Dr. Neressian’s ideas concerning scientific concepts adhere to a much more rigid philosophy than Simonton’s belief. She focuses on closing the gap between the initial hypothesis and the Eureka moment. Specifically she demystifies the Eureka moment and provides a more concrete explanation. While I can appreciate and agree with the crux of her position- the modeling process does contribute greatly to new concepts- I felt bogged down by the details of her study. My own lack of scientific knowledge hinders my opinion towards Dr. Neressian’s argument; however, so much empirical research does leave little room for contemplation. It is difficult to contradict the idea that modeling benefits scientific concepts because I view it as an inarguable statement. I do not believe it is the only method for creativity in science. What I found most interesting in her presentation stemmed from the question and answer portion of the lecture. Her belief that the science textbook hinders education is a valid argument, and one that I could definitely consider in the realm of the creative process.
In the past few years, school districts have placed greater emphasis on math and science than on the humanities. The state assessments gauge student performance, and the low scores of both the math and science tests repeatedly reappear in the education discourse. Two very different schools of thought argue which method works best in improving test scores: the traditional, textbook drill and kill method or the more hands on/ experimental learning process. The latter clearly reflects more of Nersessian’s position. For the former, many educators believe students must simply regurgitate the necessary information long enough to perform well on the tests. The discovery method lends itself to more long-term results. What is most unfortunate for this issue is that the state assessments dictate the majority of an educator’s concerns with a student’s education. They, the educator, simply look for the quick fix for improving test scores (This is not true for all educators, but far too many). The scores put a heavy burden on education, and the creativity in science quickly vanishes.
One important point Neressian makes in her book is the need for an individual to know what to disregard in the model process. She states that if the person lacks the necessary knowledge to comprehend the model, ancillary details may distract the individual. For me personally my lack of scientific knowledge lead to my confusion during both the reading and the lecture. I found myself repeatedly trying to ascertain the specifics of the exemplars. Due to my own lack of knowledge, I had to attempt to overlook the details and just focus on Neressian’s philosophy. I do find it interesting that the distractions, from Neressian’s perspective, can interfere with the creation of scientific concepts. Simonton’s position argued that the distractions sometimes benefit the creative mind. While not completely validating the need to focus on distractions, I do believe there must be some value in the details we overlook.
In the end, what I gathered from Neressian’s argument is the need for some basic scientific knowledge. The prior knowledge behaves as a springboard into new scientific concepts. The individual must not pine over the facts because this could cause him/her to miss the larger picture. He/she must be able to find the balance between the scientific facts and the need to experiment with ideas. Only through this balance can one create innovative concepts.