Passend zu unserer Debatte auf der #ikoklausur erschien heute auf dem Technologieportal ArsTechnica eine Zusammenfassung eines Artikels von Dean Keith Simonton, Psychologie Professor an der University of California Davis, der letzte Woche in der Nature publiziert wurde:
The “scientific genius” Simonton refers to is a particular type of scientist; their contributions “are not just extensions of already-established, domain-specific expertise.“ Instead, “the scientific genius conceives of a novel expertise.” Simonton uses words like “groundbreaking” and “overthrow” to illustrate the work of these individuals, explaining that they each contributed to science in one of two major ways: either by founding an entirely new field or by revolutionizing an already-existing discipline.
Today, according to Simonton, there just isn’t room to create new disciplines or overthrow the old ones. “It is difficult to imagine that scientists have overlooked some phenomenon worthy of its own discipline,” he writes. Furthermore, most scientific fields aren’t in the type of crisis that would enable paradigm shifts, according to Thomas Kuhn’s classic view of scientific revolutions. Simonton argues that instead of finding big new ideas, scientists currently work on the details in increasingly specialized and precise ways.
And to some extent, this argument is demonstrably correct. Science is becoming more and more specialized. The largest scientific fields are currently being split into smaller sub-disciplines: microbiology, astrophysics, neuroscience, and paleogeography, to name a few. Furthermore, researchers have more tools and the knowledge to hone in on increasingly precise issues and questions than they did a century—or even a decade—ago.
Damit eng verbunden, auch wenn nicht auf dem ersten Blick erkennbar, ist die Debatte um die Doktorentitel der Schavans und Guttensbergs an der politischen Spitze in Deutschland. Nach wie vor geht das wissenschaftliche System davon aus, dass Abschlüsse, insbesondere Promotionen und Habilitationen individuelle Forschungsleistungen sein müssen. Wir erleben aber in allen Bereichen den Durchbruch kollektiver Forschung, die ironischerweise wie Guttenplag und Schavanplag die Plagiatoren zu Fall bringen.
Das wissenschaftliche Genie mag es daher nicht mehr geben, aber das geniale Wissenschaftskollektiv schon. Wir werden den Beweis antreten.
