Thoughts on Creativity
What kind of "personality" does a scientist have to have to
What is the essential tension and why does Kuhn believe
it can be and is reconciled in order to produce advancements in
science? How is education responsible for the predominance of
divergent scientists in America and of convergent scientists in
Consider the following interpretation by Jacob Bronowski, "The
Creative Process," in Scientific Genius and Creativity,
W.H. Freeman and Company, 1987
On p.3, Bronowski states, nonscientists would claim "Science . .
. engages only part of the mind - the rational intellect - but
creation must engage the whole mind. . . . Science demands none of
that groundswell of emotion, none of that rich bottom of personality,
which fills out the work of art. . . ."
Bronowski takes exception: "This picture of the nonscientist of
how a scientist works is of course mistaken. A gifted man (sic) cannot
handle bacteria or equations without takng fire from what he does and
having his emotions engaged." Emotions may be immature, as
intellect may be immature in poets (re: Emma Wheller Wilcox), but the
work of such a scientist will be "second-rate."
The consummate scientist is neither second-rate nor "useful and
. . .There are in my laboratory of the British National
Coal Board about 200 industrial scientists - pleasant, intelligent,
sprightly people who thoroughly earn their pat. It is ridiculous to
ask whether they are creators who produce works that could be
compared with Othello. They are men with the same
ambitions as other university graduates, and their work is most like
the work of a college department of Greek or of English. When the
Greek departments produce a Sophocles, or the English departments
produce a Shakespeare, then I shall begin to look in my laboratory
for a Newton.