A NALYSIS OF B UDGET R EALLOCATION BETWEEN THE P ILLARS

Is it possible for science to operate in a radically new way, in which fundamentally different ideas are considered together and new perceptions made between them? In the previous chapter it was shown that the essence of creativity lies in the ability to make such fresh perceptions and it was also hinted that com-munication plays a key role in such perceptions. In the case of Helen Keller, for example, her moment of insight, and the way in which it was unfolded, involved communication in a very important way. In this chapter the whole question of communi-cation is explored in much greater detail and it is suggested that communication is an essential for the creative act as is percep-tion through the mind. Indeed, within this context, perceppercep-tion and communication are inseparably related, so that creation arises as much in the flow of ideas between people as in the understanding of the individual alone.

PERCEPTION THROUGH THE SENSES AND THROUGH THE MIND

Perception through the senses does not depend upon the imme-diate physiological details of the eyes or ears alone but on a much wider context that involves the whole disposition of the individual. In the case of vision this has been investigated from a number of different perspective. Scientists have shown that see-ing requires the active movement of both the body and the mind.

Visual perception is therefore an intentional and not a passive act.

A clear example of how vision always operates within a wide and general context is given by the case of a person who is born blind and, by means of an operation, is suddenly made able to see. In such instances clear vision is not an instantaneous pro-cess, for both the patient and the doctor must first become involved in a great deal of hard work before the meaningless jumble of visual impressions can be integrated into true “seeing.”

This work involves, for example, exploring the effects of move-ments of the body on the fresh visual experiences, and learning to relate the visual impressions of an object to the tactile sense that had previously been associated with it. In particular, what the patient has learned in other ways will strongly effect what is seen. The overall disposition of the mind to apprehend objects in particular ways plays an important role in helping to select and give form to what is seen.

These conclusions are confirmed when the nervous system is analyzed at the neurobiological level. In order to see anything at all, it is necessary for the eye to engage in rapid movements which help to extract elements of information from the scene.

The ways in which these elements are then built into a whole, consciously perceived picture have been shown to depend strongly on a person’s general knowledge and assumptions about the nature of reality. Some striking experiments demon-strate that the flow of information from the higher levels of the

brain into its picture-building areas actually exceeds the amount of information that is arriving from the eyes. In other words, what we “see” is as much the product of previous knowledge as it is of incoming visual data.

Sense perception is therefore strongly determined by the overall disposition of both the mind and the body. But, in turn, this disposition is related in a significant way to the whole gen-eral culture and social structure. In a similar way, perception through the mind is also governed by these wider issues. A group of people walking through the forest, for example, see and respond to their environment in different ways. The lumber-jack sees the forest as a source of wood, the artist as something to paint, the hunter as various forms of cover for game, and the hiker as a natural setting to explore. In each case the wood and the individual trees are perceived in very different ways which depend on the background and expectations of the walker. Clearly the manner in which an overall social disposition influences how things are seen has considerable importance for science. For, as was pointed out in the previous chapter, this mental perception is also linked to the creative act. Clearly the context of creativity extends into a much wider, social field.

It is important, at this stage, to be clear about the exact nature of perception in science. In the seventeenth and eighteenth cen-turies the human senses generally provided the major source of scientific information. However, by the nineteenth century they began to play a relatively secondary role. In their place, scientific instruments began to supply the primary data of science. During the seventeenth century, relatively simple instruments, such as the microscope and the telescope, could still, however, be regarded as extensions of the eye. But today scientific instru-ments have grown to such complexity that observations are more and more remote from immediate sense perception.

But of even greater significance is the role of theories, which are now science’s major link with reality. Theories determine

not only the design of scientific instruments but also the kinds of questions that are posed in the experiments themselves. Clearly, modern scientific instruments can no longer be regarded as simple extensions of the senses. Indeed, even the raw data that they yield are generally fed directly into computers in the form of numbers and digitized signals. In perceiving the external world by means of this computer-processed data, the senses play a particularly minor role when compared with that of thought.

Perception in modern science, particularly in physics, takes place essentially through the mind, and it is here that the inward intention and general disposition most strongly affect what is

“seen.” For example, the simple intention to look, or the decision to use an object in a certain way, now becomes the intention to investigate the consequences of a theory or the disposition to use certain apparatus.

An additional feature of this scientific perception is its essen-tially social nature. For without a firm intention shared among many scientists, the complex equipment needed to carry out a modern experiment would never be built and used. The very nature of modern science and its theories is that it gives rise to the design of large and expensive pieces of equipment which require the operation of large institutions. In turn, this predisposes scien-tists to see nature in a particular way, for it feeds back into their theories and hence into the design of new experiments.

For example, a vast investment on an international scale is currently being made in building and operating elementary par-ticle accelerators. But this, almost subliminally, predisposes scientists to develop theories in terms of particles and to design additional experiments that will give answers in terms of par-ticles again. The whole social structure of physics has the effect of confirming the particle hypothesis of matter. As a consequence, other possibilities become more difficult to investigate.

In stressing that perception in modern science occurs essen-tially through the mind, it must not be forgotten that this was

always a vital component in science. The observational data obtained by Archimedes in his bath, for example, had little value in themselves. What was significant was their meaning as per-ceived through the mind in an act of creative imagination. The major change occurring in modern science, however, is that this mental perception is more pervasive than it was in earlier times and its social nature is far more dominant.

It should now be clear that all forms of perception—both through the senses and through the mind—involve a cyclic form of activity. Incoming information is apprehended by the mind and, in turn, produces an outgoing activity in which further scanning and information gathering take place in order to con-firm, explore, and reinforce what has been seen. This new activ-ity gathers additional information, which is again apprehended by the mind, leading to yet more outgoing activity. But this is very similar to what happens in science as well. Knowledge of reality does not therefore lie in the subject, nor in the object, but in the dynamic flow between them. However, since reality itself is inexhaustible and never fully covered by knowledge, it could also be said to lie outside the subject, while at the same time including this overall cyclic activity.

COMMUNICATION IS ESSENTIAL TO PERCEPTION IN SCIENCE

Science is essentially a public and social activity. Indeed it is difficult to imagine scientific research, in any real sense, that does not involve communication within the whole scientific community. In other words, communication plays an essential role within the very act of scientific perception. Scientists are disposed in their thinking by a general background, or tacit infrastructure, of ideas, concepts, and knowledge. In addition, they constantly engage in a form of internal dialogue with the whole structure of their particular discipline. In this dialogue a

scientist raises questions and meets points of view which are attributed to other scientists and to his or her own past work.

In addition to the internal dialogue, scientists are actively engaged in their daily work with a social exchange of ideas and opinions through discussions, lectures, conferences, and published papers.

Motivations, questions, and attitudes arise out of these dialogues, so that all scientific research, in the end, arises out of the whole subcultural matrix of science.

When insight occurs, it emerges out of this overall structure of communication and must then be unfolded so that it obtains its full meaning within it. As a particular insight unfolds, the scientist discusses the new ideas with colleagues and eventually publishes them. In this way criticisms are met and new sugges-tions exchanged within the scientific community. This leads to a transformation of the original perception. This process of general discussion is so pervasive today that it becomes difficult to say who was originally responsible for creating a particular new idea. As each scientist attends seminars, writes papers, and holds discussions with colleagues, new perceptions arise uninvited out of the totality of the social and cultural milieu.

Indeed it can truly be said that each scientist contributes some-thing of significance to this communal matrix in which every major scientific discovery has its ultimate ground.

In view of this continuing social flow of ideas, how is it possible for fragmentation to arise to the point where communi-cation becomes seriously blocked? In the previous chapter it was shown how a person can become limited by an overall

“infrastructure of ideas” which is held to rigidly and almost unconsciously. But now the danger arises that this structure of ideas not only applies at the individual level but is held by the scientific community as a whole, so that it eventually begins to limit creative acts of perception. It is therefore necessary to make a careful examination of the way communication takes place between scientists. This includes not only individual scientists

themselves but the institutions in which research is carried out, and the general attitudes that are fostered and encouraged within the scientific community. Indeed this analysis of communication must be ultimately extended to the whole structure of human relationships themselves. For example, fear and mistrust may be engendered by rigid lines of authority, lack of job security, and concern over status and competition. All these factors conspire to starve that sense of mutual confidence, goodwill, and friendship that is so necessary for the free play and open exchange of ideas.

If science is to engage in a creative new surge, then all this must clearly change. Within this book it is suggested that scientists could engage in a kind of free play of thought that is not restricted by unconsciously determined social pressures and the limitations inherent in particular paradigms. Such free play could be extended into the form of an open dialogue and exchange of ideas within the scientific community so that each scientist becomes more able to realize his or her creative poten-tial. When the tacit infrastructure of thought is no longer held rigidly within the community, then it becomes possible to sustain creativity at a high level throughout the whole of science.

The creative potentialities of free communication are not peculiar to science alone. They were, for example, of crucial importance in the education of Helen Keller, and they can be clearly seen in the operation of the visual arts. Consider a painter who is engaged in making a portrait. A particularly naive view of painting would conclude that the artist is attempting to por-tray the sitter “as he or she actually is.” However, a moment’s reflection shows that other artists will portray the same subject in totally different ways. So where does this “artistic truth” lie?

An equally naive suggestion is that the artist is primarily con-cerned with the truth of immediate, “naked” visual perceptions.

Yet all sensory data are deeply influenced by a person’s back-ground and disposition. In the case of the artist, this includes

everything that has gone before in the history of art, as well as with the artist’s relationship to the subject.

Psychological experiments have established that visual percep-tion is clearly condipercep-tioned by the circumstances in which that perception takes place, for example, the “meaning” of the scene and which questions are put to the viewer at the time. Clearly the artist is not immune to this process and the “artistic vision”

arises out of an outward communication with a vast matrix of ideas, social predispositions, and so on. In addition, the artist is also very much concerned with “inward perception,” a vision through the mind that is not dissimilar to that experienced by the scientist. These inward perceptions are affected by everything that the painter holds important about the history of art. Indeed thefinal painting must take its place within an artistic matrix that stretches over space and time. Each painting is an aspect of the history of art and acts to transform and complement it. Manet’s

“Olympia,” for example, owes much to Goya’s “The Naked Maja,” among other paintings, and, in turn, inspired Cézanne to paint “A Modern Olympia.” Throughout the history of art the individual artist’s engagement with other painters, sculptors, and poets, and indeed with the whole culture, is intimately tied to the perception and execution of a work.

As in art, so in science does creativity flow out of a free and open communication. Indeed it is not possible to consider any fundamental separation between the mind’s perceptions and communication; they are an indivisible whole. Although for the purpose of analysis, it is always possible to divide them into separate parts, in actuality they are two aspects of the same process, which could be indicated by the hyphenated term perception-communication. Clearly it is inadequate to think of the scientist as related to reality through individual activity alone.

His or her social communication extends throughout the whole scientific community and beyond, for technology acts on the whole society and environment, and in turn, society determines

the directions of science through its policies and financial sup-port and in countless other ways. The significance of free and open perception-communication in the creative operation of science makes it of key importance to discover how communica-tion can be blocked or broken and how fragmentacommunica-tion of the scientific endeavor results.

PARADIGMS AND SPECIALIZATION AS SOURCES OF BREAKS IN COMMUNICATION

A free-flowing communication is essential to the creative oper-ation of science. However, serious breaks in communicoper-ation have occurred, particularly within this century, which result in the fragmentary state of science. How do these breaks and barriers to communication come about? One obvious source is the rapid and fundamental changes that have taken place in the develop-ment of science. In the movedevelop-ment from Aristotle to Newton, and from Newton to Einstein, new sets of ideas and concepts have appeared which seemed to be irrelevant or incommensur-able with older ideas. Indeed, some historians of science have argued that these breaks in communication, and therefore in perception, must always occur during a scientific revolution.

We suggest, however, that such a breakdown in communication is not, in fact, inevitable.

Barriers to communication occur not only during revolutions but also in the intervening periods of “normal science.” Later in this chapter it will be shown how the special uses of language in science, rather than fostering better communication, in fact act to disrupt the free flow of ideas. A further barrier, and source of fragmentation, is the development of specialized fields of research, for these often include the assumption that ideas and concepts in one field are not really relevant in another.

Of course some degree of specialization is both necessary and desirable. In their day-to-day work, the neurobiologist and the

theoretical physicist have little to do with each other’s activities.

It is not surprising that research into elementary particles or the nature of black holes does not draw upon concepts involving nerve synapses and neurotransmitters. It could hardly be called a serious barrier to communication. The danger arises when it is assumed that, at their deepest levels, these subjects have no true relationship to each other and that the world really does consist of separate parts which can be indefinitely studied on their own. This is the very assumption that underlies fragmentation, and it is worth pointing out, yet again, its basic fallacy. All scien-tific concepts are founded within a background of ideas that extends across the sciences without limit. Long-range connec-tions between the ideas, approaches, and methods of the various specializations exist that are of crucial importance and cannot be dealt with in terms of separate specializations and disjointed branches within a given field. These long-range connections are often most important when they are subtle and subliminal, so that their influence is indirect. Only when scientific com-munication takes place in the spirit of creative free play can scientists become sensitive to the overall contexts and long-range connections between their disciplines.

A simple example may illustrate this point. Neurobiologists have little to do with the theories of quantum mechanics.

However, it has been found that, in certain ways, the nervous system can respond to individual quanta of energy. This opens

However, it has been found that, in certain ways, the nervous system can respond to individual quanta of energy. This opens