very beautify theory. Some scientific theories such as Einstein's general relativity is recognized as beautiful theory because of the elegant simplicity of its mathematical expression.  But some other theories such as the standard model of elementary particle are reputed as being quite hugly theory.  So although artwork in most arts rise or fall based on beauty, it is not the case in science.  A theory will rise and fall into a theory battle that is primarily that is taking place on empirical grounds and the beauty is very secondary consideration.  Beauty has no place in most scientific deliberation.  The art side of science is almost invisible because all public side of side, the debate on the value and merit of theories has not much to do with art.  The art side of science is entirely the discovery side and this nobody need to debate it since the debate is only about the empirical support for the theory.  Although the art side of science is hidden in the personal practice of the scientists and never have to be discussed, science essentially rise based on the art side of science but this is rarely discussed and no scientific journal has placed for this part of science.  The theories are just formulated in the third person as if nobody has discovered them.  Science is objective and the personal side is irrelevant.  Yes it might be irrelevant in terms of wheter or not a theory is true but we should not be naive to think that the creation of the theories is less artistic and guided by beauty than in other arts.

Creativity does fit or is inherent in all human activities. Healthy human beings do not behave normally and freely like machines, or programed robots.

Some creations are for recreation, some creates awe, while some creates awe as well as useful for society. Scientific creatation are in the third category. Suppose there is waiting of Mona Lisa almost all will say ' beautiful' while if there is poster describing Maxwell equation only some scientists will say ' beautiful'. On the other hand while examining a smartphone all will again say ' useful'

This is the difference in perception of creations.

And now it's funnier when we have a "donor" downvote :-))

Dear Roland, 

I suppose that creativity is our academic duty as well as scientific credibility. I agree with Roland's metaphore that creativity is an engine of science. 

Routine creativity

Epstein, a visiting scholar at the University of California, San Diego, has conducted research showing that strengthening four core skill sets leads to an increase in novel ideas.

"As strange as it sounds, creativity can become a habit," says creativity researcher Jonathan Plucker, PhD, a psychology professor at Indiana University. "Making it one helps you become more productive."

Epstein recommends that you:

Capture your new ideas. Keep an idea notebook or voice recorder with you, type in new thoughts on your laptop or write ideas down on a napkin.

Seek out challenging tasks. Take on projects that don't necessarily have a solution—such as trying to figure out how to make your dog fly or how to build a perfect model of the brain. This causes old ideas to compete, which helps generate new ones.

Broaden your knowledge. Take a class outside psychology or read journals in unrelated fields, suggests Epstein. This makes more diverse knowledge available for interconnection, he says, which is the basis for all creative thought. "Ask for permission to sit in on lectures for a class on 12th century architecture and take notes," he suggests. "You'll do better in psychology and life if you broaden your knowledge."

Surround yourself with interesting things and people. Regular dinners with diverse and interesting friends and a work space festooned with out-of-the-ordinary objects will help you develop more original ideas, Epstein says. You can also keep your thoughts lively by taking a trip to an art museum or attending an opera—anything that stimulates new thinking.

http://www.apa.org/gradpsych/2009/01/creativity.aspx

Dear Roland,

I wanted to ask related question, but it is difficult to get audience for a new question, so I would rather express my ideas here.

I think that creativity is an aspect both important for art and science. In art creativity is 90% individual; and we have just few examples of collaboration. In science collectivism is more important. But this is just because of structure (institutions) and finance. Creative activity is also highly individual. Sometimes collaborations (co-authorship) is important. In empirical science team work is also often required, in theory less.

I guess that while valuation of an artist depends on his talent (and now also on promotion!), valuation of a scientist depends also on his/her social relations in a collective. There are many examples when talented scientists were not given promotion because of bad character (or telling bad boss the truth). At the same time there are many scandal makers with low scientific talent who managed to make good career.

Just to end with less pessimistic note. Most of real talents are often recognized after their death. But still future generations may know nothing about some of them.

I agree with everyone's comments

The mere formulation of a problem is far more often essential than its solution, which may be merely a matter of mathematical or experimental skill. To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle requires creative imagination and marks real advances in science.

--- Albert Einstein

Following two quotes from great minds underline the significance of creativity in science:- 

The world we have made as a result of the level of thinking we have done thus far creates problems we cannot solve at the same level of thinking at which we created them. - Albert Einstein

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

Scientific research supports the idea that certain activities can prime the mind to come up with less obvious solutions than would emerge otherwise.  A wandering mind encourages to review a diverse array of ideas, rather than get stuck in a more focused, narrow mode of thought.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140314-learn-to-be-creative

Where does creativity fit into science?

I’m thinking of starting a series of posts on creativity in science. Not the usual stuff about how some scientists are especially creative, what psychological traits they possess to do this, and how they apply them. No, I want to illuminate how the scientific process naturally demands creativity, and the opportunities it gives for any scientist to be original and creative. It seems to me that these stages of the scientific process are not appreciated for the creativity they encourage, so I want to look at them in more detail and give some examples showing how they work.For more plz read at following link.

Have a nice day

http://scienceornot.net/2012/11/27/where-does-creativity-fit-into-science/

Dear Prof. Roland Iosif Moraru,

Usually it is presumed that scientists have a reputation for being not very creative. But society needs creative scientists for continued innovation. 

Creativity is inventing an idea or product that is both novel & useful or providing a new "working" solution to an existing problem. Therefore, creativity fits nicely in the domain of science since scientists have to use their imagination in order to come up with novelty in ideas, products, and solving problems.

It is unfortunate that some people were taught science in a way that did not involve creative thinking so they considered science as "rigid" facts that require memorization. Had science been taught as a process of observing ,exploring, and gathering information about the way that objects work, then there would have been room for incorporating creativity. That is why I am all for problem-based learning & project-based learning at high schools & universities.

Scientists need not be very smart. An ordinary person equipped with some background knowledge can go through the scientific process which includes observation, experimentation, analysis, and conclusion.

Few months ago, a math colleague asked me about the details of manufacturing soap but I was too busy to give him the requested information. He went his way bit by bit working hard in collecting information & in experimenting. Few days ago, he gave me 3 bars of soap that he produced and they were simply new & high quality.

Creativity is often related to thinking of novel and appropriate ideas. Creativity is very  important to Sience and  engineering as behind all innovations one can find creative minds. Creative scientist are skilled in comping up with good questions and big ideas.

An almost indispensable skill for any creative person is the ability to pose the right questions. Creative people identify promising, exciting, and, most important, accessible routes to progress - and eventually formulate the questions correctly.

--- Lisa Randall

Creativity is a must in science. There must be an annual report (computerized) on subjects already reported with slight modifications of purely academic matters. Looking at the past century we often say that German scientist laid the principal questions (not ground) to current science. Currently scientist try to come out with bright answers, while the creativity has to do with ASKING THE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS: Granting agencies do not stimulate proposals of original thinking. Neither do scientific journals.How many nerds are trying to build super robots.

Often the best way to advance in science is to throw out all previous conceptions and start from scratch. If we KNOW a fact, how can we refute it?

Innovation can be fairly low-tech, while benefitting from commercial tradition along with talent in absorption and adaptation of technology, along with skill in design and functionality.

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

"To be creative means to connect. It's to abolish the gap between the body, the mind and the soul, between science and art, between fiction and nonfiction."

                                          ------    Nawal El Saadawi

Creativity can be defined as  the creation of an idea or object that is both novel and useful.

With the above definition, science can be considered as a creative quest. In the quest to make sense of the natural world, scientists think of new ways to approach problems, come up with interesting and profound research questions, figure out how to collect meaningful data and explore what those data could mean.

https://student.societyforscience.org/article/how-creativity-powers-science

Work in one field, and give your opinion about what is happening in another field?

Ivo, you put correctly the desired role of creativity in science. It should be - for the benefit of science. It is often not - because wrong incentives are created. Who can judge whether to give a grant or to accept a paper? Not God, but other scientists. There is a kind of norm to give more grants to those who already have many publications in this field. Yes, this way one may cut off cheaters who promise to do a lot but will do nothing in the end. They cannot confirm it by their previous work. But a creative person who works in new field for him (because it seems not interesting to work in well developed field where 90% is already discovered) looks similar to a cheater a priori. And both receive no or little money.

Well, what  you say depends on field. Mathematicians know what is a new and difficult problem. In social sciences it is much more difficult to find who will be real innovator, and who is a cheater.

Let's take a mechanistic approach of an interdisciplinary approach to exploit new, perhaps novel, approaches:

You observe a phenomenon X without music versus you observe the same phenomenon X with music: Will this music treatment (with versus without) impact how the brain pathways will be used for thinking about phenomenon X therefore influencing creativity, e.g. novel ideas while hearing music versus no novel ideas in the absence of music?

Anonymous downvotes are not state of art!. And certainly not very creative.

Creativity in science

A creative person does things that have never been done before. Particularly important instances of creativity include discoveries of new knowledge in science and medicine, invention of new technology, composing beautiful music, or analyzing a situation (e.g., in law, philosophy, or history) in a new way.

One of the principal ways to be creative is to look for alternative ways to view a phenomena or for alternative ways to ask a question.

One often-cited example of creativity is George de Mestral's observation of how cockleburs attach to clothing, which led him to invent the hook-and-loop fastener known as Velcro®. He transformed a common nuisance to a useful product. When one looks backward in time to analyze how a creative act was made, one often finds that creators made a novel interpretation of a well-known fact or occurrence. Often the interpretation converted a disadvantage into an advantage.

Another commonly cited example of creativity is Art Fry's development of Post-It® removable notes at 3M Corporation in 1974. Dr. Spencer Silver, another 3M scientist, had developed a polymer adhesive that formed microscopic spheres instead of a uniform coating, and thus was a poor adhesive that took years to set. Fry wanted a better bookmark for his church hymnal, so he used Silver's adhesive. The conventional wisdom is that every adhesive must be strong. By ignoring the conventional wisdom, Fry developed a highly successful office product. However, not only did he need to develop the idea, but he also had to sell the idea to his management and marketing departments, which were resistant to his new idea. A creative manager, if there be such a person, would have redefined the problem to find a use for a weak adhesive, but the conventional wisdom that all adhesives must be strong is apparently overpowering. There is a second exception to the "all adhesives must be strong" rule: thread locking compounds that prevent machine screws and bolts from loosening during vibration must be weak enough to allow removal of the screw or bolt during repair.

http://www.rbs0.com/create.htm

What about cloths for very old people that have difficulties to dress themselves alone? No small buttons or zipper-locks or knots please.... 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knot

Creativity in Science  Jerome Friedman, Institute Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

I"n science, as in other activities, there is a continuum of degrees of creativity, ranging from the solving of small problems to making major discoveries or conceptual breakthroughs which change the underpinnings of a field—such as three of the major developments in twentieth-century physics: special relativity, general relativity, and quantum mechanics. Each of these made striking changes to our view of the world.

The great mathematician Karl Frederick Gauss described in a letter to a friend how he finally proved a theorem on which he had worked unsuccessfully for four years. He wrote, "As a sudden flash of light, the enigma was solved. . . . For my part I am unable to name the nature of the thread which connected what I previously knew with that which made my success possible." Similarly, George Polya, a twentieth-century mathematician, remarked: "When you have satisfied yourself that the theorem is true, you start proving it." There are a number of other similar examples in the literature."

https://archives.acls.org/op/op47-2.htm

You link creativity to the experience of a biological feeling? 

As Behrous discovered (and we all see now), anonymous downvoter started to make his dirty work also on this page. Similar activity can be traced on other questions. I think that either this person has low IQ (and then it is not clear how he/she could be normal RG member) or he has super-idea to bring harm to RG community. Downvoting of 5 or 10 consequent answers can never be a rational choice of an honest thinker (like normal RG member should be). I guess that RG staff (if they are smart) should work on that. For example, I would make this person public if he puts more than 2 or 3 down-votes per day. Then we keep anonymity for normal dis-likers of some ideas, but make destroyers public (with potential expelling from RG).

P.S.if somebody knows how to make this idea known to RG organizers, please re-post it to proper location.

Can it be a computer virus that down votes, e.g. using key words for action?

The question that we discuss is indeed interesting and important. And thus it is important to keep participants being not frightened of down-votes.

I think that there are several possibilities (why down-voting takes place here):

a) it can be computer virus (but less likely, because it would harm greater areas and because RG staff works on system security);

b) it can be a crazy person,

c) it can be rational hater (who dislikes some people or the whole idea of RG for whatever "bad" reason that cannot become public).

In all cases this should be eliminated.

 Heraclitus said "Nature loves to hide,".  What it hides most is its ''creative side'' what create everything , including what is creating science. How  to disclose the disclosing?  

I think creativity in science is equivalente to what we call creativity. The creativity I had to prove results in "logic and foundations of mathematics" is equivalente to the creativity I had to write dissertations in "french litterature". 

I have requested ResearchGate to look into it. I suggest others do likewise. It is one thing to down vote an answer that is totally irrelevant to a question, it is another to do it just because you don't like the answer or because you can.

Notice: Several forums have noticed someone down voting answers. These down votes start from the top and slowly work their way down the posts. It appears to be either a malicious person or computer program responsible. I have requested ResearchGate to look into it. I suggest others do likewise. It is one thing to down vote an answer that is totally irrelevant to a question, it is another to do it just because you don't like the answer or because you can.

To Dear RG Management,

Many valuable contributions have been downvoted in this thread UNFAIRLY. We are here to learn from each other by exchanging views in a respectful scientific manner & this process helps in producing good research, if a certain colleague desires.

When some one downvotes without giving HIS opinion, then this is ABUSE & this hits the credibility of the respected RG site. 

Very correct, Dear Nizar Matar.

Yes, Dr Nizar is right. It is also important to support each other against downvoters. I upvoted many downvoted posts but did not see the same from others:).

Creativity is required in both science discovery and technological invention. “Imagination in science corresponds to thinking of a new principle, of a new phenomenon, of a new law, and to imagining a new experiment.

"Historian J. Rogers Hollingsworth of the University of Wisconsin-Madison calls this skill “high cognitive complexity,” publishing his analysis of scientific creativity in Knowledge, Communication, and Creativity.

He wrote in “High Cognitive Complexity and the Making of Major Scientific Discoveries,” that he investigated 291 major scientific discoveries of the 1900s, and became intrigued that all the scientists behind these breakthroughs exhibited high cognitive complexity. His analysis attempted to understand what set these eminent scientists apart from other scientists.

For instance, the chemist Irène Joliot-Curie, awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1935 with her husband Frédéric Joliot, clearly set herself apart from other scientists. Also, chemist Gertrude Elion received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1988, and John Bardeen received the Nobel Prize twice, first in 1956 for the invention of the transistor, then in 1972 for the theory of superconductivity".

http://www.allpsychologycareers.com/topics/creativity-in-science.html

Dear Roland Iosif Moraru,

Creativity - is a heavy burden for humanity, which accounts for progressive science, and therefore a relic of the past.

If so, what is the world of science without creativity ?

Regards, Shafagat

Creativity in Science Education

Conference Paper Creativity in Science Education

Without Creativity Science would have not flourished.Its the first step in science

Science itself is a refining thought process. This thought process can be about anything a human being can think of. Refinement requires creativity!!

Dear Roland, 

Without creativity, no work can be done - menial or intellectual. Scientific investigation requires creativity as does Art. Creativity follows imagination - Secondary Imagination which, as Coleridge puts it, 'dissolves, diffuses, dissipates in order to recreate or where this process is rendered impossible, yet still at all events, it struggles to idealize and unify. It is essentially vital, even as all objects (as objects) are essentially fixed and dead.' The scientist begins with a hypothesis which requires imagination. Then creativity takes the place. Science struggles to discover the Truth and arrives at what are called Laws. These Laws are but morsels against the far wider perception of the 'infinite I am'. Thus scientific investigation is a creative process as much as Art is. Art gives the artist's view of life or of Truth as he perceives it and so remains subjective. .   The laws that Science offers are objective. Highest creativity is reflected in Technology which applies the laws of Science.

Sibaprasad

Science is methodical.

Music is methodical.

Painting is methodical.

Poetry is methodical.

All have those who are technically very good.

All have those who are technically very good and their performance is exceptional. We call the exceptional creative.

There is the post modern approach that eschews method. The post modernist calls this creativity.

Inventions are not possible without creativity.

Paraphrasing uncle Albert.  I am afraid that common science (chemistry at least) is nothing more than an overdose  of knowledge acquired before age of 21. So that scientific proposals are just the continuation of decades of knowledge, not innovation nor creativity.  Sad...

Common Sense Is Nothing More Than a Deposit of Prejudices Laid Down in the Mind Before Age Eighteen. Albert Einstein

Dear Friends, 

I believe in simplification of an idea or thought. This is not possible unless information turns into knowledge through contemplation. Why should we complicate things by repeatedly referring to different authors? They have their own views. We can take their help but ultimately we should have a clear idea. When it comes, expression or communication is easier.

Best,

Sibaprasad

Creativity as it turns out, is not only the domain of artists. Science, as a creative quest involves creation of an idea valuable in solving a problem or object that is novel or useful. The invention from the data of a possible explanation is the height of what scientists do. The creativity is about imagining possibility and figuring out which one among the different scenarios could be possible, and how would one can find out

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

...."Science, like art and most other professions, requires a mixture of two elements – creativity and discipline. Science without creativity is dull, but science without discipline is dangerous. … Discipline is the rigid, regimented, regimented, more robotic objective component that has to be brought to bear for science to work properly. Wild ideas are fine, but without discipline, they become a waste of time and energy. Creativity is the more human, liberated, unrestrained element that must be let loose for it to work. Science without at least a little bit of creativity is just plodding detail that does not expand our understanding of the world.

Randy Olson, American marine biologist, filmmaker and author, 2009",.....

Please, see the original article .....

http://scienceornot.net/where-does-creativity-fit-into-science-2/

Hi Wolfgang, 

First, I quote your post with regard to Creativity in Scientific Investigation:

====================================================

Dear Sibaprasad, apropos "'infinite I am'" – what would it mean nowadays?

There are different epochs/Foucault's notion of phases of "épistème" where the 'ego'-belief system has changed, up to now. I remind Foucault's research on epistemic evolution in Les mots et les choses, or take e.g. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Regards, Wolfgang

====================================================

01.  I cannot follow your post fully as I do not know French.

02. Cleridge's phrase ' the infinite I am' is an eternal and universal issue. It refers to the Spirit of which the individual soul is a part. The invidual soul takes its origin from and ultimately merges with the infinite Spirit or Self or Brahman. Here Coleridge is unconsciously is a Vedantin.

03. I wish you were more elaborate on your OWN perception.

With best regards,

Sibaprasad

Creativity is necessary for every human’s profession, not only in science. It always finds new ways of composing already known elements in a functional structure that gives them a sense of unfamiliarity and originality. Especially the scientist is the one who is able to think in divergent way, thus to produce ideas as possible solution to the intellectual problem that s/he faces, and then to convert his thinking into convergent way by drawing up conclusions and ideas for further research. It is necessary component of every research.

"Science involves creativity. But we should not think of creativity as a prerequisite for scientific progress — as a frame of mind without which science would stagnate, and thus something to be trained or encouraged.

Rather, it seems to me that science, in both its normal and revolutionary moments, is creative not because of the fortunate talents which a minority of its individual practitioners bring to the table, but because science by its very nature involves a balance of innovation under constraint and selective breaking of constraints. No doubt, there are psychological prerequisites for successful science — and some of these may also be prerequisites for creativity. But it does not follow that creativity is a prerequisite for successful science."

Please see the attached article for further details

Creativity is important in both arts and science according to Einstein:

"After a certain high level of technical skill is achieved, science and art tend to coalesce in esthetics, plasticity, and form. The greatest scientists are always artists as well."

-- Albert Einstein

“There is no doubt that creativity is the most important human resource of all. Without creativity, there would be no progress, and we would be forever repeating the same patterns.”

— Edward de Bono

Hi Subhas, 

Yours is a very important post. The quote is very apt.

Sibaprasad

Hi Daniela,

While thinking in a different way leads us to a certain goal, thinking in a divergent way leads a person nowhere. A scientist  starts from a cue and  arrives at new or greater ideas or laws. This is how creativity works in a scientist.

Sibaprasad

To Alal Aldalial; On the conference paper you mentioned a central source of creativity is questioning, ast A.Einsten noted before "the important thing is not to stop questioning" Questioning is the result of curiosity (another quality of the scientist that Einstein highly valued).

Divergent thinking and creativity as you mention, played an important role in figuring out an "alternative gravitational theory" to that of Newton. Which takes me to cite the most inspiring phrase, "imagination is more important than knowledge, A. Einstein". Which again saves us from continuing digging on well studied subjects.

Of course A.Einstein received support from Grossmann (mathematician) who explained Riemann geom and Ricci calculus. Those were existing math tools previous to Einstein's idea on curved space (physics). Uncle Albert used his thoughts to figure the nature of gravity, that was pure imagination, far more important than previous knowledge.

Many scientist believe that no mayor step has been taken in physics since this really creative step..

Hello, dear friends! While reading many of the answers below this question, I remembered a comment made by Werner Heisenberg, probably inspired by a previous conversation he had had with Albert Einstein in 1926. Heisenberg's phrase I remember is: "What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.” (in his Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science). This quote is important in our context because it proposes that method —a creation made by science in order to conduct orderly research— taints or has an influence on how we interpret nature. Method itself exists at the onset of research and, because it constitutes a way of seeing nature, implies that nature does not offer itself naively to our observation  because there is no such thing as a "naked eye".

Our eyes are coverd with the cloak of method. There is a "reciprocal" relation between the scientist who observes nature through the colored glass of method, and the object of his or her observation. In other words, method, being part of culture, is not on the same side with Nature, which is always removed from us because of culture's interference (method). In this sense, it could be said that subjectivity is too close to Nature to let it shine unencumbered through method. Thus, method is a human creation and it works as a sort of cultural a priori when observing Nature.

Creativity is, thus, everywhere in science precisely because there is no such thing as a "naked eye". Method locates the object. Its form and operation determines how much and from what angle Nature will be observed. As we know, "point of view" is never neutral. It is impossible to see things in a neutral manner, because to observe nature is to interpret it through method. Method is an universal cultural invention, a tool aimed at "correctly" rendering a specific thing. Therefore, in science creativity is paramount: it occurs, for example, every time we apply a scientific method to Nature, every time we use a method to interpret facts culled from experiments, every time we decide to write about what we found. Of course there is rigor in the use of method, but method's cultural status does not allow for shaking off culture from our acts of interpretation. As Einstein once said to Heisenberg (in 1926), the tag number attached to your overcoat in a cloak room can be used for getting your cloak, but it has nothing to do with the cloak itself or tells you anything about your own cloak... In this anecdote, the tag represents method.

Then I say "Yes": there is constant creativity going on in science: to nature's unconscious and naive materiality we answer with the culture of interpreting nature.

Best regards!!!