It is not unusual to observe a large number of trends affecting everyday life come in and out of vogue. Fashion is a prime example where designs pop in an out of existence and only those that demonstrate a unique functional and aesthetic value are relegated to the iconic status. Especially so in physics, the progress achieved in the last century has been life-changing to billions of people. It is telling that all new discoveries were underpinned by inquisitive mindset and methodical approach toward elucidating the nature of reality with luck sprinkled in for good measure. Herein we explore what it means to practice scientific mindset.
In our own work we are frequently faced with a problem that is difficult to conceptualize and establish a hierarchy of contributing determinants. Many times, there is a significant degree of covariation and high sensitivity to initial conditions such that applying regression analytics is either impractical or simply not possible due to the small sample size. As such synthetic chemistry practitioners are left with the dilemma on how to improve predictive algorithm without trying to “boil the ocean”.
Broadly speaking synthetic chemists can be divided into two camps. In once camp one finds folks who demonstrate action bias and combinatorial mindset. They go and try the reactions because they may have a chance of yielding desired outcome. Literature precedence is incorporated albeit in a superficial capacity and most effort is expended toward conducting the experiments. “Failed” experiments are quickly discarded unless they yield obvious methodological flaws and little time is spent triangulating hypothesis, overall strategy and empirical data.
The second camp contains individuals who are prone to overanalyze and overextrapolate information gathered from preliminary diligence. Much discussion ensues about which experiments are to be conducted and why. Ubiquitously, personal bias is injected into discussion as a justification for a specific argument. Not surprisingly much time and emotive energy can be spent without having anything to show for it. Moreover, once the experiment is actually performed the results are analyzed to extreme degree frequently generating far fetched conclusions on the basis of confounded assumptions.
Through trial and error we came to appreciate the utility of context based approach that generates empirical results without sacrificing strategic rigor. In our view it is critically important to establish definitiveness of purpose and not do anything unless there is sound and rational justification for taking action or not. That is we happily engage in “trial and error” type investigations when the project is characterized by unknown unknowns. To make progress we have to explore and unmask causal connections. Whereas in the case of known unknowns, we can be much more strategic and deliberate. The known knowns paradigms simply call for operation efficiency and disciplined execution.
The greatest challenge to applying a rational methodology within irrational context is the keen awareness of shift in attention from deliberate application of set strategy to simple reactivity to environmental instigators.
