Two scientists consider the origins of discoveries and other innovative behavior 

两位科学家思考发现和其他创新行为的起源

Scientific discovery is popularly believed to result from the sheer genius of such intellectual stars as naturalist Charles Darwin and theoretical physicist Albert Einstein. Our view of such unique contributions to science often disregards the person's prior experience and the efforts of their lesser-known predecessors. Conventional wisdom also places great weight on insight in promoting breakthrough scientific achievements, as if ideas spontaneously pop into someone's head – fully formed and functional. 

人们普遍认为，科学发现是自然科学家查尔斯-达尔文和理论物理学家阿尔伯特-爱因斯坦等智力明星的天才杰作。我们在看待这些对科学的独特贡献时，往往忽略了这些人之前的经验，以及他们鲜为人知的前辈所做的努力。传统智慧在促进突破性科学成就方面也非常重视洞察力，就好像想法会自发地从一个人的脑子里蹦出来--完全形成并发挥作用。

There may be some limited truth to this view. However, we believe that it largely misrepresents the real nature of scientific discovery, as well as that of creativity and innovation in many other realms of human endeavor. 

这种观点可能有一定的道理。然而，我们认为，这种观点在很大程度上歪曲了科学发现的真正本质，也歪曲了人类许多其他领域的创造力和创新力的真正本质。

Setting aside such greats as Darwin and Einstein – whose monumental contributions are duly celebrated – we suggest that innovation is more a process of trial and error, where two steps forward may sometimes come with one step back, as well as one or more steps to the right or left. This evolutionary view of human innovation undermines the notion of creative genius and recognizes the cumulative nature of scientific progress. 

撇开达尔文和爱因斯坦这样的伟大人物不谈--他们的不朽贡献得到了应有的颂扬--我们认为，创新更多的是一个试错的过程，在这个过程中，前进两步有时可能会后退一步，也可能会向右或向左迈出一步或更多步。这种人类创新的进化论观点削弱了天才创造力的概念，承认了科学进步的累积性。

Consider one unheralded scientist: John Nicholson, a mathematical physicist working in the 1910s who postulated the existence of 'proto-elements' in outer space. By combining different numbers of weights of these proto-elements' atoms, Nicholson could recover the weights of all the elements in the then-known periodic table. These successes are all the more noteworthy given the fact that Nicholson was wrong about the presence of proto-elements: they do not actually exist. Yet, amid his often fanciful theories and wild speculations, Nicholson also proposed a novel theory about the structure of atoms. Niels Bohr, the Nobel prize-winning father of modern atomic theory, jumped off from this interesting idea to conceive his now-famous model of the atom. 

请看一位默默无闻的科学家： 约翰-尼科尔森（John Nicholson）是 20 世纪 10 年代的数学物理学家，他推测外太空存在 “原初元素”。通过组合这些原初元素原子的不同重量数，尼科尔森找到了当时已知元素周期表中所有元素的重量。鉴于尼科尔森对原生元素存在的看法是错误的：它们实际上并不存在。然而，在他经常胡思乱想的理论和天马行空的猜测中，尼科尔森还提出了关于原子结构的新理论。现代原子理论之父、诺贝尔奖获得者尼尔斯-玻尔（Niels Bohr）从这一有趣的想法出发，构想出了他现在著名的原子模型。

What are we to make of this story? One might simply conclude that science is a collective and cumulative enterprise. That may be true, but there may be a deeper insight to be gleaned. We propose that science is constantly evolving, much as species of animals do. In biological systems, organisms may display new characteristics that result from random genetic mutations. In the same way, random, arbitrary or accidental mutations of ideas may help pave the way for advances in science. If mutations prove beneficial, then the animal or the scientific theory will continue to thrive and perhaps reproduce. 

我们该如何看待这个故事呢？有人可能会简单地得出结论：科学是一项集体的、不断积累的事业。这也许是对的，但我们也许可以从中得到更深刻的启示。我们认为，科学是不断发展的，就像动物物种一样。在生物系统中，生物体可能会因随机的基因突变而显示出新的特征。同样，随机的、任意的或偶然的思想变异可能有助于为科学进步铺平道路。如果变异被证明是有益的，那么这种动物或科学理论就会继续繁衍，也许还会繁衍下去。

Support for this evolutionary view of behavioral innovation comes from many domains. Consider one example of an influential innovation in US horseracing. The so-called 'acey-deucy' stirrup placement, in which the rider's foot in his left stirrup is placed as much as 25 centimeters lower than the right, is believed to confer important speed advantages when turning on oval tracks. It was developed by a relatively unknown jockey named Jackie Westrope. Had Westrope conducted methodical investigations or examined extensive film records in a shrewd plan to outrun his rivals? Had he foreseen the speed advantage that would be conferred by riding acey-deucy? No. He suffered a leg injury, which left him unable to fully bend his left knee. His modification just happened to coincide with enhanced left-hand turning performance. This led to the rapid and widespread adoption of riding acey-deucy by many riders, a racing style which continues in today's thoroughbred racing. 

许多领域都支持这种行为创新的进化观点。举一个在美国赛马界颇具影响力的创新例子。所谓的 “acey-deucy ”马镫摆放法，即骑手左脚的马镫比右脚的马镫低 25 厘米之多，这种摆放法被认为在椭圆形赛道上转弯时具有重要的速度优势。它是由一位名叫杰基-韦斯特罗普（Jackie Westrope）的名不见经传的骑师发明的。韦斯特罗普是否进行了有条不紊的调查或研究了大量的电影记录，以制定一个精明的计划来超越对手？他是否预见到了骑乘 “王牌 ”所带来的速度优势？没有。他的腿受了伤，左膝无法完全弯曲。他的改装恰好增强了左转弯性能。这使得许多骑手迅速而广泛地采用了 “acey-deucy ”骑法，这种赛马风格一直延续到今天的纯种赛马比赛中。

Plenty of other stories show that fresh advances can arise from error, misadventure, and also pure serendipity – a happy accident. For example, in the early 1970s, two employees of the company 3M each had a problem: Spencer Silver had a product – a glue which was only slightly sticky – and no use for it, while his colleague Art Fry was trying to figure out how to affix temporary bookmarks in his hymn book without damaging its pages. The solution to both these problems was the invention of the brilliantly simple yet phenomenally successful Post-It note. Such examples give lie to the claim that ingenious, designing minds are responsible for human creativity and invention. Far more banal and mechanical forces may be at work; forces that are fundamentally connected to the laws of science. 

大量其他故事表明，新的进步可能来自错误、不幸，也可能来自纯粹的偶然--一个快乐的意外。例如，在 20 世纪 70 年代初，3M 公司的两名员工各自都遇到了一个问题：斯宾塞-西尔弗有一种产品--一种只有轻微粘性的胶水--但没有用武之地，而他的同事阿特-弗莱则想知道如何在赞美诗集上粘贴临时书签而不损坏书页。解决这两个问题的办法就是发明了简单而成功的便利贴。这些例子让人无法相信，人类的创造和发明是由聪明的设计头脑创造的。起作用的可能是更为平庸和机械的力量；这些力量从根本上说与科学规律有关。

The notions of insight, creativity and genius are often invoked, but they remain vague and of doubtful scientific utility, especially when one considers the diverse and enduring contributions of individuals such as Plato, Leonardo da Vinci, Shakespeare, Beethoven, Galileo, Newton, Kepler, Curie, Pasteur and Edison. These notions merely label rather than explain the evolution of human innovations. We need another approach, and there is a promising candidate. 

人们经常引用洞察力、创造力和天才等概念，但这些概念仍然模糊不清，其科学实用性也值得怀疑，尤其是当我们考虑到柏拉图、达芬奇、莎士比亚、贝多芬、伽利略、牛顿、开普勒、居里夫人、巴斯德和爱迪生等人的各种持久贡献时。这些概念只是贴标签，而不是解释人类创新的演变。我们需要另一种方法，而且有一个很有前途的候选方案。

The Law of Effect was advanced by psychologist Edward Thorndike in 1898, some 40 years after Charles Darwin published his groundbreaking work on biological evolution, On the Origin of Species. This simple law holds that organisms tend to repeat successful behaviors and to refrain from performing unsuccessful ones. Just like Darwin's Law of Natural Selection, the Law of Effect involves an entirely mechanical process of variation and selection, without any end objective in sight. 

心理学家爱德华-桑代克（Edward Thorndike）于 1898 年提出了 “效应定律”（Law of Effect），此时距离查尔斯-达尔文（Charles Darwin）发表其关于生物进化的开创性著作《物种起源》（On the Origin of Species）已经过去了约 40 年。这个简单的定律认为，生物倾向于重复成功的行为，而避免不成功的行为。与达尔文的 “自然选择定律 ”一样，“效应定律 ”也是一个完全机械的变异和选择过程，没有任何最终目标。

Of course, the origin of human innovation demands much further study. In particular, the provenance of the raw material on which the Law of Effect operates is not as clearly known as that of the genetic mutations on which the Law of Natural Selection operates. The generation of novel ideas and behaviors may not be entirely random, but constrained by prior successes and failures – of the current individual (such as Bohr) or of predecessors (such as Nicholson). 

当然，人类创新的起源还需要进一步研究。特别是，“效应法则 ”所依赖的原材料的来源并不像 “自然选择法则 ”所依赖的基因突变那样清楚。新思想和新行为的产生可能并不完全是随机的，而是受制于先前的成功和失败--当前个体（如玻尔）或前辈（如尼科尔森）的成功和失败。

The time seems right for abandoning the naive notions of intelligent design and genius, and for scientifically exploring the true origins of creative behavior. 

现在似乎是时候抛弃智能设计和天才的天真观念，用科学的方法探索创造性行为的真正起源了。