scientific inventions essay

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

Essay on Scientific Discoveries

• Updated on  
• Feb 7, 2024

Writing and speaking skills are the most important skills in the world. It shows how well a student will convey his or her ideas, experiences and thoughts. Essays are one of the most popular forms of writing to ascertain an applicant’s general knowledge, experiences, writing style and language skills. It is used in many entrance exams like SAT, IELTS, TOEFL and in college applications as well. From a very early age, school curriculums have been encouraging students to write essays and give speeches. Sometimes the topics provided to students can be complicated. So, today we have come up to help the students with an essay on Scientific Discoveries.

Check out our 200+ Essay Topics for School Students in English

Five Qualities of A Good Essay

Before we provide you with an essay on scientific discoveries. Let’s learn about essay writing. Writing an essay is a difficult thing. The writing should be rich in content plus should not bore its readers. Here are the five qualities a perfect essay should have:-

• Focus: All of your writing should come under one single topic. No matter how vast your essay is, it should always revolve around the topic of the essay. Avoid unnecessary details.
• Development: Every paragraph of your essay should centre the topic of your essay. Try to use examples, details and descriptions.
• Free composition: Always follow a basic structure. Before finalising your essay, jot down the points you would like to mention and then make a series. Do not surprise the reader with complicated words, try to keep it as simple as possible. 
• Correctness: Make sure your essay is free from any grammatical errors, spelling mistakes, mismatched sentences, etc. Always use standard English and complete sentences.
• Introduction and Conclusion: The introduction and the conclusion of the writing are the most important parts of the essay. The first impression is always the last, and so is the introduction of your writing. After reading the first two or three lines, if the reader gets bored, he may not read your whole essay. So make sure your essay contains a crispy beginning. Alternatively, make the conclusion so strong and effective that the reader never forgets your essay. Don’t feel afraid to use quotes, catchy lines, slogans and all. They are the cherry on the cake for your essay.

Also Read: Importance of Technology in Education

Also Read: Essay on Athletics in 100, 200 and 300 Words

Sample Essay on Scientific Discoveries

Here is an example of an essay on scientific discoveries to help them out in their school assignments.

Everything around us is a great discovery. Be it a necessity, comfort, or luxury, they all came from different scientific discoveries that took place over some time. Starting from a small pin to a big ship, everything is just a mere invention to make the lives of humans easier. Scientistic discoveries take place in every arena of thought so before we talk about these inventions. Let’s examine what is science. What is science? Science is a system for acquiring knowledge. We use observations, and experimentation to come to a conclusion and explain any natural phenomenon. In simple language, science is the systematic field of study or knowledge gained from experimentations, observations and some accepted facts. And so scientific discoveries have done miracles in human lives.  Scientific discoveries and inventions have made our lives easier and more comfortable than we could have ever imagined. Scientific equipment accomplishes lengthy tasks in just minutes. Be it in the health sector, education, transportation, and more. All the inventions are just the gifts of science. Nowadays we are in a situation where without science, we cannot imagine our survival. In the absence of Science, no country, and no single person would have made progress. Scientific discoveries and inventions are machines that accomplish any task of humans either fully or partially. According to the business dictionary, the word ‘invention’ is “a new scientific or technical idea and the means of its embodiment or accomplishment. To be patentable, an invention must be novel, have utility, and be non-obvious. To be called an invention, an idea only needs to be proven as workable. But to be called an innovation, it must also be replicable at an economical cost and must satisfy a specific need. That’s why only a few inventions lead to innovations because not all of them are economically feasible.” Wikipedia further says, “An invention is a unique or novel device, method, composition or process. It may be an improvement upon a machine or product or a new process for creating an object or a result. An invention that achieves a unique function or result may be a radical breakthrough. Such works are novel and not obvious to others skilled in the same field.” These definitions made us clear about how important scientific discovery is for us. Due to science, we can get all kinds of things we desire for. Electricity is a miracle that gives us light even in the dark. It further helps us to run industries conserve the environment and control pollution .  A cricket match is going on in America and we can watch it. Why? Inventions! Nowadays medical science is doing its best all over the world. Let us not forget computers, which is the greatest invention of mankind.  However, it is rightly said that every coin has two sides. Scientific discoveries and inventions have given us a lot and at the same time created a lot of disadvantages too. Nowadays people have become so dependent on technology that even walking has become difficult. Inventions made people so lazy, especially the young generation. All they could think about now is sitting at their home, with their computers and tablets on.

Gone are the days when people used to go out, play and have actual fun in life. Also, scientific inventions have made people jobless. Employers are substituting their employees with heavy machines. And this is the sad reality everywhere. Along with a luxurious life, technology has made our lives more complicated. People nowadays catch the disease early due to no exercise and sitting in front of their computer the whole day.  The biggest and most disastrous inventions are weapons, guns and bombs. What’s worse than taking the life of people? It has ruined unity, peace and harmony all over the world.  Scientific discoveries and inventions have contributed so much that my essay would never be enough to explain it. Ultimately, I would like to say that do not take up the monstrous side. Try the blessing of discoveries and make your life better in every aspect.

Also Read: Essay on Information Technology in 400 Words

Check out our Popular Essay Topics for Students

So this was all regarding an essay on scientific discoveries. For more information on such interesting topics, visit our essay writing page and follow Leverage Edu.

Team Leverage Edu

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Contact no. *

Good work thanks

Thank you, Deepesh!

Good work🙏 sir thanks for sharing

Thank u it was very helpful

Thank you this helped me a lot

Leaving already?

8 Universities with higher ROI than IITs and IIMs

Grab this one-time opportunity to download this ebook

Connect With Us

25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. take the first step today..

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

September 2024

January 2025

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

November 1, 2013

What Are the 10 Greatest Inventions of Our Time?

Before you consider, here are a few opinions from Scientific American readers in 1913 on what makes a great invention

By Daniel C. Schlenoff

A competition sponsored in 1913 by Scientific American asked for essays on the 10 greatest inventions. The rules: “our time” meant the previous quarter century, 1888 to 1913; the invention had to be patentable and was considered to date from its “commercial introduction.”

Perception is at the heart of this question. Inventions are most salient when we can see the historical changes they cause. In 2013 we might not appreciate the work of Nikola Tesla or Thomas Edison on a daily basis, as we are accustomed to electricity in all its forms, but we are very impressed by the societal changes caused by the Internet and the World Wide Web (both of which run on alternating-current electricity, by the way). A century from now they might be curious as to what all the fuss was about. The answers from 1913 thus provide a snapshot of the perceptions of the time.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

The airplane: The Wright Flyer for military purposes, being demonstrated at Fort Myer, Va., in 1908. Image: Scientific American - November 1, 1913

Following are excerpts from the first- and second-prize essays, along with a statistical tally of all the entries that were sent in.

The first-prize essay was written by William I. Wyman, who worked in the U.S. Patent Office in Washington, D.C., and was thus well informed on the progress of inventions. His list was:

1. The electric furnace (1889) It was “the only means for commercially producing Carborundum (the hardest of all manufactured substances).” The electric furnace also converted aluminum “from a merely precious to very useful metal” (by reducing it’s price 98 percent), and was “radically transforming the steel industry.”

2. The steam turbine, invented by Charles Parsons in 1884 and commercially introduced over the next 10 years. A huge improvement in powering ships, the more far-reaching use of this invention was to drive generators that produced electricity.

3. The gasoline-powered automobile. Many inventors worked toward the goal of a “self-propelled” vehicle in the 19th century. Wyman gave the honor specifically to Gottleib Daimler for his 1889 engine, arguing: “a century's insistent but unsuccessful endeavor to provide a practical self-propelled car proves that the success of any type that once answered requirements would be immediate. Such success did come with the advent of the Daimler motor, and not before.”

4. The moving picture. Entertainment always will be important to people. “The moving picture has transformed the amusements of the multitude.” The technical pioneer he cited was Thomas Edison.

5. The airplane. For “the Realization of an age-long dream” he gave the laurels of success to the Wright brothers, but apart from its military use reserved judgment on the utility of the invention: “It presents the least commercial utility of all the inventions considered.”

6. Wireless Telegraphy. Systems for transmitting information between people have been around for centuries, perhaps millennia. Telegraph signals got a speed boost in the U.S. from Samuel Morse and Alfred Vail. Wireless telegraphy as invented by Guglielmo Marconi, later evolving into radio, set information free from wires.

7. The cyanide process. Sounds toxic, yes? It appears on this list for only one reason: It is used to extract gold from ore. “Gold is the life blood of trade,” and in 1913 it was considered to be the foundation for international commerce and national currencies.

8. The Nikola Tesla induction motor. “This epoch-making invention is mainly responsible for the present large and increasing use of electricity in the industries.” Before people had electricity in their homes, the alternating current–producing motor constructed by Tesla supplied 90 percent of the electricity used by manufacturing.

9. The Linotype machine. The Linotype machine enabled publishers—largely newspapers—to compose text and print it much faster and cheaper. It was an advance as large as the invention of the printing press itself was over the painstaking handwritten scrolls before it. Pretty soon we won’t be using paper for writing and reading, so the history of printing will be forgotten anyway.

10. The electric welding process of Elihu Thomson. In the era of mass production, the electric welding process enabled faster production and construction of better, more intricate machines for that manufacturing process.

The electric welder invented by Elihu Thomson enabled the cheaper production of intricate welded machinery. Image: Scientific American - November 1, 1913

The turbine invented by Charles Parsons powered ships. Assembled in numbers, they provided an efficient means of driving electrical generators and producing that most useful commodity. Image: Scientific American - November 1, 1913

The second-prize essay, by George M. Dowe, also of Washington, D.C., who may have been a patent attorney, was more philosophical. He divided his inventions into those aiding three broad sectors: production, transportation and communication.

1. Electrical fixation of atmospheric nitrogen. As natural fertilizer sources were depleted during the 19th century, artificial fertilizers enabled the further expansion of agriculture.

2. Preservation of sugar-producing plants. George W. McMullen of Chicago is credited with the discovery of a method for drying sugar cane and sugar beets for transport. Sugar production became more efficient and its supply increased by leaps and bounds, like a kid on a “sugar buzz.” Maybe this is one invention we could have done without. But I digress.

3. High-speed steel alloys. By adding tungsten to steel, “tools so made were able to cut at such a speed that they became almost red hot without losing either their temper or their cutting edge” The increase in the efficiency of cutting machines was “nothing short of revolutionary.”

4. Tungsten-filament lamp. Another success of chemistry. After tungsten replaced carbon in its filament, the lightbulb was considered “perfected.” As of 2013 they are being phased out worldwide in favor of compact fluorescent bulbs, which are four times as efficient.

5. The airplane. Not yet in wide use as transportation in 1913, but “To [Samuel] Langley and to the Wright brothers must be awarded the chief honors in the attainment of mechanical flight.” In 2013 the annoying aspects of commercial airline flying make transportation by horse and buggy seem a viable alternative.

6. The steam turbine. As with Mr. Wyman, the turbine deserved credit not only “in the utilization of steam as a prime mover” but in its use in the “generation of electricity.”

7. Internal combustion engine. As a means of transportation, Dowe gives the greatest credit to “Daimler, Ford and Duryea.” Gottleib Daimler is a well-known pioneer in motor vehicles. Henry Ford began production of the Model T in 1908 and it was quite popular by 1913. Charles Duryea made one of the earliest commercially successful petrol-driven vehicles, starting in 1896.

8. The pneumatic tire. Cars for personal transportation were an improvement on railways. “What the track has done for the locomotive, the pneumatic tire has done for the vehicle not confined to tracks.” Credit is given to John Dunlop and William C. Bartlet, who each had a milestone on the road (pun intended) to successful automobile and bicycle tires.

9. Wireless communication. Marconi was given the credit for making wireless “commercially practical.” Dowe also makes a comment that could apply equally to the rise of the World Wide Web, stating that wireless was “devised to meet the needs of commerce primarily, but incidentally they have contributed to social intercourse.”

10. Composing machines. The giant rotary press was quite capable of churning out masses of printed material. The bottleneck in the chain of production was composing the printing plates. The Linotype and the Monotype dispensed with that bottleneck.

The essays sent in were compiled to come up with a master list of inventions that were considered to be the top 10. Wireless telegraphy was on almost everyone’s list. The “aeroplane” came in second, although it was considered important because of its potential, not because there were so many airplanes in the sky. Here are the rest of the results:

There were also mentions for Luther Burbank's agricultural work (23); Louis Pasteur and vaccination work (20); acetylene gas from carbide (17); mercury-vapor lamp (7); preservation of sugar-producing plants (7); combined motion picture and talking machine (10); Edison's storage battery (6); automatic player piano (4); Pulmotor (a respirator machine) (4); telephone (4).

The motion picture: The hard-working Thomas Edison helped make this entertainment form technically viable. Image: Scientific American - November 1, 1913

The full contents of all the prize-winning essays is available with a subscription to the Scientific American archives .

Subscribe or renew today

Every print subscription comes with full digital access

Science News

What made the last century’s great innovations possible.

Transforming how people live requires more than scientific discovery

In the early decades of the 20th century, automobiles, telephone service and radio (broadcast of the 1920 U.S. presidential election results from KDKA station in Pittsburgh is shown) were transforming life.

Hulton Archive/Getty Images

Share this:

By Jon Gertner

March 18, 2022 at 7:00 am

In the early decades of the 20th century, a slew of technologies began altering daily life with seemingly unprecedented speed and breadth. Suddenly, consumers could enjoy affordable automobiles. Long-distance telephone service connected New York with San Francisco. Electric power and radio broadcasts came into homes. New methods for making synthetic fertilizer portended a revolution in agriculture. And on the horizon, airplanes promised a radical transformation in travel and commerce.

As the technology historian Thomas P. Hughes noted: “The remarkably prolific inventors of the late nineteenth century, such as [Thomas] Edison, persuaded us that we were involved in a second creation of the world.” By the 1920s, this world — more functional, more sophisticated and increasingly more comfortable — had come into being.

Public figures like Edison or, say, Henry Ford were often described as inventors. But a different word, one that caught on around the 1950s, seemed more apt in describing the technological ideas making way for modern life: innovation . While its origins go back some 500 years (at first it was used to describe a new legal and then religious idea), the word’s popularization was a post–World War II phenomenon.

The elevation of the term likely owes a debt to the Austrian-American economist Joseph Schumpeter, according to the late science historian Benoît Godin. In his academic writings, Schumpeter argued that vibrant economies were driven by innovators whose work replaced existing products or processes. “Innovation is the market introduction of a technical or organizational novelty, not just its invention,” Schumpeter wrote in 1911.

An invention like Fritz Haber’s process for making synthetic fertilizer, developed in 1909, was a dramatic step forward, for example. Yet what changed global agriculture was a broad industrial effort to transform that invention into an innovation — that is, to replace a popular technology with something better and cheaper on a national or global scale.

In the mid-century era, one of the leading champions of America’s innovation capabilities was Vannevar Bush, an MIT academic. In 1945, Bush worked on a landmark report — famously titled “Science, The Endless Frontier” — for President Harry Truman. The report advocated for a large federal role in funding scientific research. Though Bush didn’t actually use the word innovation in the report, his manifesto presented an objective for the U.S. scientific and industrial establishment: Grand innovative vistas lay ahead, especially in electronics, aeronautics and chemistry. And creating this future would depend on developing a feedstock of new scientific insights.

Though innovation depended on a rich trove of discoveries and inventions, the innovative process often differed, both in its nature and complexity, from what occurred within scientific laboratories. An innovation often required larger teams and more interdisciplinary expertise than an invention. Because it was an effort that connected scientific research to market opportunities, it likewise aimed to have both society-wide scale and impact. As the radio, telephone and airplane had proved, the broad adoption of an innovative product ushered in an era of technological and social change.

To celebrate our 100th anniversary, we’re highlighting some of the biggest advances in science over the last century. To see more from the series, visit Century of Science .

Bringing inventions “to scale” in large markets was precisely the aim of big companies such as General Electric or American Telephone & Telegraph, which was then the national telephone monopoly. Indeed, at Bell Laboratories, which served as the research and development arm of AT&T, a talented engineer named Jack Morton began to think of innovation as “not just the discovery of new phenomena, nor the development of a new product or manufacturing technique, nor the creation of a new market. Rather, the process is all these things acting together in an integrated way toward a common industrial goal.”

Morton had a difficult job. The historical record suggests he was the first person in the world asked to figure out how to turn the transistor, discovered in December 1947 , from an invention into a mass-produced innovation. He put tremendous energy into defining his task — a job that in essence focused on moving beyond science’s eureka moments and pushing the century’s technologies into new and unexplored regions.

From invention to innovation

In the 1940s, Vannevar Bush’s model for innovation was what’s now known as “linear.” He saw the wellspring of new scientific ideas, or what he termed “basic science,” as eventually moving in a more practical direction toward what he deemed “applied research.” In time, these applied scientific ideas — inventions, essentially — could move toward engineered products or processes. Ultimately, in finding large markets, they could become innovations.

In recent decades, Bush’s model has come to be seen as simplistic. The educator Donald Stokes, for instance, has pointed out that the line between basic and applied science can be indistinct. Bush’s paradigm can also work in reverse: New knowledge in the sciences can derive from technological tools and innovations, rather than the other way around. This is often the case with powerful new microscopes , for instance, which allow researchers to make observations and discoveries at tinier and tinier scales. More recently, other scholars of innovation have pointed to the powerful effect that end users and crowdsourcing can have on new products, sometimes improving them dramatically — as with software — by adding new ideas for their own use.

Above all, innovations have increasingly proved to be the sum parts of unrelated scientific discoveries and inventions; combining these elements at a propitious moment in time can result in technological alchemy. Economist Mariana Mazzucato, for instance, has pointed to the iPhone as an integrated wonder of myriad breakthroughs, including touch screens, GPS, cellular systems and the Internet, all developed at different times and with different purposes.

At least in the Cold War era, when military requests and large industrial labs drove much of the new technology, the linear model nevertheless succeeded well. Beyond AT&T and General Electric, corporate titans like General Motors, DuPont, Dow and IBM viewed their R&D labs, stocked with some of the country’s best scientists, as foundries where world-changing products of the future would be forged.

These corporate labs were immensely productive in terms of research and were especially good at producing new patents. But not all their scientific work was suitable for driving innovations. At Bell Labs, for instance, which funded a small laboratory in Holmdel, N.J., situated amid several hundred acres of open fields, a small team of researchers studied radio wave transmissions.

Karl Jansky, a young physicist, installed a moveable antenna on the grounds that revealed radio waves emanating from the center of the Milky Way. In doing so, he effectively founded the field of radio astronomy . And yet, he did not create anything useful for his employer, the phone company, which was more focused on improving and expanding telephone service. To Jansky’s disappointment, he was asked to direct his energies elsewhere; there seemed no market for what he was doing.

Above all, corporate managers needed to perceive an overlap between big ideas and big markets before they would dedicate funding and staff toward developing an innovation. Even then, the iterative work of creating a new product or process could be slow and plodding — more so than it may seem in retrospect. Bell Labs’ invention of the point-contact transistor, in December 1947, is a case in point. The first transistor was a startling moment of insight that led to a Nobel Prize . Yet in truth the world changed little from what was produced that year.

The three credited inventors — William Shockley, John Bardeen and William Brattain — had found a way to create a very fast switch or amplifier by running a current through a slightly impure slice of germanium. Their device promised to transform modern appliances, including those used by the phone company, into tiny, power-sipping electronics. And yet the earliest transistors were difficult to manufacture and impractical for many applications. (They were tried in bulky hearing aids, however.) What was required was a subsequent set of transistor-related inventions to transform the breakthrough into an innovation.

The first crucial step was the junction transistor, a tiny “sandwich” of various types of germanium, theorized by Shockley in 1948 and created by engineering colleagues soon after. The design proved manufacturable by the mid-1950s, thanks to efforts at Texas Instruments and other companies to transform it into a dependable product.

A second leap overcame the problems of germanium, which performed poorly under certain temperature and moisture conditions and was relatively rare. In March 1955, Morris Tanenbaum, a young chemist at Bell Labs, hit on a method using a slice of silicon. It was, crucially, not the world’s first silicon transistor — that distinction goes to a device created a year before. But Tanenbaum reflected that his design, unlike the others, was easily “manufacturable,” which defined its innovative potential. Indeed, he realized its value right away. In his lab notebook on the evening of his insight, he wrote: “This looks like the transistor we’ve been waiting for. It should be a cinch to make.”

Finally, several other giant steps were needed. One came in 1959, also at Bell Labs, when Mohamed Atalla and Dawon Kahng created the first silicon metal-oxide-semiconductor-field-effect-transistor — known as a MOSFET — which used a different architecture than either junction or point-contact transistors. Today, almost every transistor manufactured in the world, trillions each second, results from the MOSFET breakthrough . This advance allowed for the design of integrated circuits and chips implanted with billions of tiny devices. It allowed for powerful computers and moonshots. And it allowed for an entire world to be connected.

Getting there

The technological leaps of the 1900s — microelectronics, antibiotics , chemotherapy, liquid-fueled rockets, Earth-observing satellites , lasers , LED lights, disease-resistant seeds and so forth — derived from science. But these technologies also spent years being improved, tweaked, recombined and modified to make them achieve the scale and impact necessary for innovations.

Some scholars — the late Harvard professor Clayton Christensen, for instance, who in the 1990s studied the way new ideas “disrupt” entrenched industries — have pointed to how waves of technological change can follow predictable patterns. First, a potential innovation with a functional advantage finds a market niche; eventually, it expands its appeal to users, drops in cost and step by step pushes aside a well-established product or process. (Over time the transistor, for example, has mostly eliminated the need for vacuum tubes.)

But there has never been a comprehensive theory of innovation that cuts across all disciplines, or that can reliably predict the specific path by which we end up transforming new knowledge into social gains. Surprises happen. Within any field, structural obstacles, technical challenges or a scarcity of funding can stand in the way of development, so that some ideas (a treatment for melanoma, say) move to fruition and broad application faster than others (a treatment for pancreatic cancer).

There can likewise be vast differences in how innovation occurs in different fields. In energy, for example, which involves vast integrated systems and requires durable infrastructure, the environmental scientist and policy historian Vaclav Smil has noted, innovations can take far longer to achieve scale than in others. In software development, new products can be rolled out cheaply, and can reach a huge audience almost instantly.

At the very least, we can say with some certainty that almost all innovations, like most discoveries and inventions, result from hard work and good timing — a moment when the right people get together with the right knowledge to solve the right problem. In one of his essays on the subject, business theorist Peter Drucker pointed to the process by which business managers “convert society’s needs into opportunities” as the definition of innovation. And that may be as good an explanation as any.  

Even innovations that seem fast — for instance, mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 — are often a capstone to many years of research and discovery. Indeed, it’s worth noting that the scientific groundwork preceding the vaccines’ rollout developed the methods that could later be used to solve a problem when the need became most acute . What’s more, the urgency of the situation presented an opportunity for three companies — Moderna and, in collaboration, Pfizer and BioNTech — to utilize a vaccine invention and bring it to scale within a year.

“The history of cultural progress is, almost without exception, a story of one door leading to another door,” the tech journalist Steven Johnson has written. We usually explore just one room at a time, and only after wandering around do we proceed to the next, he writes. Surely this is an apt way to think of our journey up to now. It might also lead us to ask: What doors will we open in future decades? What rooms will we explore?

On the one hand, we can be assured that the advent of mRNA vaccines portends applications for a range of other diseases in coming years. It seems more challenging to predict — and, perhaps, hazardous to underestimate — the human impact of biotechnology , such as CRISPR gene editing or synthetic DNA. And it seems equally hard to imagine with precision how a variety of novel digital products ( robotics, for example, and artificial intelligence ) will be integrated into societies of the future. Yet without question they will.

Erik Brynjolfsson of Stanford and Andrew McAfee of MIT have posited that new digital technologies mark the start of a “second machine age” that in turn represents “an inflection point in the history of our economies and societies.” What could result is an era of greater abundance and problem-solving, but also enormous challenges — for instance, as computers increasingly take on tasks that result in the replacement of human workers.

If this is our future, it won’t be the first time we’ve struggled with the blowback from new innovations , which often create new problems even as they solve old ones. New pesticides and herbicides, to take one example, allowed farmers to raise yields and ensure good harvests; they also devastated fragile ecosystems. Social media connected people all over the world; it also led to a tidal wave of propaganda and misinformation. Most crucially, the discovery of fossil fuels, along with the development of steam turbines and internal combustion engines, led us into an era of global wealth and commerce. But these innovations have bequeathed a legacy of CO 2 emissions, a warming planet, diminished biodiversity and the possibility of impending environmental catastrophe.

The climate dilemma almost certainly presents the greatest challenge of the next 50 years. Some of the innovations needed for an energy transition — in solar and wind power, and in batteries and home heat pumps — already exist; what’s required are policies that allow for deployment on a rapid and more massive scale. But other ideas and inventions — in the fields of geothermal and tidal power, for instance, or next-generation nuclear plants, novel battery chemistries and carbon capture and utilization — will require years of development to drive costs down and performance up. The climate challenge is so large and varied, it seems safe to assume we will need every innovation we can possibly muster.

Perhaps the largest unknown is whether success is assured. Even so, we can predict what a person looking back a century from now might think. They will note that we had a multitude of astonishing scientific breakthroughs in our favor at this moment in time — breakthroughs that pointed the way toward innovations and a cooler, safer, healthier planet. They will reflect that we had a range of extraordinary tools at our beck and call. They will see that we had great engineering prowess, and great wealth. And they will likely conclude that with all the problems at hand, even some that seemed fearsome and intractable, none should have proved unsolvable.

More Stories from Science News on Science & Society

Your last-minute guide to the 2024 total solar eclipse

Protein whisperer Oluwatoyin Asojo fights neglected diseases

How a 19th century astronomer can help you watch the total solar eclipse

Timbre can affect what harmony is music to our ears

Not all cultures value happiness over other aspects of well-being

‘Space: The Longest Goodbye’ explores astronauts’ mental health

‘Countdown’ takes stock of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile

Why large language models aren’t headed toward humanlike understanding

Subscribers, enter your e-mail address for full access to the Science News archives and digital editions.

Not a subscriber? Become one now .

The Top Ten Scientific Discoveries of the Decade

Breakthroughs include measuring the true nature of the universe, finding new species of human ancestors, and unlocking new ways to fight disease

Jay Bennett

Former associate web editor, science.

Millions of new scientific research papers are published every year , shedding light on everything from the evolution of stars to the ongoing impacts of climate change to the health benefits (or determents) of coffee to the tendency of your cat to ignore you . With so much research coming out every year, it can be difficult to know what is significant, what is interesting but largely insignificant, and what is just plain bad science . But over the course of a decade, we can look back at some of the most important and awe-inspiring areas of research, often expressed in multiple findings and research papers that lead to a true proliferation of knowledge. Here are ten of the biggest strides made by scientists in the last ten years.

New Human Relatives

The human family tree expanded significantly in the past decade, with fossils of new hominin species discovered in Africa and the Philippines. The decade began with the discovery and identification of Australopithecus sediba , a hominin species that lived nearly two million years ago in present-day South Africa. Matthew Berger, the son of paleoanthropologist Lee Berger, stumbled upon the first fossil of the species, a right clavicle, in 2008, when he was only 9 years old. A team then unearthed more fossils from the individual, a young boy, including a well-preserved skull, and A. sediba was described by Lee Berger and colleagues in 2010 . The species represents a transitionary phase between the genus Australopithecus and the genus Homo , with some traits of the older primate group but a style of walking that resembled modern humans.

Also discovered in South Africa by a team led by Berger, Homo naledi lived much more recently, some 335,000 to 236,000 years ago, meaning it may have overlapped with our own species, Homo sapiens. The species, first discovered in the Rising Star Cave system in 2013 and described in 2015 , also had a mix of primitive and modern features, such as a small brain case (about one-third the size of Homo sapiens ) and a large body for the time, weighing approximately 100 pounds and standing up to five feet tall. The smaller Homo luzonensis (three to four feet tall) lived in the Philippines some 50,000 to 67,000 years ago , overlapping with several species of hominin. The first H. luzonensis fossils were originally identified as Homo sapiens, but a 2019 analysis determined that the bones belonged to an entirely unknown species.

These three major finds in the last ten years suggest that the bones of more species of ancient human relatives are likely hidden in the caves and sediment deposits of the world, waiting to be discovered.

Taking Measure of the Cosmos

When Albert Einstein first published the general theory of relativity in 1915, he likely couldn’t have imagined that 100 years later, astronomers would test the theory’s predictions with some of the most sophisticated instruments ever built—and the theory would pass each test. General relativity describes the universe as a “fabric” of space-time that is warped by large masses. It’s this warping that causes gravity, rather than an internal property of mass as Isaac Newton thought.

One prediction of this model is that the acceleration of masses can cause “ripples” in space-time, or the propagation of gravitational waves. With a large enough mass, such as a black hole or a neutron star, these ripples may even be detected by astronomers on Earth. In September 2015, the LIGO and Virgo collaboration detected gravitational waves for the first time, propagating from a pair of merging black holes some 1.3 billion light-years away. Since then, the two instruments have detected several additional gravitational waves , including one from a two merging neutron stars.

Another prediction of general relativity—one that Einstein himself famously doubted —is the existence of black holes at all, or points of gravitational collapse in space with infinite density and infinitesimal volume. These objects consume all matter and light that strays too close, creating a disk of superheated material falling into the black hole. In 2017, the Event Horizon Telescope collaboration —a network of linked radio telescopes around the world—took observations that would later result in the first image of the environment around a black hole, released in April 2019 .

The Hottest Years on Record

Scientists have been predicating the effects of burning coal and fossil fuels on the temperature of the planet for over 100 years. A 1912 issue of Popular Mechanics contains an article titled “ Remarkable Weather of 1911: The Effect of the Combustion of Coal on the Climate—What Scientists Predict for the Future ,” which has a caption that reads: “The furnaces of the world are now burning about 2,000,000,000 tons of coal a year. When this is burned, uniting with oxygen, it adds about 7,000,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere yearly. This tends to make the air a more effective blanket for the earth and to raise its temperature. The effect may be considerable in a few centuries.”

Just one century later, and the effect is considerable indeed. Increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have produced hotter global temperatures, with the last five years (2014 to 2018) being the hottest years on record . 2016 was the hottest year since the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) started recording global temperature 139 years ago. The effects of this global change include more frequent and destructive wildfires, more common droughts, accelerating polar ice melt and increased storm surges. California is burning, Venice is flooding, urban heat deaths are on the rise, and countless coastal and island communities face an existential crisis—not to mention the ecological havoc wreaked by climate change, stifling the planet’s ability to pull carbon back out of the atmosphere.

In 2015, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) reached a consensus on climate action, known as the Paris Agreement. The primary goal of the Paris Agreement is to limit global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels . To achieve this goal, major societal transformations will be required, including replacing fossil fuels with clean energy such as wind, solar and nuclear; reforming agricultural practices to limit emissions and protect forested areas; and perhaps even building artificial means of pulling carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.

Editing Genes

Ever since the double-helix structure of DNA was revealed in the early 1950s , scientists have hypothesized about the possibility of artificially modifying DNA to change the functions of an organism. The first approved gene therapy trial occurred in 1990, when a four-year-old girl had her own white blood cells removed, augmented with the genes that produce an enzyme called adenosine deaminase (ADA), and then reinjected into her body to treat ADA deficiency, a genetic condition that hampers the immune system’s ability to fight disease. The patient’s body began producing the ADA enzyme, but new white blood cells with the corrected gene were not produced, and she had to continue receiving injections .

Now, genetic engineering is more precise and available than ever before, thanks in large part to a new tool first used to modify eukaryotic cells (complex cells with a nucleus) in 2013 : CRISPR-Cas9. The gene editing tool works by locating a targeted section of DNA and “cutting” out that section with the Cas9 enzyme. An optional third step involves replacing the deleted section of DNA with new genetic material. The technique can be used for a wide range of applications, from increasing the muscle mass of livestock, to producing resistant and fruitful crops, to treating diseases like cancer by removing a patient’s immune system cells, modifying them to better fight a disease, and reinjecting them into the patient’s body.

In late 2018, Chinese researchers led by He Jiankui announced that they had used CRISPR-Cas9 to genetically modify human embryos, which were then transferred to a woman’s uterus and resulted in the birth of twin girls—the first gene-edited babies. The twins’ genomes were modified to make the girls more resistant to HIV, although the genetic alterations may have also resulted in unintended changes . The work was widely condemned by the scientific community as unethical and dangerous, revealing a need for stricter regulations for how these powerful new tools are used, particularly when it comes to changing the DNA of embryos and using those embryos to birth live children.

Mysteries of Other Worlds Revealed

Spacecraft and telescopes have revealed a wealth of information about worlds beyond our own in the last decade. In 2015, the New Horizons probe made a close pass of Pluto, taking the first nearby observations of the dwarf planet and its moons. The spacecraft revealed a surprisingly dynamic and active world, with icy mountains reaching up to nearly 20,000 feet and shifting plains that are no more than 10 million years old—meaning the geology is constantly changing. The fact that Pluto—which is an average of 3.7 billion miles from the sun , about 40 times the distance of Earth—is so geologically active suggests that even cold, distant worlds could get enough energy to heat their interiors, possibly harboring subsurface liquid water or even life.

A bit closer to home, the Cassini spacecraft orbited Saturn for 13 years , ending its mission in September 2017 when NASA intentionally plunged the spacecraft into the atmosphere of Saturn so it would burn up rather than continue orbiting the planet once it had exhausted its fuel. During its mission, Cassini discovered the processes that feed Saturn’s rings , observed a global storm encircle the gas giant, mapped the large moon Titan and found some of the ingredients for life in the plumes of icy material erupting from the watery moon Enceladus. In 2016, a year before the end of the Cassini mission, the Juno spacecraft arrived at Jupiter, where it has been measuring the magnetic field and atmospheric dynamics of the largest planet in the solar system to help scientists understand how Jupiter—and everything else around the sun—originally formed.

In 2012, the Curiosity rover landed on Mars, where it has made several significant discoveries, including new evidence of past water on the red planet , the presence of organic molecules that could be related to life, and mysterious seasonal cycles of methane and oxygen that hint at a dynamic world beneath the surface. In 2018, the European Space Agency announced that ground-penetrating radar data from the Mars Express spacecraft provided strong evidence that a liquid reservoir of water exists underground near the Martian south pole .

Meanwhile, two space telescopes, Kepler and TESS, have discovered thousands of planets orbiting other stars. Kepler launched in 2009 and ended its mission in 2018, revealing mysterious and distant planets by measuring the decrease in light when they pass in front of their stars. These planets include hot Jupiters, which orbit close to their stars in just days or hours; mini Neptunes, which are between the size of Earth and Neptune and may be gas, liquid, solid or some combination; and super Earths, which are large rocky planets that astronomers hope to study for signs of life. TESS, which launched in 2018, continues the search as Kepler’s successor. The space telescope has already discovered hundreds of worlds , and it could find 10,000 or even 20,000 before the end of the mission.

Fossilized Pigments Reveal the Colors of Dinosaurs

The decade began with a revolution in paleontology as scientists got their first look at the true colors of dinosaurs. First, in January 2010, an analysis of melanosomes—organelles that contain pigments—in the fossilized feathers of Sinosauropteryx , a dinosaur that lived in China some 120 to 125 million years ago, revealed that the prehistoric creature had “reddish-brown tones” and stripes along its tail . Shortly after, a full-body reconstruction revealed the colors of a small feathered dinosaur that lived some 160 million years ago , Anchiornis , which had black and white feathers on its body and a striking plume of red feathers on its head.

The study of fossilized pigments has continued to expose new information about prehistoric life, hinting at potential animal survival strategies by showing evidence of countershading and camouflage . In 2017, a remarkably well-preserved armored dinosaur which lived about 110 million years ago, Borealopelta , was found to have reddish-brown tones to help blend into the environment . This new ability to identify and study the colors of dinosaurs will continue to play an important role in paleontological research as scientists study the evolution of past life.

Redefining the Fundamental Unit of Mass

In November 2018, measurement scientists around the world voted to officially changed the definition of a kilogram , the fundamental unit of mass. Rather than basing the kilogram off of an object—a platinum-iridium alloy cylinder about the size of a golf ball—the new definition uses a constant of nature to set the unit of mass. The change replaced the last physical artifact used to define a unit of measure. (The meter bar was replaced in 1960 by a specific number of wavelengths of radiation from krypton, for example, and later updated to define a meter according to the distance light travels in a tiny fraction of a second .)

By using a sophisticated weighing machine known as a Kibble balance, scientists were able to precisely measure a kilogram according to the electromagnetic force required to hold it up. This electric measurement could then be expressed in terms of Planck’s constant, a number originally used by Max Planck to calculate bundles of energy coming from stars .

The kilogram was not the only unit of measure that was recently redefined. The changes to the International System of Units, which officially went into effect in May 2019 , also changed the definition for the ampere, the standard unit of electric current; the kelvin unit of temperature; and the mole, a unit of amount of substance used in chemistry. The changes to the kilogram and other units will allow more precise measurements for small amounts of material, such as pharmaceuticals, as well as give scientists around the world access to the fundamental units, rather than defining them according to objects that must be replicated and calibrated by a small number of labs.

First Ancient Human Genome Sequenced

In 2010, scientists gained a new tool to study the ancient past and the people who inhabited it. Researchers used a hair preserved in permafrost to sequence the genome of a man who lived some 4,000 years ago in what is now Greenland , revealing the physical traits and even the blood type of a member of one of the first cultures to settle in that part of the world. The first nearly complete reconstruction of a genome from ancient DNA opened the door for anthropologists and geneticists to learn more about the cultures of the distant past than ever before.

Extracting ancient DNA is a major challenge. Even if genetic material such as hair or skin is preserved, it is often contaminated with the DNA of microbes from the environment, so sophisticated sequencing techniques must be used to isolate the ancient human’s DNA. More recently, scientists have used the petrous bone of the skull , a highly dense bone near the ear, to extract ancient DNA.

Thousands of ancient human genomes have been sequenced since the first success in 2010, revealing new details about the rise and fall of lost civilizations and the migrations of people around the globe . Studying ancient genomes has identified multiple waves of migration back and forth across the frozen Bering land bridge between Siberia and Alaska between 5,000 and 15,000 years ago. Recently, the genome of a young girl in modern Denmark was sequenced from a 5,700-year-old piece of birch tar used as chewing gum, which also contained her mouth microbes and bits of food from one of her last meals.

A Vaccine and New Treatments to Fight Ebola

This decade included the worst outbreak of Ebola virus diseases in history. The epidemic is believed to have begun with a single case of an 18-month-old-boy in Guinea infected by bats in December 2013. The disease quickly spread to neighboring countries, reaching the capitals of Liberia and Sierra Leone by July 2014, providing an unprecedented opportunity for the transmission of the disease to a large number of people. Ebola virus compromises the immune system and can cause massive hemorrhaging and multiple organ failure. Two and a half years after the initial case, more than 28,600 people had been infected, resulting in at least 11,325 deaths, according to the CDC .

The epidemic prompted health officials to redouble their efforts to find an effective vaccine to fight Ebola. A vaccine known as Ervebo, made by the pharmaceutical company Merck, was tested in a clinical trial in Guinea performed toward the end of the outbreak in 2016 that proved the vaccine effective. Another Ebola outbreak was declared in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in August 2018, and the ongoing epidemic has spread to become the deadliest since the West Africa outbreak, with 3,366 reported cases and 2,227 deaths as of December 2019 . Ervebo has been used in the DRC to fight the outbreak on an expanded access or “compassionate use” basis . In November 2019, Ervebo was approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) , and a month later it was approved in the U.S. by the FDA .

In addition to a preventative vaccine, researchers have been seeking a cure for Ebola in patients who have already been infected by the disease. Two treatments, which involve a one-time delivery of antibodies to prevent Ebola from infecting a patient’s cells, have recently shown promise in a clinical trial in the DRC . With a combination of vaccines and therapeutic treatments, healthcare officials hope to one day eradicate the viral infection for good .

CERN Detects the Higgs Boson

Over the past several decades, physicists have worked tirelessly to model the workings of the universe, developing what is known as the Standard Model. This model describes four basic interactions of matter, known as the fundamental forces . Two are familiar in everyday life: the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force. The other two, however, only exert their influence inside the nuclei of atoms: the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force.

Part of the Standard Model says that there is a universal quantum field that interacts with particles, giving them their masses. In the 1960s, theoretical physicists including François Englert and Peter Higgs described this field and its role in the Standard Model. It became known as the Higgs field, and according to the laws of quantum mechanics, all such fundamental fields should have an associated particle, which came to be known as the Higgs boson.

Decades later, in 2012, two teams using the Large Hadron Collider at CERN to conduct particle collisions reported the detection of a particle with the predicted mass of the Higgs boson, providing substantial evidence for the existence of the Higgs field and Higgs boson. In 2013, the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to Englert and Higgs “for the theoretical discovery of a mechanism that contributes to our understanding of the origin of mass of subatomic particles, and which recently was confirmed through the discovery of the predicted fundamental particle.” As physicists continue to refine the Standard Model, the function and discovery of the Higgs boson will remain a fundamental part of how all matter gets its mass, and therefore, how any matter exists at all.

Get the latest Science stories in your inbox.

Jay Bennett | | READ MORE

Jay Bennett was the associate web editor, science, for Smithsonian .

These are the top 20 scientific discoveries of the decade

The 2010s yielded many incredible finds and important milestones. here are our favourites..

As the 2010s come to an end, we can look back on an era rife with discovery. In the past 10 years, scientists around the world made remarkable progress toward understanding the human body, our planet, and the cosmos that surrounds us. What’s more, science in the 2010s became more global and collaborative than ever before. These days, major breakthroughs are likelier to come from groups of 3,000 scientists than groups of three.

So much has happened, thanks to so many, that National Geographic’s writers and editors decided not to whittle down the last decade into just a handful of discoveries. Instead, we’ve put our heads together to identify 20 trends and milestones that we found especially noteworthy, and that we think will set the stage for more amazing finds in the decade to come.

Detecting the first gravitational waves

In 1916, Albert Einstein proposed that when objects with enough mass accelerate, they can sometimes create waves that move through the fabric of space and time like ripples on a pond’s surface. Though Einstein later doubted their existence, these spacetime wrinkles—called gravitational waves—are a key prediction of relativity, and the search for them captivated researchers for decades. Though compelling hints of the waves first emerged in the 1970s, nobody directly detected them until 2015, when the U.S.-based observatory LIGO felt the aftershock of a distant collision between two black holes. The discovery, announced in 2016 , opened up a new way to “hear” the cosmos.

In 2017, LIGO and the European observatory Virgo felt another set of tremors, this time made when two ultra-dense objects called neutron stars collided. Telescopes around the world saw the related explosion, making the event the first ever observed in both light and gravitational waves . The landmark data have given scientists an unprecedented look at how gravity works and how elements such as gold and silver form.

Shaking up the human family tree

The decade has seen numerous advances in understanding our complex origin story, including new dates on known fossils , spectacularly complete fossil skulls , and the addition of multiple new branches. In 2010, National Geographic explorer-at-large Lee Berger unveiled a distant ancestor named Australopithecus sediba . Five years later, he announced that South Africa’s Cradle of Humankind cave system contained fossils of a new species: Homo naledi , a hominin whose “mosaic” anatomy resembles that of both modern humans and far more ancient cousins. A follow-up study also showed that H. naledi is surprisingly young, living at least between 236,000 and 335,000 years ago .

Other remarkable discoveries piled up in Asia. In 2010, a team announced that DNA pulled from an ancient Siberian pinky bone was unlike any modern human’s , the first evidence of a shadowy lineage now called the Denisovans. In 2018, a site in China yielded 2.1-million-year-old stone tools , confirming that toolmakers spread into Asia hundreds of thousands of years earlier than once thought. In 2019, researchers in the Philippines announced fossils of Homo luzonensis , a new type of hominin similar to Homo floresiensis , the “hobbit” of Flores. And newfound stone tools on Sulawesi predate modern humans’ arrival , which suggests the presence of a third, unidentified island hominin in Southeast Asia.

Revolutionising the study of ancient DNA

As DNA sequencing technologies have improved exponentially, the past decade has seen huge leaps in understanding how our genetic past shapes modern humans. In 2010, researchers published the first near-complete genome from an ancient Homo sapiens , kicking off a revolutionary decade in the study of our ancestors’ DNA. Since then, more than 3,000 ancient genomes have been sequenced, including the DNA of Naia , a girl who died in what is now Mexico 13,000 years ago. Her remains are among the oldest intact human skeletons ever found in the Americas. Also in 2010, researchers announced the first draft of a Neanderthal genome , providing the first solid genetic evidence that one to four percent of all modern non-Africans’ DNA comes from these close relatives.

In another striking discovery, scientists studying ancient DNA revealed in 2018 that a 90,000-year-old bone belonged to a teenage girl whose mother was Neanderthal and whose father was Denisovan, making her the first hybrid ancient human ever found . In another find, scientists compared Denisovan DNA to fossil proteins to confirm that Denisovans once lived in Tibet , expanding the mysterious group’s known range. As the field of ancient DNA has matured, so too has its handling of ethical concerns, such as the need for community engagement and the repatriation of indigenous human remains .

Revealing thousands of new exoplanets

Human knowledge of planets orbiting distant stars took a giant leap forward in the 2010s, in no small part thanks to NASA’s Kepler Space Telescope. From 2009 to 2018, Kepler alone found more than 2,700 confirmed exoplanets, more than half the current total. Among Kepler’s greatest hits: the first confirmed rocky exoplanet . Its successor TESS, launched in 2018 , is starting its survey of the night sky and has already bagged 34 confirmed exoplanets.

Ground-based surveys were also in on the action. In 2017, researchers announced the discovery of TRAPPIST-1 , a star system just 39 light-years away that hosts a whopping seven Earth-size planets, the most found around any star other than the sun. The year before, the Pale Red Dot project announced the discovery of Proxima b , an Earth-size planet that’s orbiting Proxima Centauri, the star closest to the sun at a mere 4.25 light-years away.

Entering the Crispr era

The 2010s marked huge advances in our ability to precisely edit DNA, in large part thanks to the identification of the Crispr-Cas9 system . Some bacteria naturally use Crispr-Cas9 as an immune system , since it lets them store snippets of viral DNA, recognise any future matching virus, and then cut the virus’s DNA to ribbons. In 2012, researchers proposed that Crispr-Cas9 could be used as a powerful genetic editing tool , since it precisely cuts DNA in ways that scientists can easily customise. Within months, other teams confirmed that the technique worked on human DNA . Ever since, labs all over the world have raced to identify similar systems, to modify Crispr-Cas9 to make it even more precise , and to experiment with its applications in agriculture and medicine.

While Crispr-Cas9’s possible benefits are huge, the ethical quandaries it poses are also staggering. To the horror of the global medical community, Chinese researcher He Jiankui announced in 2018 the birth of two girls whose genomes he had edited with Crispr , the first humans born with heritable edits to their DNA. The announcement sparked calls for a global moratorium on heritable “germline” edits in humans.

Seeing the cosmos as never before

The 2010s brought with them several major observations that are revolutionising our study of the universe. In 2013, the European Space Agency launched Gaia, a spacecraft that is collecting distance measurements for more than a billion stars in the Milky Way, as well as velocity data for more than 150 million stars. The dataset helped scientists make a 3D movie of our home galaxy , yielding an unprecedented look at how galaxies form and change over time.

In 2018, scientists released the final version of the Planck satellite’s measurements of the early universe’s faint afterglow, which contains vital clues to cosmic ingredients, structure, and rate of expansion. Puzzlingly, the expansion rate Planck saw differs from today’s, a potential "crisis in cosmology" that may require new physics to explain . Also in 2018, the massive Dark Energy Survey released its first batch of data , which will help with searches for hidden patterns in our universe’s structure. And in April 2019, scientists with the Event Horizon Telescope revealed the first-ever image of a black hole’s silhouette , thanks to a massive global effort to peer into the heart of the galaxy M87.

Unveiling ancient art

Discoveries from around the world have reinforced that art—or at least doodling—was an older and more global phenomenon that once thought. In 2014, researchers showed that hand stencils and a “pig-deer” painting in Sulawesi’s Maros cave sites were at least 39,000 years old , making them as old as Europe’s most ancient cave paintings. Then, in 2018, researchers announced the discovery of cave art in Borneo that’s between 40,000 and 52,000 years old, further pushing back the origins of figurative painting . And another 2018 find in South Africa, a stone flake that was cross-hatched some 73,000 years ago, may well be the world’s oldest doodle .

Other controversial finds stoked debate over Neanderthals’ artistic skills. In 2018, researchers unveiled pigments and perforated marine shells found in Spain that were 115,000 years old , when only Neanderthals lived in Europe. That same year, another study claimed that some of Spain’s cave paintings are 65,000 years old . Many cave-art specialists have disputed the find , but if it holds, it could be the first evidence of Neanderthal cave paintings. And in 2016, researchers announced that a French cave contained bizarre circles of stalagmites set up about 176,000 years ago. If cave bears didn’t somehow make them, the circles’ age suggests yet more Neanderthal handiwork.

Making interstellar firsts

Future historians might look back on the 2010s as the interstellar decade: For the first time, our spacecraft punctured the veil between the sun and interstellar space, and we got our first visits from objects that formed around distant stars.

In August 2012, NASA’s Voyager 1 probe crossed the outer boundary of the heliosphere , the bubble of charged particles our sun gives off. Voyager 2 joined its twin in the interstellar medium in November 2018 and captured groundbreaking data along the way . But the interstellar road is a two-way street. In October 2017, astronomers found ‘Oumuamua, the first object ever detected that formed in another star system and passed through ours. In August 2019, amateur astronomer Gennady Borisov found the second such interstellar interloper, a highly active comet that now bears his name .

Opening doors to ancient civilisations

Archaeologists made many extraordinary discoveries in the 2010s. In 2013, British researchers finally found the body of King Richard III —beneath what’s now a car park. In 2014, researchers announced that Peru’s Castillo de Huarmey temple complex still had an untouched royal tomb . In 2016, archaeologists revealed the first Philistine cemetery, offering an unprecedented window into the lives of the Hebrew Bible’s most notorious, enigmatic people. The following year, researchers announced that Jerusalem's Church of the Holy Sepulchre dates back more than 1,700 years to Rome's first Christian emperor, appearing to confirm that it's built on the site identified by Rome as the burial place of Christ . And in 2018, teams working in Peru announced the largest mass child sacrifice site ever uncovered , while other scientists scouring Guatemala detected more than 60,000 newly identified ancient Maya buildings with airborne lasers.

Big archaeological discoveries also surfaced from deep underwater. In 2014, a Canadian team finally found the H.M.S. Erebus , an ill-fated Arctic research vessel that sank in 1846. Two years later, another expedition located its sister ship, the H.M.S. Terror . In 2017, an effort led by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen found the long-lost U.S.S. Indianapolis , which sank in 1945 and became one of the deadliest disasters in U.S. naval history. The Black Sea Maritime Archaeology Project has found more than 60 historic shipwrecks at the bottom of the Black Sea—including a pristine 2,400-year-old vessel discovered in 2018 . And in 2019, Alabama officials announced the discovery of the long-lost Clotilda , the last ship that ferried enslaved Africans to the United States .

Breaking new ground in the solar system

In July 2015, NASA’s New Horizons probe made good on a decades-long quest to visit the icy world Pluto, sending back the first-ever images of the dwarf planet’s shockingly varied surface . And on New Year’s Day 2019, New Horizons pulled off the most distant flyby ever attempted when it snapped the first pictures of the icy body Arrokoth , a primordial leftover from the solar system’s infancy.

A little closer to home, NASA’s Dawn spacecraft arrived at Vesta , the second-biggest body in the asteroid belt, in 2011. After mapping that world, Dawn darted off to orbit the dwarf planet Ceres , the asteroid belt’s largest object—becoming the first mission ever to orbit a dwarf planet, and the first to orbit two different extraterrestrial bodies. Near the decade’s end, NASA’s OSIRIS-REx and JAXA’s Hayabusa2 visited the asteroids Bennu and Ryugu, respectively, with the goal of returning samples back to Earth.

Changing the course of disease

In response to the 2014-2016 Ebola outbreak in West Africa , public health officials and the pharmaceutical company Merck fast-tracked rVSV-ZEBOV, an experimental Ebola vaccine. After a highly successful field trial in 2015 , European officials approved the vaccine in 2019—a milestone in the fight against the deadly disease . Several landmark studies also opened new avenues to preventing the spread of HIV. A 2011 trial showed that preventatively taking antiretroviral drugs greatly reduced the spread of HIV among heterosexual couples , a finding confirmed in follow-up studies that included same-sex couples .

Pushing reproductive limits

In 2016, clinicians announced the birth of a “three-parent baby” grown from the father’s sperm, the mother’s cell nucleus, and a third donor’s egg that had its nucleus removed. The therapy— which remains ethically controversial —aims to correct for disorders in the mother’s mitochondria. One 2018 study made precursors of human sperm or eggs out of reprogrammed skin and blood cells , while another showed that gene editing could let two same-sex mice conceive pups . And in 2018, Chinese scientists announced the birth of two cloned macaques , the first time that a primate had ever been cloned like Dolly the sheep. Though researchers avow that the technique won’t be used on humans, it’s possible that it could work with other primates, including us.

Tracking down the Higgs boson

How does matter get mass? In the 1960s and 1970s, physicists including Peter Higgs and François Englert proposed a solution in the form of a novel energy field that permeates the universe, now called the Higgs field. This theorised field also came with its associated fundamental particle, what’s now called the Higgs boson. In July 2012, a decades-long search ended when two teams at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider announced the detection of the Higgs boson . The discovery filled in the last missing piece of the Standard Model, the spectacularly successful—albeit incomplete—theory that describes three of the four fundamental forces in physics and all known elementary particles.

Rewriting paleontology textbooks

This decade has seen an explosion in our understanding of prehistoric life, as scientists have found stunning new fossils while expanding their analytical toolkits. In 2010, researchers supported by the National Geographic Society published the first full-body colour reconstruction for a dinosaur , based on the discovery of fossilised pigments. In the years since, the palette has widened, as paleontologists have found dino-camouflage , feathers that ranged from black to blue to iridescent rainbow , and reddish skin on one of the best-ever fossils of an armoured dinosaur . And in a remarkable feat of chemical sleuthing, researchers analyzed preserved fatty molecules and proved in 2018 that Dickinsonia , a primitive creature that lived more than 540 million years ago, was an animal.

In 2014, palaeontologists also revealed new fossils of the predatory dinosaur Spinosaurus that suggested it was a semiaquatic predator —the first known among dino-kind. A year later, a team in China unveiled the stunning fossil of Yi qi , a truly weird feathered dinosaur with membraned wings like a bat’s . Also in the last decade, scientists’ interest in Myanmar’s 99-million-year-old amber has surged, revealing a feathered dinosaur tail , a primitive baby bird , and all sorts of invertebrates trapped in the fossilised tree resin.

Finding life’s building blocks on other worlds

In the last 10 years, space missions have given us a more sophisticated look at other worlds’ carbon-based organic molecules, which are necessary ingredients for life as we know it. The European Space Agency’s Rosetta mission orbited and landed on Comet 67P Churyumov–Gerasimenko . The data it collected between 2014 and 2016 gave us an astonishingly close look at the raw materials that ancient impacts might have brought to Earth. Before NASA’s Cassini probe died in 2017, it confirmed that the watery plumes of Saturn’s moon Enceladus contain large organic molecules , a clue that it has the right stuff for life. And in 2018, NASA announced that its Curiosity rover had found organic compounds on Mars , as well as a bizarre seasonal cycle in the red planet’s atmospheric methane levels.

Ringing climate alarms louder than ever

Throughout this decade, atmospheric carbon dioxide were reaching levels that are unprecedented in modern times, with record temperatures to match. On May 9, 2013, global CO2 levels reached 400 parts per million for the first time in human history, and by 2016, CO2 levels were staying firmly above this threshold. As a result, the whole world felt an uptick in warming; 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 were the five hottest years on record since 1880. Starting in 2014, warming oceans kicked off a global coral bleaching event . Corals around the world suffered die-offs, including parts of the Great Barrier Reef . In 2019, Australia declared the island-dwelling Bramble Cay melomys extinct from sea level rise, the first known mammal lost to modern climate change .

In a series of major reports, the world’s scientists forcefully called attention to Earth’s altered climate, the risks it poses, and the need to respond. In 2014, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its fifth assessment of climate change’s reality and consequences , and a year later, the world’s nations negotiated the Paris Agreement , the global climate accord that aims to keep warming below 2 degrees Celsius—which world leaders and scientists consider a dangerous threshold. In October 2018, the IPCC published another grim report that outlined the huge costs of warming even 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2100 —which is likely the minimum the planet will face. In the face of such huge challenges, record-breaking climate protests have swept the world, many led by youth activists .

Discovering—and rediscovering—species

Modern biologists are identifying new species at a blistering pace, naming 18,000 new species a year on average. In the past decade, scientists described several charismatic mammal species for the first time, such as the Myanmar snub-nosed monkey , the Vangunu giant rat , and the olinguito , the first newfound carnivore in the Western Hemisphere since the late 1970s. The ranks of other animals groups also swelled, as scientists described newfound fish with “hands,” tiny frogs smaller than a dime , a giant Florida salamander, and many others. In addition, some animals, such as Vietnam’s saola and China’s Ili pika , were spotted once again after having gone missing for years.

But along with these many finds, scientists have tallied the exponential rate of modern extinctions. In 2019, scientists warned that a quarter of plant and animal groups are threatened with extinction, suggesting that as many as a million species—both known and unknown to science—are now at risk of dying out, some within decades.

Kicking off a new spaceflight era

The 2010s were a pivotal transition period for spaceflight, as access to low-Earth orbit and beyond became a more global—and commercial—enterprise. In 2011, China launched its first space laboratory, Tiangong-1 , into orbit. In 2014, India’s Mars Orbiter Mission arrived at the red planet , making India the first country ever to successfully arrive at Mars on its first try. In 2019, Israeli nonprofit SpaceIL attempted the first privately funded lunar landing , and China’s Chang’e-4 mission performed the first soft landing on the lunar farside . The global astronaut corps also grew more diverse: Tim Peake became the first professional British astronaut, Aidyn Aimbetov became the first post-Soviet Kazakh cosmonaut, and the United Arab Emirates and Denmark sent their first astronauts to space. What’s more, NASA astronauts Jessica Meir and Christina Koch performed the first all-female spacewalk .

In the U.S., after the last space shuttle mission launched in 2011, private companies angled to fill the void. In 2012, SpaceX launched the first commercial resupply mission to the ISS, and in 2015, Blue Origin and SpaceX became the first companies to successfully launch reusable rockets to space and then vertically land them back on Earth , a milestone for cheaper launches to low-Earth orbit.

Seeing animals’ unexpected sides

The past decade has revealed unusual traits and behaviours across the animal kingdom. In 2015, National Geographic explorer David Gruber found that hawksbill sea turtles fluoresce green and red— the first biofluorescence ever recorded in a reptile . In 2016, researchers showed that the Greenland shark can live at least 272 years , making it the longest-lived vertebrate yet known. Our understanding of animal tool use also improved: One 2019 study showed for the first time that Visayan warty pigs use tools , and several studies showed that Brazil’s capuchins have been using tools for at least 3,000 years , the oldest such non-human record found outside Africa. In an extremely rare 2018 sighting, biologists in Kenya scientifically documented a black leopard in Africa for the first time since 1909 .

Redefining the units of science

To understand the natural world, scientists must measure it—but how do we define our units? Over the decades, scientists have gradually redefined classic units in terms of universal constants, such as using the speed of light to help define the length of a meter. But the scientific unit of mass, the kilogram, remained pegged to “Le Grand K,” a metallic cylinder stored at a facility in France. If that ingot’s mass varied for whatever reason, scientists would have to recalibrate their instruments. No more: In 2019, scientists agreed to adopt a new kilogram definition based on a fundamental factor in physics called Planck’s constant and the improved definitions for the units of electrical current, temperature, and the number of particles in a given substance. For the first time ever, all our scientific units now stem from universal constants—ensuring a more accurate era of measurement.

• Archaeology
• Best of the year 2020
• Climate Change
• Palaeontology
• Environment and Conservation
• Environmental Concerns
• Physical Sciences

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Scientific Discovery

Scientific discovery is the process or product of successful scientific inquiry. Objects of discovery can be things, events, processes, causes, and properties as well as theories and hypotheses and their features (their explanatory power, for example). Most philosophical discussions of scientific discoveries focus on the generation of new hypotheses that fit or explain given data sets or allow for the derivation of testable consequences. Philosophical discussions of scientific discovery have been intricate and complex because the term “discovery” has been used in many different ways, both to refer to the outcome and to the procedure of inquiry. In the narrowest sense, the term “discovery” refers to the purported “eureka moment” of having a new insight. In the broadest sense, “discovery” is a synonym for “successful scientific endeavor” tout court. Some philosophical disputes about the nature of scientific discovery reflect these terminological variations.

Philosophical issues related to scientific discovery arise about the nature of human creativity, specifically about whether the “eureka moment” can be analyzed and about whether there are rules (algorithms, guidelines, or heuristics) according to which such a novel insight can be brought about. Philosophical issues also arise about the analysis and evaluation of heuristics, about the characteristics of hypotheses worthy of articulation and testing, and, on the meta-level, about the nature and scope of philosophical analysis itself. This essay describes the emergence and development of the philosophical problem of scientific discovery and surveys different philosophical approaches to understanding scientific discovery. In doing so, it also illuminates the meta-philosophical problems surrounding the debates, and, incidentally, the changing nature of philosophy of science.

1. Introduction

2. scientific inquiry as discovery, 3. elements of discovery, 4. pragmatic logics of discovery, 5. the distinction between the context of discovery and the context of justification, 6.1 discovery as abduction, 6.2 heuristic programming, 7. anomalies and the structure of discovery, 8.1 discoverability, 8.2 preliminary appraisal, 8.3 heuristic strategies, 9.1 kinds and features of creativity, 9.2 analogy, 9.3 mental models, 10. machine discovery, 11. social epistemology and discovery, 12. integrated approaches to knowledge generation, other internet resources, related entries.

Philosophical reflection on scientific discovery occurred in different phases. Prior to the 1930s, philosophers were mostly concerned with discoveries in the broad sense of the term, that is, with the analysis of successful scientific inquiry as a whole. Philosophical discussions focused on the question of whether there were any discernible patterns in the production of new knowledge. Because the concept of discovery did not have a specified meaning and was used in a very wide sense, almost all discussions of scientific method and practice could potentially be considered as early contributions to reflections on scientific discovery. In the course of the 18 th century, as philosophy of science and science gradually became two distinct endeavors with different audiences, the term “discovery” became a technical term in philosophical discussions. Different elements of scientific inquiry were specified. Most importantly, during the 19 th century, the generation of new knowledge came to be clearly and explicitly distinguished from its assessment, and thus the conditions for the narrower notion of discovery as the act or process of conceiving new ideas emerged. This distinction was encapsulated in the so-called “context distinction,” between the “context of discovery” and the “context of justification”.

Much of the discussion about scientific discovery in the 20 th century revolved around this distinction It was argued that conceiving a new idea is a non-rational process, a leap of insight that cannot be captured in specific instructions. Justification, by contrast, is a systematic process of applying evaluative criteria to knowledge claims. Advocates of the context distinction argued that philosophy of science is exclusively concerned with the context of justification. The assumption underlying this argument is that philosophy is a normative project; it determines norms for scientific practice. Given this assumption, only the justification of ideas, not their generation, can be the subject of philosophical (normative) analysis. Discovery, by contrast, can only be a topic for empirical study. By definition, the study of discovery is outside the scope of philosophy of science proper.

The introduction of the context distinction and the disciplinary distinction between empirical science studies and normative philosophy of science that was tied to it spawned meta-philosophical disputes. For a long time, philosophical debates about discovery were shaped by the notion that philosophical and empirical analyses are mutually exclusive. Some philosophers insisted, like their predecessors prior to the 1930s, that the philosopher’s tasks include the analysis of actual scientific practices and that scientific resources be used to address philosophical problems. They maintained that it is a legitimate task for philosophy of science to develop a theory of heuristics or problem solving. But this position was the minority view in philosophy of science until the last decades of the 20 th century. Philosophers of discovery were thus compelled to demonstrate that scientific discovery was in fact a legitimate part of philosophy of science. Philosophical reflections about the nature of scientific discovery had to be bolstered by meta-philosophical arguments about the nature and scope of philosophy of science.

Today, however, there is wide agreement that philosophy and empirical research are not mutually exclusive. Not only do empirical studies of actual scientific discoveries in past and present inform philosophical thought about the structure and cognitive mechanisms of discovery, but works in psychology, cognitive science, artificial intelligence and related fields have become integral parts of philosophical analyses of the processes and conditions of the generation of new knowledge. Social epistemology has opened up another perspective on scientific discovery, reconceptualizing knowledge generation as group process.

Prior to the 19 th century, the term “discovery” was used broadly to refer to a new finding, such as a new cure, an unknown territory, an improvement of an instrument, or a new method of measuring longitude. One strand of the discussion about discovery dating back to ancient times concerns the method of analysis as the method of discovery in mathematics and geometry, and, by extension, in philosophy and scientific inquiry. Following the analytic method, we seek to find or discover something – the “thing sought,” which could be a theorem, a solution to a geometrical problem, or a cause – by analyzing it. In the ancient Greek context, analytic methods in mathematics, geometry, and philosophy were not clearly separated; the notion of finding or discovering things by analysis was relevant in all these fields.

In the ensuing centuries, several natural and experimental philosophers, including Avicenna and Zabarella, Bacon and Boyle, the authors of the Port-Royal Logic and Newton, and many others, expounded rules of reasoning and methods for arriving at new knowledge. The ancient notion of analysis still informed these rules and methods. Newton’s famous thirty-first query in the second edition of the Opticks outlines the role of analysis in discovery as follows: “As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths … By this way of Analysis we may proceed from Compounds to Ingredients, and from Motions to the Forces producing them; and in general, from Effects to their Causes, and from particular Causes to more general ones, till the Argument end in the most general. This is the Method of Analysis” (Newton 1718, 380, see Koertge 1980, section VI). Early modern accounts of discovery captured knowledge-seeking practices in the study of living and non-living nature, ranging from astronomy and physics to medicine, chemistry, and agriculture. These rich accounts of scientific inquiry were often expounded to bolster particular theories about the nature of matter and natural forces and were not explicitly labeled “methods of discovery ”, yet they are, in fact, accounts of knowledge generation and proper scientific reasoning, covering topics such as the role of the senses in knowledge generation, observation and experimentation, analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, hypotheses, probability, and certainty.

Bacon’s work is a prominent example. His view of the method of science as it is presented in the Novum Organum showed how best to arrive at knowledge about “form natures” (the most general properties of matter) via a systematic investigation of phenomenal natures. Bacon described how first to collect and organize natural phenomena and experimentally produced facts in tables, how to evaluate these lists, and how to refine the initial results with the help of further trials. Through these steps, the investigator would arrive at conclusions about the “form nature” that produces particular phenomenal natures. Bacon expounded the procedures of constructing and evaluating tables of presences and absences to underpin his matter theory. In addition, in his other writings, such as his natural history Sylva Sylvarum or his comprehensive work on human learning De Augmentis Scientiarium , Bacon exemplified the “art of discovery” with practical examples and discussions of strategies of inquiry.

Like Bacon and Newton, several other early modern authors advanced ideas about how to generate and secure empirical knowledge, what difficulties may arise in scientific inquiry, and how they could be overcome. The close connection between theories about matter and force and scientific methodologies that we find in early modern works was gradually severed. 18 th - and early 19 th -century authors on scientific method and logic cited early modern approaches mostly to model proper scientific practice and reasoning, often creatively modifying them ( section 3 ). Moreover, they developed the earlier methodologies of experimentation, observation, and reasoning into practical guidelines for discovering new phenomena and devising probable hypotheses about cause-effect relations.

It was common in 20 th -century philosophy of science to draw a sharp contrast between those early theories of scientific method and modern approaches. 20 th -century philosophers of science interpreted 17 th - and 18 th -century approaches as generative theories of scientific method. They function simultaneously as guides for acquiring new knowledge and as assessments of the knowledge thus obtained, whereby knowledge that is obtained “in the right way” is considered secure (Laudan 1980; Schaffner 1993: chapter 2). On this view, scientific methods are taken to have probative force (Nickles 1985). According to modern, “consequentialist” theories, propositions must be established by comparing their consequences with observed and experimentally produced phenomena (Laudan 1980; Nickles 1985). It was further argued that, when consequentialist theories were on the rise, the two processes of generation and assessment of an idea or hypothesis became distinct, and the view that the merit of a new idea does not depend on the way in which it was arrived at became widely accepted.

More recent research in history of philosophy of science has shown, however, that there was no such sharp contrast. Consequentialist ideas were advanced throughout the 18 th century, and the early modern generative theories of scientific method and knowledge were more pragmatic than previously assumed. Early modern scholars did not assume that this procedure would lead to absolute certainty. One could only obtain moral certainty for the propositions thus secured.

During the 18 th and 19 th centuries, the different elements of discovery gradually became separated and discussed in more detail. Discussions concerned the nature of observations and experiments, the act of having an insight and the processes of articulating, developing, and testing the novel insight. Philosophical discussion focused on the question of whether and to what extent rules could be devised to guide each of these processes.

Numerous 19 th -century scholars contributed to these discussions, including Claude Bernard, Auguste Comte, George Gore, John Herschel, W. Stanley Jevons, Justus von Liebig, John Stuart Mill, and Charles Sanders Peirce, to name only a few. William Whewell’s work, especially the two volumes of Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences of 1840, is a noteworthy and, later, much discussed contribution to the philosophical debates about scientific discovery because he explicitly distinguished the creative moment or “happy thought” as he called it from other elements of scientific inquiry and because he offered a detailed analysis of the “discoverer’s induction”, i.e., the pursuit and evaluation of the new insight. Whewell’s approach is not unique, but for late 20 th -century philosophers of science, his comprehensive, historically informed philosophy of discovery became a point of orientation in the revival of interest in scientific discovery processes.

For Whewell, discovery comprised three elements: the happy thought, the articulation and development of that thought, and the testing or verification of it. His account was in part a description of the psychological makeup of the discoverer. For instance, he held that only geniuses could have those happy thoughts that are essential to discovery. In part, his account was an account of the methods by which happy thoughts are integrated into the system of knowledge. According to Whewell, the initial step in every discovery is what he called “some happy thought, of which we cannot trace the origin; some fortunate cast of intellect, rising above all rules. No maxims can be given which inevitably lead to discovery” (Whewell 1996 [1840]: 186). An “art of discovery” in the sense of a teachable and learnable skill does not exist according to Whewell. The happy thought builds on the known facts, but according to Whewell it is impossible to prescribe a method for having happy thoughts.

In this sense, happy thoughts are accidental. But in an important sense, scientific discoveries are not accidental. The happy thought is not a wild guess. Only the person whose mind is prepared to see things will actually notice them. The “previous condition of the intellect, and not the single fact, is really the main and peculiar cause of the success. The fact is merely the occasion by which the engine of discovery is brought into play sooner or later. It is, as I have elsewhere said, only the spark which discharges a gun already loaded and pointed; and there is little propriety in speaking of such an accident as the cause why the bullet hits its mark.” (Whewell 1996 [1840]: 189).

Having a happy thought is not yet a discovery, however. The second element of a scientific discovery consists in binding together—“colligating”, as Whewell called it—a set of facts by bringing them under a general conception. Not only does the colligation produce something new, but it also shows the previously known facts in a new light. Colligation involves, on the one hand, the specification of facts through systematic observation, measurements and experiment, and on the other hand, the clarification of ideas through the exposition of the definitions and axioms that are tacitly implied in those ideas. This process is extended and iterative. The scientists go back and forth between binding together the facts, clarifying the idea, rendering the facts more exact, and so forth.

The final part of the discovery is the verification of the colligation involving the happy thought. This means, first and foremost, that the outcome of the colligation must be sufficient to explain the data at hand. Verification also involves judging the predictive power, simplicity, and “consilience” of the outcome of the colligation. “Consilience” refers to a higher range of generality (broader applicability) of the theory (the articulated and clarified happy thought) that the actual colligation produced. Whewell’s account of discovery is not a deductivist system. It is essential that the outcome of the colligation be inferable from the data prior to any testing (Snyder 1997).

Whewell’s theory of discovery clearly separates three elements: the non-analyzable happy thought or eureka moment; the process of colligation which includes the clarification and explication of facts and ideas; and the verification of the outcome of the colligation. His position that the philosophy of discovery cannot prescribe how to think happy thoughts has been a key element of 20 th -century philosophical reflection on discovery. In contrast to many 20 th -century approaches, Whewell’s philosophical conception of discovery also comprises the processes by which the happy thoughts are articulated. Similarly, the process of verification is an integral part of discovery. The procedures of articulation and test are both analyzable according to Whewell, and his conception of colligation and verification serve as guidelines for how the discoverer should proceed. To verify a hypothesis, the investigator needs to show that it accounts for the known facts, that it foretells new, previously unobserved phenomena, and that it can explain and predict phenomena which are explained and predicted by a hypothesis that was obtained through an independent happy thought-cum-colligation (Ducasse 1951).

Whewell’s conceptualization of scientific discovery offers a useful framework for mapping the philosophical debates about discovery and for identifying major issues of concern in 20 th -century philosophical debates. Until the late 20 th century, most philosophers operated with a notion of discovery that is narrower than Whewell’s. In more recent treatments of discovery, however, the scope of the term “discovery” is limited to either the first of these elements, the “happy thought”, or to the happy thought and its initial articulation. In the narrower conception, what Whewell called “verification” is not part of discovery proper. Secondly, until the late 20 th century, there was wide agreement that the eureka moment, narrowly construed, is an unanalyzable, even mysterious leap of insight. The main disagreements concerned the question of whether the process of developing a hypothesis (the “colligation” in Whewell’s terms) is, or is not, a part of discovery proper – and if it is, whether and how this process is guided by rules. Much of the controversies in the 20 th century about the possibility of a philosophy of discovery can be understood against the background of the disagreement about whether the process of discovery does or does not include the articulation and development of a novel thought. Philosophers also disagreed on the issue of whether it is a philosophical task to explicate these rules.

In early 20 th -century logical empiricism, the view that discovery is or at least crucially involves a non-analyzable creative act of a gifted genius was widespread. Alternative conceptions of discovery especially in the pragmatist tradition emphasize that discovery is an extended process, i.e., that the discovery process includes the reasoning processes through which a new insight is articulated and further developed.

In the pragmatist tradition, the term “logic” is used in the broad sense to refer to strategies of human reasoning and inquiry. While the reasoning involved does not proceed according to the principles of demonstrative logic, it is systematic enough to deserve the label “logical”. Proponents of this view argued that traditional (here: syllogistic) logic is an inadequate model of scientific discovery because it misrepresents the process of knowledge generation as grossly as the notion of an “aha moment”.

Early 20 th -century pragmatic logics of discovery can best be described as comprehensive theories of the mental and physical-practical operations involved in knowledge generation, as theories of “how we think” (Dewey 1910). Among the mental operations are classification, determination of what is relevant to an inquiry, and the conditions of communication of meaning; among the physical operations are observation and (laboratory) experiments. These features of scientific discovery are either not or only insufficiently represented by traditional syllogistic logic (Schiller 1917: 236–7).

Philosophers advocating this approach agree that the logic of discovery should be characterized as a set of heuristic principles rather than as a process of applying inductive or deductive logic to a set of propositions. These heuristic principles are not understood to show the path to secure knowledge. Heuristic principles are suggestive rather than demonstrative (Carmichael 1922, 1930). One recurrent feature in these accounts of the reasoning strategies leading to new ideas is analogical reasoning (Schiller 1917; Benjamin 1934, see also section 9.2 .). However, in academic philosophy of science, endeavors to develop more systematically the heuristics guiding discovery processes were soon eclipsed by the advance of the distinction between contexts of discovery and justification.

The distinction between “context of discovery” and “context of justification” dominated and shaped the discussions about discovery in 20 th -century philosophy of science. The context distinction marks the distinction between the generation of a new idea or hypothesis and the defense (test, verification) of it. As the previous sections have shown, the distinction among different elements of scientific inquiry has a long history but in the first half of the 20 th century, the distinction between the different features of scientific inquiry turned into a powerful demarcation criterion between “genuine” philosophy and other fields of science studies, which became potent in philosophy of science. The boundary between context of discovery (the de facto thinking processes) and context of justification (the de jure defense of the correctness of these thoughts) was now understood to determine the scope of philosophy of science, whereby philosophy of science is conceived as a normative endeavor. Advocates of the context distinction argue that the generation of a new idea is an intuitive, nonrational process; it cannot be subject to normative analysis. Therefore, the study of scientists’ actual thinking can only be the subject of psychology, sociology, and other empirical sciences. Philosophy of science, by contrast, is exclusively concerned with the context of justification.

The terms “context of discovery” and “context of justification” are often associated with Hans Reichenbach’s work. Reichenbach’s original conception of the context distinction is quite complex, however (Howard 2006; Richardson 2006). It does not map easily on to the disciplinary distinction mentioned above, because for Reichenbach, philosophy of science proper is partly descriptive. Reichenbach maintains that philosophy of science includes a description of knowledge as it really is. Descriptive philosophy of science reconstructs scientists’ thinking processes in such a way that logical analysis can be performed on them, and it thus prepares the ground for the evaluation of these thoughts (Reichenbach 1938: § 1). Discovery, by contrast, is the object of empirical—psychological, sociological—study. According to Reichenbach, the empirical study of discoveries shows that processes of discovery often correspond to the principle of induction, but this is simply a psychological fact (Reichenbach 1938: 403).

While the terms “context of discovery” and “context of justification” are widely used, there has been ample discussion about how the distinction should be drawn and what their philosophical significance is (c.f. Kordig 1978; Gutting 1980; Zahar 1983; Leplin 1987; Hoyningen-Huene 1987; Weber 2005: chapter 3; Schickore and Steinle 2006). Most commonly, the distinction is interpreted as a distinction between the process of conceiving a theory and the assessment of that theory, specifically the assessment of the theory’s epistemic support. This version of the distinction is not necessarily interpreted as a temporal distinction. In other words, it is not usually assumed that a theory is first fully developed and then assessed. Rather, generation and assessment are two different epistemic approaches to theory: the endeavor to articulate, flesh out, and develop its potential and the endeavor to assess its epistemic worth. Within the framework of the context distinction, there are two main ways of conceptualizing the process of conceiving a theory. The first option is to characterize the generation of new knowledge as an irrational act, a mysterious creative intuition, a “eureka moment”. The second option is to conceptualize the generation of new knowledge as an extended process that includes a creative act as well as some process of articulating and developing the creative idea.

Both of these accounts of knowledge generation served as starting points for arguments against the possibility of a philosophy of discovery. In line with the first option, philosophers have argued that neither is it possible to prescribe a logical method that produces new ideas nor is it possible to reconstruct logically the process of discovery. Only the process of testing is amenable to logical investigation. This objection to philosophies of discovery has been called the “discovery machine objection” (Curd 1980: 207). It is usually associated with Karl Popper’s Logic of Scientific Discovery .

The initial state, the act of conceiving or inventing a theory, seems to me neither to call for logical analysis not to be susceptible of it. The question how it happens that a new idea occurs to a man—whether it is a musical theme, a dramatic conflict, or a scientific theory—may be of great interest to empirical psychology; but it is irrelevant to the logical analysis of scientific knowledge. This latter is concerned not with questions of fact (Kant’s quid facti ?) , but only with questions of justification or validity (Kant’s quid juris ?) . Its questions are of the following kind. Can a statement be justified? And if so, how? Is it testable? Is it logically dependent on certain other statements? Or does it perhaps contradict them? […]Accordingly I shall distinguish sharply between the process of conceiving a new idea, and the methods and results of examining it logically. As to the task of the logic of knowledge—in contradistinction to the psychology of knowledge—I shall proceed on the assumption that it consists solely in investigating the methods employed in those systematic tests to which every new idea must be subjected if it is to be seriously entertained. (Popper 2002 [1934/1959]: 7–8)

With respect to the second way of conceptualizing knowledge generation, many philosophers argue in a similar fashion that because the process of discovery involves an irrational, intuitive process, which cannot be examined logically, a logic of discovery cannot be construed. Other philosophers turn against the philosophy of discovery even though they explicitly acknowledge that discovery is an extended, reasoned process. They present a meta-philosophical objection argument, arguing that a theory of articulating and developing ideas is not a philosophical but a psychological or sociological theory. In this perspective, “discovery” is understood as a retrospective label, which is attributed as a sign of accomplishment to some scientific endeavors. Sociological theories acknowledge that discovery is a collective achievement and the outcome of a process of negotiation through which “discovery stories” are constructed and certain knowledge claims are granted discovery status (Brannigan 1981; Schaffer 1986, 1994).

The impact of the context distinction on 20 th -century studies of scientific discovery and on philosophy of science more generally can hardly be overestimated. The view that the process of discovery (however construed) is outside the scope of philosophy of science proper was widely shared amongst philosophers of science for most of the 20 th century. The last section shows that there were some attempts to develop logics of discovery in the 1920s and 1930s, especially in the pragmatist tradition. But for several decades, the context distinction dictated what philosophy of science should be about and how it should proceed. The dominant view was that theories of mental operations or heuristics had no place in philosophy of science and that, therefore, discovery was not a legitimate topic for philosophy of science. Until the last decades of the 20 th century, there were few attempts to challenge the disciplinary distinction tied to the context distinction. Only during the 1970s did the interest in philosophical approaches to discovery begin to increase again. But the context distinction remained a challenge for philosophies of discovery.

There are several lines of response to the disciplinary distinction tied to the context distinction. Each of these lines of response opens a philosophical perspective on discovery. Each proceeds on the assumption that philosophy of science may legitimately include some form of analysis of actual reasoning patterns as well as information from empirical sciences such as cognitive science, psychology, and sociology. All of these responses reject the idea that discovery is nothing but a mystical event. Discovery is conceived as an analyzable reasoning process, not just as a creative leap by which novel ideas spring into being fully formed. All of these responses agree that the procedures and methods for arriving at new hypotheses and ideas are no guarantee that the hypothesis or idea that is thus formed is necessarily the best or the correct one. Nonetheless, it is the task of philosophy of science to provide rules for making this process better. All of these responses can be described as theories of problem solving, whose ultimate goal is to make the generation of new ideas and theories more efficient.

But the different approaches to scientific discovery employ different terminologies. In particular, the term “logic” of discovery is sometimes used in a narrow sense and sometimes broadly understood. In the narrow sense, “logic” of discovery is understood to refer to a set of formal, generally applicable rules by which novel ideas can be mechanically derived from existing data. In the broad sense, “logic” of discovery refers to the schematic representation of reasoning procedures. “Logical” is just another term for “rational”. Moreover, while each of these responses combines philosophical analyses of scientific discovery with empirical research on actual human cognition, different sets of resources are mobilized, ranging from AI research and cognitive science to historical studies of problem-solving procedures. Also, the responses parse the process of scientific inquiry differently. Often, scientific inquiry is regarded as having two aspects, viz. generation and assessments of new ideas. At times, however, scientific inquiry is regarded as having three aspects, namely generation, pursuit or articulation, and assessment of knowledge. In the latter framework, the label “discovery” is sometimes used to refer just to generation and sometimes to refer to both generation and pursuit.

One response to the challenge of the context distinction draws on a broad understanding of the term “logic” to argue that we cannot but admit a general, domain-neutral logic if we do not want to assume that the success of science is a miracle (Jantzen 2016) and that a logic of scientific discovery can be developed ( section 6 ). Another response, drawing on a narrow understanding of the term “logic”, is to concede that there is no logic of discovery, i.e., no algorithm for generating new knowledge, but that the process of discovery follows an identifiable, analyzable pattern ( section 7 ).

Others argue that discovery is governed by a methodology . The methodology of discovery is a legitimate topic for philosophical analysis ( section 8 ). Yet another response assumes that discovery is or at least involves a creative act. Drawing on resources from cognitive science, neuroscience, computational research, and environmental and social psychology, philosophers have sought to demystify the cognitive processes involved in the generation of new ideas. Philosophers who take this approach argue that scientific creativity is amenable to philosophical analysis ( section 9.1 ).

All these responses assume that there is more to discovery than a eureka moment. Discovery comprises processes of articulating, developing, and assessing the creative thought, as well as the scientific community’s adjudication of what does, and does not, count as “discovery” (Arabatzis 1996). These are the processes that can be examined with the tools of philosophical analysis, augmented by input from other fields of science studies such as sociology, history, or cognitive science.

6. Logics of discovery after the context distinction

One way of responding to the demarcation criterion described above is to argue that discovery is a topic for philosophy of science because it is a logical process after all. Advocates of this approach to the logic of discovery usually accept the overall distinction between the two processes of conceiving and testing a hypothesis. They also agree that it is impossible to put together a manual that provides a formal, mechanical procedure through which innovative concepts or hypotheses can be derived: There is no discovery machine. But they reject the view that the process of conceiving a theory is a creative act, a mysterious guess, a hunch, a more or less instantaneous and random process. Instead, they insist that both conceiving and testing hypotheses are processes of reasoning and systematic inference, that both of these processes can be represented schematically, and that it is possible to distinguish better and worse paths to new knowledge.

This line of argument has much in common with the logics of discovery described in section 4 above but it is now explicitly pitched against the disciplinary distinction tied to the context distinction. There are two main ways of developing this argument. The first is to conceive of discovery in terms of abductive reasoning ( section 6.1 ). The second is to conceive of discovery in terms of problem-solving algorithms, whereby heuristic rules aid the processing of available data and enhance the success in finding solutions to problems ( section 6.2 ). Both lines of argument rely on a broad conception of logic, whereby the “logic” of discovery amounts to a schematic account of the reasoning processes involved in knowledge generation.

One argument, elaborated prominently by Norwood R. Hanson, is that the act of discovery—here, the act of suggesting a new hypothesis—follows a distinctive logical pattern, which is different from both inductive logic and the logic of hypothetico-deductive reasoning. The special logic of discovery is the logic of abductive or “retroductive” inferences (Hanson 1958). The argument that it is through an act of abductive inferences that plausible, promising scientific hypotheses are devised goes back to C.S. Peirce. This version of the logic of discovery characterizes reasoning processes that take place before a new hypothesis is ultimately justified. The abductive mode of reasoning that leads to plausible hypotheses is conceptualized as an inference beginning with data or, more specifically, with surprising or anomalous phenomena.

In this view, discovery is primarily a process of explaining anomalies or surprising, astonishing phenomena. The scientists’ reasoning proceeds abductively from an anomaly to an explanatory hypothesis in light of which the phenomena would no longer be surprising or anomalous. The outcome of this reasoning process is not one single specific hypothesis but the delineation of a type of hypotheses that is worthy of further attention (Hanson 1965: 64). According to Hanson, the abductive argument has the following schematic form (Hanson 1960: 104):

• Some surprising, astonishing phenomena p 1 , p 2 , p 3 … are encountered.
• But p 1 , p 2 , p 3 … would not be surprising were an hypothesis of H ’s type to obtain. They would follow as a matter of course from something like H and would be explained by it.
• Therefore there is good reason for elaborating an hypothesis of type H—for proposing it as a possible hypothesis from whose assumption p 1 , p 2 , p 3 … might be explained.

Drawing on the historical record, Hanson argues that several important discoveries were made relying on abductive reasoning, such as Kepler’s discovery of the elliptic orbit of Mars (Hanson 1958). It is now widely agreed, however, that Hanson’s reconstruction of the episode is not a historically adequate account of Kepler’s discovery (Lugg 1985). More importantly, while there is general agreement that abductive inferences are frequent in both everyday and scientific reasoning, these inferences are no longer considered as logical inferences. Even if one accepts Hanson’s schematic representation of the process of identifying plausible hypotheses, this process is a “logical” process only in the widest sense whereby the term “logical” is understood as synonymous with “rational”. Notably, some philosophers have even questioned the rationality of abductive inferences (Koehler 1991; Brem and Rips 2000).

Another argument against the above schema is that it is too permissive. There will be several hypotheses that are explanations for phenomena p 1 , p 2 , p 3 …, so the fact that a particular hypothesis explains the phenomena is not a decisive criterion for developing that hypothesis (Harman 1965; see also Blackwell 1969). Additional criteria are required to evaluate the hypothesis yielded by abductive inferences.

Finally, it is worth noting that the schema of abductive reasoning does not explain the very act of conceiving a hypothesis or hypothesis-type. The processes by which a new idea is first articulated remain unanalyzed in the above schema. The schema focuses on the reasoning processes by which an exploratory hypothesis is assessed in terms of its merits and promise (Laudan 1980; Schaffner 1993).

In more recent work on abduction and discovery, two notions of abduction are sometimes distinguished: the common notion of abduction as inference to the best explanation (selective abduction) and creative abduction (Magnani 2000, 2009). Selective abduction—the inference to the best explanation—involves selecting a hypothesis from a set of known hypotheses. Medical diagnosis exemplifies this kind of abduction. Creative abduction, by contrast, involves generating a new, plausible hypothesis. This happens, for instance, in medical research, when the notion of a new disease is articulated. However, it is still an open question whether this distinction can be drawn, or whether there is a more gradual transition from selecting an explanatory hypothesis from a familiar domain (selective abduction) to selecting a hypothesis that is slightly modified from the familiar set and to identifying a more drastically modified or altered assumption.

Another recent suggestion is to broaden Peirce’s original account of abduction and to include not only verbal information but also non-verbal mental representations, such as visual, auditory, or motor representations. In Thagard’s approach, representations are characterized as patterns of activity in mental populations (see also section 9.3 below). The advantage of the neural account of human reasoning is that it covers features such as the surprise that accompanies the generation of new insights or the visual and auditory representations that contribute to it. Surprise, for instance, could be characterized as resulting from rapid changes in activation of the node in a neural network representing the “surprising” element (Thagard and Stewart 2011). If all mental representations can be characterized as patterns of firing in neural populations, abduction can be analyzed as the combination or “convolution” (Thagard) of patterns of neural activity from disjoint or overlapping patterns of activity (Thagard 2010).

The concern with the logic of discovery has also motivated research on artificial intelligence at the intersection of philosophy of science and cognitive science. In this approach, scientific discovery is treated as a form of problem-solving activity (Simon 1973; see also Newell and Simon 1971), whereby the systematic aspects of problem solving are studied within an information-processing framework. The aim is to clarify with the help of computational tools the nature of the methods used to discover scientific hypotheses. These hypotheses are regarded as solutions to problems. Philosophers working in this tradition build computer programs employing methods of heuristic selective search (e.g., Langley et al. 1987). In computational heuristics, search programs can be described as searches for solutions in a so-called “problem space” in a certain domain. The problem space comprises all possible configurations in that domain (e.g., for chess problems, all possible arrangements of pieces on a board of chess). Each configuration is a “state” of the problem space. There are two special states, namely the goal state, i.e., the state to be reached, and the initial state, i.e., the configuration at the starting point from which the search begins. There are operators, which determine the moves that generate new states from the current state. There are path constraints, which limit the permitted moves. Problem solving is the process of searching for a solution of the problem of how to generate the goal state from an initial state. In principle, all states can be generated by applying the operators to the initial state, then to the resulting state, until the goal state is reached (Langley et al. 1987: chapter 9). A problem solution is a sequence of operations leading from the initial to the goal state.

The basic idea behind computational heuristics is that rules can be identified that serve as guidelines for finding a solution to a given problem quickly and efficiently by avoiding undesired states of the problem space. These rules are best described as rules of thumb. The aim of constructing a logic of discovery thus becomes the aim of constructing a heuristics for the efficient search for solutions to problems. The term “heuristic search” indicates that in contrast to algorithms, problem-solving procedures lead to results that are merely provisional and plausible. A solution is not guaranteed, but heuristic searches are advantageous because they are more efficient than exhaustive random trial and error searches. Insofar as it is possible to evaluate whether one set of heuristics is better—more efficacious—than another, the logic of discovery turns into a normative theory of discovery.

Arguably, because it is possible to reconstruct important scientific discovery processes with sets of computational heuristics, the scientific discovery process can be considered as a special case of the general mechanism of information processing. In this context, the term “logic” is not used in the narrow sense of a set of formal, generally applicable rules to draw inferences but again in a broad sense as a label for a set of procedural rules.

The computer programs that embody the principles of heuristic searches in scientific inquiry simulate the paths that scientists followed when they searched for new theoretical hypotheses. Computer programs such as BACON (Simon et al. 1981) and KEKADA (Kulkarni and Simon 1988) utilize sets of problem-solving heuristics to detect regularities in given data sets. The program would note, for instance, that the values of a dependent term are constant or that a set of values for a term x and a set of values for a term y are linearly related. It would thus “infer” that the dependent term always has that value or that a linear relation exists between x and y . These programs can “make discoveries” in the sense that they can simulate successful discoveries such as Kepler’s third law (BACON) or the Krebs cycle (KEKADA).

Computational theories of scientific discoveries have helped identify and clarify a number of problem-solving strategies. An example of such a strategy is heuristic means-ends analysis, which involves identifying specific differences between the present and the goal situation and searches for operators (processes that will change the situation) that are associated with the differences that were detected. Another important heuristic is to divide the problem into sub-problems and to begin solving the one with the smallest number of unknowns to be determined (Simon 1977). Computational approaches have also highlighted the extent to which the generation of new knowledge draws on existing knowledge that constrains the development of new hypotheses.

As accounts of scientific discoveries, the early computational heuristics have some limitations. Compared to the problem spaces given in computational heuristics, the complex problem spaces for scientific problems are often ill defined, and the relevant search space and goal state must be delineated before heuristic assumptions could be formulated (Bechtel and Richardson 1993: chapter 1). Because a computer program requires the data from actual experiments, the simulations cover only certain aspects of scientific discoveries; in particular, it cannot determine by itself which data is relevant, which data to relate and what form of law it should look for (Gillies 1996). However, as a consequence of the rise of so-called “deep learning” methods in data-intensive science, there is renewed philosophical interest in the question of whether machines can make discoveries ( section 10 ).

Many philosophers maintain that discovery is a legitimate topic for philosophy of science while abandoning the notion that there is a logic of discovery. One very influential approach is Thomas Kuhn’s analysis of the emergence of novel facts and theories (Kuhn 1970 [1962]: chapter 6). Kuhn identifies a general pattern of discovery as part of his account of scientific change. A discovery is not a simple act, but an extended, complex process, which culminates in paradigm changes. Paradigms are the symbolic generalizations, metaphysical commitments, values, and exemplars that are shared by a community of scientists and that guide the research of that community. Paradigm-based, normal science does not aim at novelty but instead at the development, extension, and articulation of accepted paradigms. A discovery begins with an anomaly, that is, with the recognition that the expectations induced by an established paradigm are being violated. The process of discovery involves several aspects: observations of an anomalous phenomenon, attempts to conceptualize it, and changes in the paradigm so that the anomaly can be accommodated.

It is the mark of success of normal science that it does not make transformative discoveries, and yet such discoveries come about as a consequence of normal, paradigm-guided science. The more detailed and the better developed a paradigm, the more precise are its predictions. The more precisely the researchers know what to expect, the better they are able to recognize anomalous results and violations of expectations:

novelty ordinarily emerges only for the man who, knowing with precision what he should expect, is able to recognize that something has gone wrong. Anomaly appears only against the background provided by the paradigm. (Kuhn 1970 [1962]: 65)

Drawing on several historical examples, Kuhn argues that it is usually impossible to identify the very moment when something was discovered or even the individual who made the discovery. Kuhn illustrates these points with the discovery of oxygen (see Kuhn 1970 [1962]: 53–56). Oxygen had not been discovered before 1774 and had been discovered by 1777. Even before 1774, Lavoisier had noticed that something was wrong with phlogiston theory, but he was unable to move forward. Two other investigators, C. W. Scheele and Joseph Priestley, independently identified a gas obtained from heating solid substances. But Scheele’s work remained unpublished until after 1777, and Priestley did not identify his substance as a new sort of gas. In 1777, Lavoisier presented the oxygen theory of combustion, which gave rise to fundamental reconceptualization of chemistry. But according to this theory as Lavoisier first presented it, oxygen was not a chemical element. It was an atomic “principle of acidity” and oxygen gas was a combination of that principle with caloric. According to Kuhn, all of these developments are part of the discovery of oxygen, but none of them can be singled out as “the” act of discovery.

In pre-paradigmatic periods or in times of paradigm crisis, theory-induced discoveries may happen. In these periods, scientists speculate and develop tentative theories, which may lead to novel expectations and experiments and observations to test whether these expectations can be confirmed. Even though no precise predictions can be made, phenomena that are thus uncovered are often not quite what had been expected. In these situations, the simultaneous exploration of the new phenomena and articulation of the tentative hypotheses together bring about discovery.

In cases like the discovery of oxygen, by contrast, which took place while a paradigm was already in place, the unexpected becomes apparent only slowly, with difficulty, and against some resistance. Only gradually do the anomalies become visible as such. It takes time for the investigators to recognize “both that something is and what it is” (Kuhn 1970 [1962]: 55). Eventually, a new paradigm becomes established and the anomalous phenomena become the expected phenomena.

Recent studies in cognitive neuroscience of brain activity during periods of conceptual change support Kuhn’s view that conceptual change is hard to achieve. These studies examine the neural processes that are involved in the recognition of anomalies and compare them with the brain activity involved in the processing of information that is consistent with preferred theories. The studies suggest that the two types of data are processed differently (Dunbar et al. 2007).

8. Methodologies of discovery

Advocates of the view that there are methodologies of discovery use the term “logic” in the narrow sense of an algorithmic procedure to generate new ideas. But like the AI-based theories of scientific discovery described in section 6 , methodologies of scientific discovery interpret the concept “discovery” as a label for an extended process of generating and articulating new ideas and often describe the process in terms of problem solving. In these approaches, the distinction between the contexts of discovery and the context of justification is challenged because the methodology of discovery is understood to play a justificatory role. Advocates of a methodology of discovery usually rely on a distinction between different justification procedures, justification involved in the process of generating new knowledge and justification involved in testing it. Consequential or “strong” justifications are methods of testing. The justification involved in discovery, by contrast, is conceived as generative (as opposed to consequential) justification ( section 8.1 ) or as weak (as opposed to strong) justification ( section 8.2 ). Again, some terminological ambiguity exists because according to some philosophers, there are three contexts, not two: Only the initial conception of a new idea (the creative act is the context of discovery proper, and between it and justification there exists a separate context of pursuit (Laudan 1980). But many advocates of methodologies of discovery regard the context of pursuit as an integral part of the process of justification. They retain the notion of two contexts and re-draw the boundaries between the contexts of discovery and justification as they were drawn in the early 20 th century.

The methodology of discovery has sometimes been characterized as a form of justification that is complementary to the methodology of testing (Nickles 1984, 1985, 1989). According to the methodology of testing, empirical support for a theory results from successfully testing the predictive consequences derived from that theory (and appropriate auxiliary assumptions). In light of this methodology, justification for a theory is “consequential justification,” the notion that a hypothesis is established if successful novel predictions are derived from the theory or claim. Generative justification complements consequential justification. Advocates of generative justification hold that there exists an important form of justification in science that involves reasoning to a claim from data or previously established results more generally.

One classic example for a generative methodology is the set of Newton’s rules for the study of natural philosophy. According to these rules, general propositions are established by deducing them from the phenomena. The notion of generative justification seeks to preserve the intuition behind classic conceptions of justification by deduction. Generative justification amounts to the rational reconstruction of the discovery path in order to establish its discoverability had the researchers known what is known now, regardless of how it was first thought of (Nickles 1985, 1989). The reconstruction demonstrates in hindsight that the claim could have been discovered in this manner had the necessary information and techniques been available. In other words, generative justification—justification as “discoverability” or “potential discovery”—justifies a knowledge claim by deriving it from results that are already established. While generative justification does not retrace exactly those steps of the actual discovery path that were actually taken, it is a better representation of scientists’ actual practices than consequential justification because scientists tend to construe new claims from available knowledge. Generative justification is a weaker version of the traditional ideal of justification by deduction from the phenomena. Justification by deduction from the phenomena is complete if a theory or claim is completely determined from what we already know. The demonstration of discoverability results from the successful derivation of a claim or theory from the most basic and most solidly established empirical information.

Discoverability as described in the previous paragraphs is a mode of justification. Like the testing of novel predictions derived from a hypothesis, generative justification begins when the phase of finding and articulating a hypothesis worthy of assessing is drawing to a close. Other approaches to the methodology of discovery are directly concerned with the procedures involved in devising new hypotheses. The argument in favor of this kind of methodology is that the procedures of devising new hypotheses already include elements of appraisal. These preliminary assessments have been termed “weak” evaluation procedures (Schaffner 1993). Weak evaluations are relevant during the process of devising a new hypothesis. They provide reasons for accepting a hypothesis as promising and worthy of further attention. Strong evaluations, by contrast, provide reasons for accepting a hypothesis as (approximately) true or confirmed. Both “generative” and “consequential” testing as discussed in the previous section are strong evaluation procedures. Strong evaluation procedures are rigorous and systematically organized according to the principles of hypothesis derivation or H-D testing. A methodology of preliminary appraisal, by contrast, articulates criteria for the evaluation of a hypothesis prior to rigorous derivation or testing. It aids the decision about whether to take that hypothesis seriously enough to develop it further and test it. For advocates of this version of the methodology of discovery, it is the task of philosophy of science to characterize sets of constraints and methodological rules guiding the complex process of prior-to-test evaluation of hypotheses.

In contrast to the computational approaches discussed above, strategies of preliminary appraisal are not regarded as subject-neutral but as specific to particular fields of study. Philosophers of biology, for instance, have developed a fine-grained framework to account for the generation and preliminary evaluation of biological mechanisms (Darden 2002; Craver 2002; Bechtel and Richardson 1993; Craver and Darden 2013). Some philosophers have suggested that the phase of preliminary appraisal be further divided into two phases, the phase of appraising and the phase of revising. According to Lindley Darden, the phases of generation, appraisal and revision of descriptions of mechanisms can be characterized as reasoning processes governed by reasoning strategies. Different reasoning strategies govern the different phases (Darden 1991, 2002; Craver 2002; Darden 2009). The generation of hypotheses about mechanisms, for instance, is governed by the strategy of “schema instantiation” (see Darden 2002). The discovery of the mechanism of protein synthesis involved the instantiation of an abstract schema for chemical reactions: reactant 1 + reactant 2 = product. The actual mechanism of protein synthesis was found through specification and modification of this schema.

Neither of these strategies is deemed necessary for discovery, and they are not prescriptions for biological research. Rather, these strategies are deemed sufficient for the discovery of mechanisms. The methodology of the discovery of mechanisms is an extrapolation from past episodes of research on mechanisms and the result of a synthesis of rational reconstructions of several of these historical episodes. The methodology of discovery is weakly normative in the sense that the strategies for the discovery of mechanisms that were successful in the past may prove useful in future biological research (Darden 2002).

As philosophers of science have again become more attuned to actual scientific practices, interest in heuristic strategies has also been revived. Many analysts now agree that discovery processes can be regarded as problem solving activities, whereby a discovery is a solution to a problem. Heuristics-based methodologies of discovery are neither purely subjective and intuitive nor algorithmic or formalizable; the point is that reasons can be given for pursuing one or the other problem-solving strategy. These rules are open and do not guarantee a solution to a problem when applied (Ippoliti 2018). On this view, scientific researchers are no longer seen as Kuhnian “puzzle solvers” but as problem solvers and decision makers in complex, variable, and changing environments (Wimsatt 2007).

Philosophers of discovery working in this tradition draw on a growing body of literature in cognitive psychology, management science, operations research, and economy on human reasoning and decision making in contexts with limited information, under time constraints, and with sub-optimal means (Gigerenzer & Sturm 2012). Heuristic strategies characterized in these studies, such as Gigerenzer’s “tools to theory heuristic” are then applied to understand scientific knowledge generation (Gigerenzer 1992, Nickles 2018). Other analysts specify heuristic strategies in a range of scientific fields, including climate science, neurobiology, and clinical medicine (Gramelsberger 2011, Schaffner 2008, Gillies 2018). Finally, in analytic epistemology, formal methods are developed to identify and assess distinct heuristic strategies currently in use, such as Bayesian reverse engineering in cognitive science (Zednik and Jäkel 2016).

As the literature on heuristics continues to grow, it has become clear that the term “heuristics” is itself used in a variety of different ways. (For a valuable taxonomy of meanings of “heuristic,” see Chow 2015, see also Ippoliti 2018.) Moreover, as in the context of earlier debates about computational heuristics, debates continue about the limitations of heuristics. The use of heuristics may come at a cost if heuristics introduce systematic biases (Wimsatt 2007). Some philosophers thus call for general principles for the evaluation of heuristic strategies (Hey 2016).

9. Cognitive perspectives on discovery

The approaches to scientific discovery presented in the previous sections focus on the adoption, articulation, and preliminary evaluation of ideas or hypotheses prior to rigorous testing, not on how a novel hypothesis or idea is first thought up. For a long time, the predominant view among philosophers of discovery was that the initial step of discovery is a mysterious intuitive leap of the human mind that cannot be analyzed further. More recent accounts of discovery informed by evolutionary biology also do not explicate how new ideas are formed. The generation of new ideas is akin to random, blind variations of thought processes, which have to be inspected by the critical mind and assessed as neutral, productive, or useless (Campbell 1960; see also Hull 1988), but the key processes by which new ideas are generated are left unanalyzed.

With the recent rapprochement among philosophy of mind, cognitive science and psychology and the increased integration of empirical research into philosophy of science, these processes have been submitted to closer analysis, and philosophical studies of creativity have seen a surge of interest (e.g. Paul & Kaufman 2014a). The distinctive feature of these studies is that they integrate philosophical analyses with empirical work from cognitive science, psychology, evolutionary biology, and computational neuroscience (Thagard 2012). Analysts have distinguished different kinds and different features of creative thinking and have examined certain features in depth, and from new angles. Recent philosophical research on creativity comprises conceptual analyses and integrated approaches based on the assumption that creativity can be analyzed and that empirical research can contribute to the analysis (Paul & Kaufman 2014b). Two key elements of the cognitive processes involved in creative thinking that have been in the focus of philosophical analysis are analogies ( section 9.2 ) and mental models ( section 9.3 ).

General definitions of creativity highlight novelty or originality and significance or value as distinctive features of a creative act or product (Sternberg & Lubart 1999, Kieran 2014, Paul & Kaufman 2014b, although see Hills & Bird 2019). Different kinds of creativity can be distinguished depending on whether the act or product is novel for a particular individual or entirely novel. Psychologist Margaret Boden distinguishes between psychological creativity (P-creativity) and historical creativity (H-creativity). P-creativity is a development that is new, surprising and important to the particular person who comes up with it. H-creativity, by contrast, is radically novel, surprising, and important—it is generated for the first time (Boden 2004). Further distinctions have been proposed, such as anthropological creativity (construed as a human condition) and metaphysical creativity, a radically new thought or action in the sense that it is unaccounted for by antecedents and available knowledge, and thus constitutes a radical break with the past (Kronfeldner 2009, drawing on Hausman 1984).

Psychological studies analyze the personality traits and creative individuals’ behavioral dispositions that are conducive to creative thinking. They suggest that creative scientists share certain distinct personality traits, including confidence, openness, dominance, independence, introversion, as well as arrogance and hostility. (For overviews of recent studies on personality traits of creative scientists, see Feist 1999, 2006: chapter 5).

Recent work on creativity in philosophy of mind and cognitive science offers substantive analyses of the cognitive and neural mechanisms involved in creative thinking (Abrams 2018, Minai et al 2022) and critical scrutiny of the romantic idea of genius creativity as something deeply mysterious (Blackburn 2014). Some of this research aims to characterize features that are common to all creative processes, such as Thagard and Stewart’s account according to which creativity results from combinations of representations (Thagard & Stewart 2011, but see Pasquale and Poirier 2016). Other research aims to identify the features that are distinctive of scientific creativity as opposed to other forms of creativity, such as artistic creativity or creative technological invention (Simonton 2014).

Many philosophers of science highlight the role of analogy in the development of new knowledge, whereby analogy is understood as a process of bringing ideas that are well understood in one domain to bear on a new domain (Thagard 1984; Holyoak and Thagard 1996). An important source for philosophical thought about analogy is Mary Hesse’s conception of models and analogies in theory construction and development. In this approach, analogies are similarities between different domains. Hesse introduces the distinction between positive, negative, and neutral analogies (Hesse 1966: 8). If we consider the relation between gas molecules and a model for gas, namely a collection of billiard balls in random motion, we will find properties that are common to both domains (positive analogy) as well as properties that can only be ascribed to the model but not to the target domain (negative analogy). There is a positive analogy between gas molecules and a collection of billiard balls because both the balls and the molecules move randomly. There is a negative analogy between the domains because billiard balls are colored, hard, and shiny but gas molecules do not have these properties. The most interesting properties are those properties of the model about which we do not know whether they are positive or negative analogies. This set of properties is the neutral analogy. These properties are the significant properties because they might lead to new insights about the less familiar domain. From our knowledge about the familiar billiard balls, we may be able to derive new predictions about the behavior of gas molecules, which we could then test.

Hesse offers a more detailed analysis of the structure of analogical reasoning through the distinction between horizontal and vertical analogies between domains. Horizontal analogies between two domains concern the sameness or similarity between properties of both domains. If we consider sound and light waves, there are similarities between them: sound echoes, light reflects; sound is loud, light is bright, both sound and light are detectable by our senses. There are also relations among the properties within one domain, such as the causal relation between sound and the loud tone we hear and, analogously, between physical light and the bright light we see. These analogies are vertical analogies. For Hesse, vertical analogies hold the key for the construction of new theories.

Analogies play several roles in science. Not only do they contribute to discovery but they also play a role in the development and evaluation of scientific theories. Current discussions about analogy and discovery have expanded and refined Hesse’s approach in various ways. Some philosophers have developed criteria for evaluating analogy arguments (Bartha 2010). Other work has identified highly significant analogies that were particularly fruitful for the advancement of science (Holyoak and Thagard 1996: 186–188; Thagard 1999: chapter 9). The majority of analysts explore the features of the cognitive mechanisms through which aspects of a familiar domain or source are applied to an unknown target domain in order to understand what is unknown. According to the influential multi-constraint theory of analogical reasoning developed by Holyoak and Thagard, the transfer processes involved in analogical reasoning (scientific and otherwise) are guided or constrained in three main ways: 1) by the direct similarity between the elements involved; 2) by the structural parallels between source and target domain; as well as 3) by the purposes of the investigators, i.e., the reasons why the analogy is considered. Discovery, the formulation of a new hypothesis, is one such purpose.

“In vivo” investigations of scientists reasoning in their laboratories have not only shown that analogical reasoning is a key component of scientific practice, but also that the distance between source and target depends on the purpose for which analogies are sought. Scientists trying to fix experimental problems draw analogies between targets and sources from highly similar domains. In contrast, scientists attempting to formulate new models or concepts draw analogies between less similar domains. Analogies between radically different domains, however, are rare (Dunbar 1997, 2001).

In current cognitive science, human cognition is often explored in terms of model-based reasoning. The starting point of this approach is the notion that much of human reasoning, including probabilistic and causal reasoning as well as problem solving takes place through mental modeling rather than through the application of logic or methodological criteria to a set of propositions (Johnson-Laird 1983; Magnani et al. 1999; Magnani and Nersessian 2002). In model-based reasoning, the mind constructs a structural representation of a real-world or imaginary situation and manipulates this structure. In this perspective, conceptual structures are viewed as models and conceptual innovation as constructing new models through various modeling operations. Analogical reasoning—analogical modeling—is regarded as one of three main forms of model-based reasoning that appear to be relevant for conceptual innovation in science. Besides analogical modeling, visual modeling and simulative modeling or thought experiments also play key roles (Nersessian 1992, 1999, 2009). These modeling practices are constructive in that they aid the development of novel mental models. The key elements of model-based reasoning are the call on knowledge of generative principles and constraints for physical models in a source domain and the use of various forms of abstraction. Conceptual innovation results from the creation of new concepts through processes that abstract and integrate source and target domains into new models (Nersessian 2009).

Some critics have argued that despite the large amount of work on the topic, the notion of mental model is not sufficiently clear. Thagard seeks to clarify the concept by characterizing mental models in terms of neural processes (Thagard 2010). In his approach, mental models are produced through complex patterns of neural firing, whereby the neurons and the interconnections between them are dynamic and changing. A pattern of firing neurons is a representation when there is a stable causal correlation between the pattern or activation and the thing that is represented. In this research, questions about the nature of model-based reasoning are transformed into questions about the brain mechanisms that produce mental representations.

The above sections again show that the study of scientific discovery integrates different approaches, combining conceptual analysis of processes of knowledge generation with empirical work on creativity, drawing heavily and explicitly on current research in psychology and cognitive science, and on in vivo laboratory observations, as well as brain imaging techniques (Kounios & Beeman 2009, Thagard & Stewart 2011).

Earlier critics of AI-based theories of scientific discoveries argued that a computer cannot devise new concepts but is confined to the concepts included in the given computer language (Hempel 1985: 119–120). It cannot design new experiments, instruments, or methods. Subsequent computational research on scientific discovery was driven by the motivation to contribute computational tools to aid scientists in their research (Addis et al. 2016). It appears that computational methods can be used to generate new results leading to refereed scientific publications in astrophysics, cancer research, ecology, and other fields (Langley 2000). However, the philosophical discussion has continued about the question of whether these methods really generate new knowledge or whether they merely speed up data processing. It is also still an open question whether data-intensive science is fundamentally different from traditional research, for instance regarding the status of hypothesis or theory in data-intensive research (Pietsch 2015).

In the wake of recent developments in machine learning, some older discussions about automated discovery have been revived. The availability of vastly improved computational tools and software for data analysis has stimulated new discussions about computer-generated discovery (see Leonelli 2020). It is largely uncontroversial that machine learning tools can aid discovery, for instance in research on antibiotics (Stokes et al, 2020). The notion of “robot scientist” is mostly used metaphorically, and the vision that human scientists may one day be replaced by computers – by successors of the laboratory automation systems “Adam” and “Eve”, allegedly the first “robot scientists” – is evoked in writings for broader audiences (see King et al. 2009, Williams et al. 2015, for popularized descriptions of these systems), although some interesting ethical challenges do arise from “superhuman AI” (see Russell 2021). It also appears that, on the notion that products of creative acts are both novel and valuable, AI systems should be called “creative,” an implication which not all analysts will find plausible (Boden 2014)

Philosophical analyses focus on various questions arising from the processes involving human-machine complexes. One issue relevant to the problem of scientific discovery arises from the opacity of machine learning. If machine learning indeed escapes human understanding, how can we be warranted to say that knowledge or understanding is generated by deep learning tools? Might we have reason to say that humans and machines are “co-developers” of knowledge (Tamaddoni-Nezhad et al. 2021)?

New perspectives on scientific discovery have also opened up in the context of social epistemology (see Goldman & O’Connor 2021). Social epistemology investigates knowledge production as a group process, specifically the epistemic effects of group composition in terms of cognitive diversity and unity and social interactions within groups or institutions such as testimony and trust, peer disagreement and critique, and group justification, among others. On this view, discovery is a collective achievement, and the task is to explore how assorted social-epistemic activities or practices have an impact on the knowledge generated by groups in question. There are obvious implications for debates about scientific discovery of recent research in the different branches of social epistemology. Social epistemologists have examined individual cognitive agents in their roles as group members (as providers of information or as critics) and the interactions among these members (Longino 2001), groups as aggregates of diverse agents, or the entire group as epistemic agent (e.g., Koons 2021, Dragos 2019).

Standpoint theory, for instance, explores the role of outsiders in knowledge generation, considering how the sociocultural structures and practices in which individuals are embedded aid or obstruct the generation of creative ideas. According to standpoint theorists, people with standpoint are politically aware and politically engaged people outside the mainstream. Because people with standpoint have different experiences and access to different domains of expertise than most members of a culture, they can draw on rich conceptual resources for creative thinking (Solomon 2007).

Social epistemologists examining groups as aggregates of agents consider to what extent diversity among group members is conducive to knowledge production and whether and to what extent beliefs and attitudes must be shared among group members to make collective knowledge possible (Bird 2014). This is still an open question. Some formal approaches to model the influence of diversity on knowledge generation suggest that cognitive diversity is beneficial to collective knowledge generation (Weisberg and Muldoon 2009), but others have criticized the model (Alexander et al (2015), see also Thoma (2015) and Poyhönen (2017) for further discussion).

This essay has illustrated that philosophy of discovery has come full circle. Philosophy of discovery has once again become a thriving field of philosophical study, now intersecting with, and drawing on philosophical and empirical studies of creative thinking, problem solving under uncertainty, collective knowledge production, and machine learning. Recent approaches to discovery are typically explicitly interdisciplinary and integrative, cutting across previous distinctions among hypothesis generation and theory building, data collection, assessment, and selection; as well as descriptive-analytic, historical, and normative perspectives (Danks & Ippoliti 2018, Michel 2021). The goal no longer is to provide one overarching account of scientific discovery but to produce multifaceted analyses of past and present activities of knowledge generation in all their complexity and heterogeneity that are illuminating to the non-scientist and the scientific researcher alike.

• Abraham, A. 2019, The Neuroscience of Creativity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Addis, M., Sozou, P.D., Gobet, F. and Lane, P. R., 2016, “Computational scientific discovery and cognitive science theories”, in Mueller, V. C. (ed.) Computing and Philosophy , Springer, 83–87.
• Alexander, J., Himmelreich, J., and Thompson, C. 2015, Epistemic Landscapes, Optimal Search, and the Division of Cognitive Labor, Philosophy of Science 82: 424–453.
• Arabatzis, T. 1996, “Rethinking the ‘Discovery’ of the Electron,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B Studies In History and Philosophy of Modern Physics , 27: 405–435.
• Bartha, P., 2010, By Parallel Reasoning: The Construction and Evaluation of Analogical Arguments , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Bechtel, W. and R. Richardson, 1993, Discovering Complexity , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Benjamin, A.C., 1934, “The Mystery of Scientific Discovery ” Philosophy of Science , 1: 224–36.
• Bird, A. 2014, “When is There a Group that Knows? Distributed Cognition, Scientific Knowledge, and the Social Epistemic Subject”, in J. Lackey (ed.), Essays in Collective Epistemology , Oxford: Oxford University Press, 42–63.
• Blackburn, S. 2014, “Creativity and Not-So-Dumb Luck”, in Paul, E. S. and Kaufman, S. B. (eds.), The Philosophy of Creativity: New Essays , New York: Oxford Academic online edn. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199836963.003.0008.
• Blackwell, R.J., 1969, Discovery in the Physical Sciences , Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
• Boden, M.A., 2004, The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms , London: Routledge.
• –––, 2014, “Creativity and Artificial Intelligence: A Contradiction in Terms?”, in Paul, E. S. and Kaufman, S. B. (eds.), The Philosophy of Creativity: New Essays (New York: Oxford Academic online edn., https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199836963.003.0012 .
• Brannigan, A., 1981, The Social Basis of Scientific Discoveries , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Brem, S. and L.J. Rips, 2000, “Explanation and Evidence in Informal Argument”, Cognitive Science , 24: 573–604.
• Campbell, D., 1960, “Blind Variation and Selective Retention in Creative Thought as in Other Knowledge Processes”, Psychological Review , 67: 380–400.
• Carmichael, R.D., 1922, “The Logic of Discovery”, The Monist , 32: 569–608.
• –––, 1930, The Logic of Discovery , Chicago: Open Court.
• Chow, S. 2015, “Many Meanings of ‘Heuristic’”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science , 66: 977–1016
• Craver, C.F., 2002, “Interlevel Experiments, Multilevel Mechanisms in the Neuroscience of Memory”, Philosophy of Science Supplement , 69: 83–97.
• Craver, C.F. and L. Darden, 2013, In Search of Mechanisms: Discoveries across the Life Sciences , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Curd, M., 1980, “The Logic of Discovery: An Analysis of Three Approaches”, in T. Nickles (ed.) Scientific Discovery, Logic, and Rationality , Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 201–19.
• Danks, D. & Ippoliti, E. (eds.) 2018, Building Theories: Heuristics and Hypotheses in Sciences , Cham: Springer.
• Darden, L., 1991, Theory Change in Science: Strategies from Mendelian Genetics , New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2002, “Strategies for Discovering Mechanisms: Schema Instantiation, Modular Subassembly, Forward/Backward Chaining”, Philosophy of Science , 69: S354-S65.
• –––, 2009, “Discovering Mechanisms in Molecular Biology: Finding and Fixing Incompleteness and Incorrectness”, in J. Meheus and T. Nickles (eds.), Models of Discovery and Creativity , Dordrecht: Springer, 43–55.
• Dewey, J. 1910, How We Think . Boston: D.C. Heath
• Dragos, C., 2019, “Groups Can Know How” American Philosophical Quarterly 56: 265–276
• Ducasse, C.J., 1951, “Whewell’s Philosophy of Scientific Discovery II”, The Philosophical Review , 60(2): 213–34.
• Dunbar, K., 1997, “How scientists think: On-line creativity and conceptual change in science”, in T.B. Ward, S.M. Smith, and J. Vaid (eds.), Conceptual Structures and Processes: Emergence, Discovery, and Change , Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press, 461–493.
• –––, 2001, “The Analogical Paradox: Why Analogy is so Easy in Naturalistic Settings Yet so Difficult in Psychological Laboratories”, in D. Gentner, K.J. Holyoak, and B.N. Kokinov (eds.), The Analogical Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Dunbar, K, J. Fugelsang, and C Stein, 2007, “Do Naïve Theories Ever Go Away? Using Brain and Behavior to Understand Changes in Concepts”, in M. Lovett and P. Shah (eds.), Thinking with Data: 33rd Carnegie Symposium on Cognition , Mahwah: Erlbaum, 193–205.
• Feist, G.J., 1999, “The Influence of Personality on Artistic and Scientific Creativity”, in R.J. Sternberg (ed.), Handbook of Creativity , New York: Cambridge University Press, 273–96.
• –––, 2006, The psychology of science and the origins of the scientific mind , New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Gillies D., 1996, Artificial intelligence and scientific method . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2018 “Discovering Cures in Medicine” in Danks, D. & Ippoliti, E. (eds.), Building Theories: Heuristics and Hypotheses in Sciences , Cham: Springer, 83–100.
• Goldman, Alvin & O’Connor, C., 2021, “Social Epistemology”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2021 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2021/entries/epistemology-social/>.
• Gramelsberger, G. 2011, “What Do Numerical (Climate) Models Really Represent?” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 42: 296–302.
• Gutting, G., 1980, “Science as Discovery”, Revue internationale de philosophie , 131: 26–48.
• Hanson, N.R., 1958, Patterns of Discovery , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 1960, “Is there a Logic of Scientific Discovery?”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy , 38: 91–106.
• –––, 1965, “Notes Toward a Logic of Discovery”, in R.J. Bernstein (ed.), Perspectives on Peirce. Critical Essays on Charles Sanders Peirce , New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 42–65.
• Harman, G.H., 1965, “The Inference to the Best Explanation”, Philosophical Review , 74.
• Hausman, C. R. 1984, A Discourse on Novelty and Creation , New York: SUNY Press.
• Hempel, C.G., 1985, “Thoughts in the Limitations of Discovery by Computer”, in K. Schaffner (ed.), Logic of Discovery and Diagnosis in Medicine , Berkeley: University of California Press, 115–22.
• Hesse, M., 1966, Models and Analogies in Science , Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
• Hey, S. 2016 “Heuristics and Meta-heuristics in Scientific Judgement”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science , 67: 471–495
• Hills, A., Bird, A. 2019, “Against Creativity”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research , 99: 694–713.
• Holyoak, K.J. and P. Thagard, 1996, Mental Leaps: Analogy in Creative Thought , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Howard, D., 2006, “Lost Wanderers in the Forest of Knowledge: Some Thoughts on the Discovery-Justification Distinction”, in J. Schickore and F. Steinle (eds.), Revisiting Discovery and Justification. Historical and Philosophical Perspectives on the Context Distinction , Dordrecht: Springer, 3–22.
• Hoyningen-Huene, P., 1987, “Context of Discovery and Context of Justification”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science , 18: 501–15.
• Hull, D.L., 1988, Science as Practice: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Ippoliti, E. 2018, “Heuristic Logic. A Kernel” in Danks, D. & Ippoliti, E. (eds.) Building Theories: Heuristics and Hypotheses in Sciences , Cham: Springer, 191–212
• Jantzen, B.C., 2016, “Discovery without a ‘Logic’ would be a Miracle”, Synthese , 193: 3209–3238.
• Johnson-Laird, P., 1983, Mental Models , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Kieran, M., 2014, “Creativity as a Virtue of Character,” in E. Paul and S. B. Kaufman (eds.), The Philosophy of Creativity: New Essays . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 125–44
• King, R. D. et al. 2009, “The Automation of Science”, Science 324: 85–89.
• Koehler, D.J., 1991, “Explanation, Imagination, and Confidence in Judgment”, Psychological Bulletin , 110: 499–519.
• Koertge, N. 1980, “Analysis as a Method of Discovery during the Scientific Revolution” in Nickles, T. (ed.) Scientific Discovery, Logic, and Rationality vol. I, Dordrecht: Reidel, 139–157
• Koons, J.R. 2021, “Knowledge as a Collective Status”, Analytic Philosophy , https://doi.org/10.1111/phib.12224
• Kounios, J. and Beeman, M. 2009, “The Aha! Moment : The Cognitive Neuroscience of Insight”, Current Directions in Psychological Science , 18: 210–16.
• Kordig, C., 1978, “Discovery and Justification”, Philosophy of Science , 45: 110–17.
• Kronfeldner, M. 2009, “Creativity Naturalized”, The Philosophical Quarterly 59: 577–592.
• Kuhn, T.S., 1970 [1962], The Structure of Scientific Revolutions , 2 nd edition, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; first edition, 1962.
• Kulkarni, D. and H.A. Simon, 1988, “The processes of scientific discovery: The strategy of experimentation”, Cognitive Science , 12: 139–76.
• Langley, P., 2000, “The Computational Support of Scientific Discovery”, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies , 53: 393–410.
• Langley, P., H.A. Simon, G.L. Bradshaw, and J.M. Zytkow, 1987, Scientific Discovery: Computational Explorations of the Creative Processes , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Laudan, L., 1980, “Why Was the Logic of Discovery Abandoned?” in T. Nickles (ed.), Scientific Discovery (Volume I), Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 173–83.
• Leonelli, S. 2020, “Scientific Research and Big Data”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/science-big-data/>
• Leplin, J., 1987, “The Bearing of Discovery on Justification”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy , 17: 805–14.
• Longino, H. 2001, The Fate of Knowledge , Princeton: Princeton University Press
• Lugg, A., 1985, “The Process of Discovery”, Philosophy of Science , 52: 207–20.
• Magnani, L., 2000, Abduction, Reason, and Science: Processes of Discovery and Explanation , Dordrecht: Kluwer.
• –––, 2009, “Creative Abduction and Hypothesis Withdrawal”, in J. Meheus and T. Nickles (eds.), Models of Discovery and Creativity , Dordrecht: Springer.
• Magnani, L. and N.J. Nersessian, 2002, Model-Based Reasoning: Science, Technology, and Values , Dordrecht: Kluwer.
• Magnani, L., N.J. Nersessian, and P. Thagard, 1999, Model-Based Reasoning in Scientific Discovery , Dordrecht: Kluwer.
• Michel, J. (ed.) 2021, Making Scientific Discoveries. Interdisciplinary Reflections , Brill | mentis.
• Minai, A., Doboli, S., Iyer, L. 2022 “Models of Creativity and Ideation: An Overview” in Ali A. Minai, Jared B. Kenworthy, Paul B. Paulus, Simona Doboli (eds.), Creativity and Innovation. Cognitive, Social, and Computational Approaches , Springer, 21–46.
• Nersessian, N.J., 1992, “How do scientists think? Capturing the dynamics of conceptual change in science”, in R. Giere (ed.), Cognitive Models of Science , Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 3–45.
• –––, 1999, “Model-based reasoning in conceptual change”, in L. Magnani, N.J. Nersessian and P. Thagard (eds.), Model-Based Reasoning in Scientific Discovery , New York: Kluwer, 5–22.
• –––, 2009, “Conceptual Change: Creativity, Cognition, and Culture ” in J. Meheus and T. Nickles (eds.), Models of Discovery and Creativity , Dordrecht: Springer, 127–66.
• Newell, A. and H. A Simon, 1971, “Human Problem Solving: The State of the Theory in 1970”, American Psychologist , 26: 145–59.
• Newton, I. 1718, Opticks; or, A Treatise of the Reflections, Inflections and Colours of Light , London: Printed for W. and J. Innys, Printers to the Royal Society.
• Nickles, T., 1984, “Positive Science and Discoverability”, PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , 1984: 13–27.
• –––, 1985, “Beyond Divorce: Current Status of the Discovery Debate”, Philosophy of Science , 52: 177–206.
• –––, 1989, “Truth or Consequences? Generative versus Consequential Justification in Science”, PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , 1988, 393–405.
• –––, 2018, “TTT: A Fast Heuristic to New Theories?” in Danks, D. & Ippoliti, E. (eds.) Building Theories: Heuristics and Hypotheses in Sciences , Cham: Springer, 213–244.
• Pasquale, J.-F. de and Poirier, P. 2016, “Convolution and Modal Representations in Thagard and Stewart’s Neural Theory of Creativity: A Critical Analysis ”, Synthese , 193: 1535–1560
• Paul, E. S. and Kaufman, S. B. (eds.), 2014a, The Philosophy of Creativity: New Essays , New York: Oxford Academic online edn., https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199836963.001.0001.
• –––, 2014b, “Introducing: The Philosophy of Creativity”, in Paul, E. S. and Kaufman, S. B. (eds.), The Philosophy of Creativity: New Essays (New York: Oxford Academic online edn., https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199836963.003.0001.
• Pietsch, W. 2015, “Aspects of Theory-Ladenness in Data-Intensive Science”, Philosophy of Science 82: 905–916.
• Popper, K., 2002 [1934/1959], The Logic of Scientific Discovery , London and New York: Routledge; original published in German in 1934; first English translation in 1959.
• Pöyhönen, S. 2017, “Value of Cognitive Diversity in Science”, Synthese , 194(11): 4519–4540. doi:10.1007/s11229–016-1147-4
• Pulte, H. 2019, “‘‘Tis Much Better to Do a Little with Certainty’: On the Reception of Newton’s Methodology”, in The Reception of Isaac Newton in Europe , Pulte, H, and Mandelbrote, S. (eds.), Continuum Publishing Corporation, 355–84.
• Reichenbach, H., 1938, Experience and Prediction. An Analysis of the Foundations and the Structure of Knowledge , Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Richardson, A., 2006, “Freedom in a Scientific Society: Reading the Context of Reichenbach’s Contexts”, in J. Schickore and F. Steinle (eds.), Revisiting Discovery and Justification. Historical and Philosophical Perspectives on the Context Distinction , Dordrecht: Springer, 41–54.
• Russell, S. 2021, “Human-Compatible Artificial Intelligence”, in Human Like Machine Intelligence , Muggleton, S. and Charter, N. (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 4–23
• Schaffer, S., 1986, “Scientific Discoveries and the End of Natural Philosophy”, Social Studies of Science , 16: 387–420.
• –––, 1994, “Making Up Discovery”, in M.A. Boden (ed.), Dimensions of Creativity , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 13–51.
• Schaffner, K., 1993, Discovery and Explanation in Biology and Medicine , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• –––, 2008 “Theories, Models, and Equations in Biology: The Heuristic Search for Emergent Simplifications in Neurobiology”, Philosophy of Science , 75: 1008–21.
• Schickore, J. and F. Steinle, 2006, Revisiting Discovery and Justification. Historical and Philosophical Perspectives on the Context Distinction , Dordrecht: Springer.
• Schiller, F.C.S., 1917, “Scientific Discovery and Logical Proof”, in C.J. Singer (ed.), Studies in the History and Method of Science (Volume 1), Oxford: Clarendon, 235–89.
• Simon, H.A., 1973, “Does Scientific Discovery Have a Logic?”, Philosophy of Science , 40: 471–80.
• –––, 1977, Models of Discovery and Other Topics in the Methods of Science , Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
• Simon, H.A., P.W. Langley, and G.L. Bradshaw, 1981, “Scientific Discovery as Problem Solving”, Synthese , 47: 1–28.
• Smith, G.E., 2002, “The Methodology of the Principia ”, in G.E. Smith and I.B. Cohen (eds), The Cambridge Companion to Newton , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 138–73.
• Simonton, D. K., “Hierarchies of Creative Domains: Disciplinary Constraints on Blind Variation and Selective Retention”, in Paul, E. S. and Kaufman, S. B. (eds), The Philosophy of Creativity: New Essays , New York: Oxford Academic online edn. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199836963.003.0013
• Snyder, L.J., 1997, “Discoverers’ Induction”, Philosophy of Science , 64: 580–604.
• Solomon, M., 2009, “Standpoint and Creativity”, Hypatia : 226–37.
• Sternberg, R J. and T. I. Lubart, 1999, “The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms,” in R. J. Sternberg (ed.) Handbook of Creativity , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3–15.
• Stokes, D., 2011, “Minimally Creative Thought”, Metaphilosophy , 42: 658–81.
• Tamaddoni-Nezhad, A., Bohan, D., Afroozi Milani, G., Raybould, A., Muggleton, S., 2021, “Human–Machine Scientific Discovery”, in Human Like Machine Intelligence , Muggleton, S. and Charter, N., (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 297–315
• Thagard, P., 1984, “Conceptual Combination and Scientific Discovery”, PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , 1984(1): 3–12.
• –––, 1999, How Scientists Explain Disease , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• –––, 2010, “How Brains Make Mental Models”, in L. Magnani, N.J. Nersessian and P. Thagard (eds.), Model-Based Reasoning in Science & Technology , Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer, 447–61.
• –––, 2012, The Cognitive Science of Science , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Thagard, P. and Stewart, T. C., 2011, “The AHA! Experience: Creativity Through Emergent Binding in Neural Networks”, Cognitive Science , 35: 1–33.
• Thoma, Johanna, 2015, “The Epistemic Division of Labor Revisited”, Philosophy of Science , 82: 454–472. doi:10.1086/681768
• Weber, M., 2005, Philosophy of Experimental Biology , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Whewell, W., 1996 [1840], The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences (Volume II), London: Routledge/Thoemmes.
• Weisberg, M. and Muldoon, R., 2009, “Epistemic Landscapes and the Division of Cognitive Labor”, Philosophy of Science , 76: 225–252. doi:10.1086/644786
• Williams, K. et al. 2015, “Cheaper Faster Drug Development Validated by the Repositioning of Drugs against Neglected Tropical Diseases”, Journal of the Royal Society Interface 12: 20141289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2014.1289.
• Zahar, E., 1983, “Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Invention?”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science , 34: 243–61.
• Zednik, C. and Jäkel, F. 2016 “Bayesian Reverse-Engineering Considered as a Research Strategy for Cognitive Science”, Synthese , 193, 3951–3985.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

[Please contact the author with suggestions.]

abduction | analogy and analogical reasoning | cognitive science | epistemology: social | knowledge: analysis of | Kuhn, Thomas | models in science | Newton, Isaac: Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica | Popper, Karl | rationality: historicist theories of | scientific method | scientific research and big data | Whewell, William

Copyright © 2022 by Jutta Schickore < jschicko @ indiana . edu >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

20 inventions that changed the world

From the wheel 5,500 years ago to the birth control pill, these 20 inventions had huge ramifications and have helped humans shape the world around us.

2. Printing press

3. penicillin, 5. light bulb, 6. telephone, 7. internal combustion engine, 8. contraceptives, 9. internet, 11. use of fire, 12. concrete, 13. magnifying glass, 14. batteries, 15. marine chronometer, 16. airplane, 17. refrigerator, 18. nuclear energy, 19. vaccines.

Humans are naturally curious and creative, two traits that have led our species to many scientific and technological breakthroughs. Since our earliest ancestors bashed a rock on the ground to make the first sharp-edged tool, humans have continued to innovate. From the debut of the wheel to the launch of Mars rovers, several of these key advancements stand out as especially revolutionary. Some inventions are thanks to one eureka moment, but most of our most pioneering inventions were the work of several innovative thinkers who made incremental improvements over many years. Here, we explore 20 of the most important inventions of all time, along with the science behind the inventions and how they came about.

Before the invention of the wheel in 3500 B.C., humans were severely limited in how much stuff we could transport over land, and how far. The wheel itself wasn't the most difficult part of "inventing the wheel." When it came time to connect a non-moving platform to that rolling cylinder, things got tricky, according to David Anthony, an emeritus professor of anthropology at Hartwick College.

"The stroke of brilliance was the wheel-and-axle concept," Anthony previously told Live Science . "But then making it was also difficult." For instance, the holes at the center of the wheels and the ends of the fixed axles had to be nearly perfectly round and smooth, he said. The size of the axle was also a critical factor, as was its snugness inside the hole (not too tight, but not too loose, either).

The hard work paid off, big time. Wheeled carts facilitated agriculture and commerce by enabling the transportation of goods to and from markets, as well as easing the burdens of people travelling great distances. Now, wheels are vital to our way of life, found in everything from clocks to vehicles to turbines.

David Anthony is professor emeritus and curator emeritus of anthropology at Hartwick College in Oneonta, New York. He has done extensive archaeological fieldwork in Ukraine, Russia and Kazakhstan. Anthony is the author of "The Horse, the Wheel, and Language" (Princeton, 2007) and has co-authored studies including the finding that humans first rode horses 5,000 years ago .

German inventor Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press sometime between 1440 and 1450. Key to its development was the hand mold, a new molding technique that enabled the rapid creation of large quantities of metal movable type. Though others before him — including inventors in China and Korea — had developed movable type made from metal, Gutenberg was the first to create a mechanized process that transferred the ink (which he made from linseed oil and soot) from the movable type to paper.

With this movable type process, printing presses exponentially increased the speed with which book copies could be made, and thus they led to the rapid and widespread dissemination of knowledge for the first time in history. In her book “ The Printing Revolution in Early Modern Europe ” (Cambridge University Press, 2012), late historian Elizabeth L. Eisenstein wrote, “printers’ workshops would be found in every important municipal center by 1500.”  It has been estimated that up to twenty million volumes had been printed in Western Europe by 1500, although Eisenstein estimates that it was around eight million.

Among other things, the printing press permitted wider access to the Bible, which in turn led to alternative interpretations, including that of Martin Luther, whose "95 Theses" a document printed by the hundred-thousand sparked the Protestant Reformation.

It's one of the most famous discovery stories in history. In 1928, the Scottish scientist Alexander Fleming noticed a bacteria-filled Petri dish in his laboratory with its lid accidentally ajar. The sample had become contaminated with a mold, and everywhere the mold was, the bacteria was dead. That antibiotic mold turned out to be the fungus Penicillium, and over the next two decades, chemists purified it and developed the drug penicillin , which fights a huge number of bacterial infections in humans without harming the humans themselves.

Penicillin was being mass-produced and advertised by 1944. This poster attached to a curbside mailbox advised World War II servicemen to take the drug to rid themselves of venereal disease.

About 1 in 10 people have an allergic reaction to the antibiotic , according to a study published in 2003 in the journal Clinical Reviews in Allergy and Immunology. Even so, most of those people go on to be able to tolerate the drug, researchers said.

Related: What causes allergies?

Ancient mariners used the stars for navigation, but this method didn’t work during the day or on cloudy nights, making it dangerous to travel far from land. 

The first compass was invented in China during the Han dynasty between the 2nd Century B.C. and 1st Century A.D.; it was made of lodestone, a naturally-magnetized iron ore, the attractive properties of which they had been studying for centuries. However, it was used for navigation for the first time during the Song Dynasty, between the 11th and 12th centuries,

Soon after, the technology to the West through nautical contact. The compass enabled mariners to navigate safely far from land, opening up the world for exploration and the subsequent development of global trade. An instrument still widely used today, the compass has transformed our knowledge and understanding of the Earth forever.

The invention of the light bulb transformed our world by removing our dependence on natural light, allowing us to be productive at any time, day or night.  Several inventors were instrumental in developing this revolutionary technology throughout the 1800s; Thomas Edison is credited as the primary inventor because he created a completely functional lighting system, including a generator and wiring as well as a carbon-filament bulb like the one above, in 1879.

As well as initiating the introduction of electricity in homes throughout the Western world, this invention also had a rather unexpected consequence of changing people's sleep patterns . Instead of going to bed at nightfall (having nothing else to do) and sleeping in segments throughout the night separated by periods of wakefulness, we now stay up except for the 7 to 8 hours allotted for sleep, and, ideally, we sleep all in one go.

Several inventors did pioneering work on electronic voice transmission — many of whom later filed intellectual property lawsuits when telephone use exploded — but it was Scottish inventor Alexander Graham Bell who was the first to be awarded a patent for the electric telephone on March 7, 1876 (his patent drawing is pictured above). Three days later, Bell made the first telephone call to his assistant, Thomas Watson, saying "Mr Watson, come here — I want to see you," according to author A. Edward Evenson in his book, “ The Telephone Patent Conspiracy of 1876: The Elisha Gray-Alexander Bell Controversy and Its Many Players ” (McFarland, 2015).

Bell’s inspiration for the telephone was influenced by his family. His father taught speech elocution and specialized in teaching the deaf speak, his mother, an accomplished musician, lost her hearing in later life and his wife Mabel, who he married in 1877, had been deaf since the age of five, according to Evenson. The invention quickly took off and revolutionized global business and communication. When Bell died on Aug. 2, 1922, all telephone service in the United States and Canada was stopped for one minute to honor him.

In these engines, the combustion of fuel releases a high-temperature gas, which, as it expands, applies a force to a piston, moving it. Thus, combustion engines convert chemical energy into mechanical work. Decades of engineering by many scientists went into designing the internal combustion engine, which took its (essentially) modern form in the latter half of the 19th century. The engine ushered in the Industrial Age, as well as enabling the invention of a huge variety of machines, including modern cars and aircraft.

Pictured are the operating steps of a four-stroke internal combustion engine. The strokes are as follows: 1) Intake stroke — air and vaporised fuel are drawn in. 2) Compression stroke - fuel vapor and air are compressed and ignited. 3) Power stroke — fuel combusts and the piston is pushed downwards, powering the machine. 4) Exhaust stroke — exhaust is driven out.

Not only have birth control pills, condoms and other forms of contraception sparked a sexual revolution in the developed world by allowing men and women to have sex for leisure rather than procreation, they have also drastically reduced the average number of offspring per woman in countries where they are used. With fewer mouths to feed, modern families have achieved higher standards of living and can provide better for each child. Meanwhile, on the global scale, contraceptives are helping the human population gradually level off; our number will probably stabilize by the end of the century. Certain contraceptives, such as condoms, also curb the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.

Natural and herbal contraception has been used for millennia. Condoms or ‘sheaths’ have existed in one form or another since ancient times, according to scholar Jessica Borge in her book “ Protective Practices: A History of the London Rubber Company and the Condom Business ” (McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2020), with the rubber condom developed in the 19th century. Meanwhile, the FDA approved the first oral contraceptive pill in the United States in 1960 and by 1965, more than 6.5 million American women were on the pill, according to author Jonathan Eig in his book, “The Birth of the Pill: How Four Pioneers Reinvented Sex and Launched a Revolution” (W. W. Norton & Company, 2015).  

Scientists are continuing to make advancements in birth control, with some labs even pursuing a male form of "the pill." A permanent birth-control implant called Essure was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2002, though in 2016, the FDA warned the implant would need stronger warnings to tell users about serious risks of using Essure. 

Related: 7 surprising facts about the pill

The internet is a global system of interconnected computer networks that is used by billions of people worldwide. In the 1960s, a team of computer scientists working for the U.S. Defense Department's ARPA (Advanced Research Projects Agency) built a communications network to connect the computers in the agency, called ARPANET, the predecessor of the internet. It used a method of data transmission called "packet switching", developed by computer scientist and team member Lawrence Roberts, based on prior work of other computer scientists. 

This technology was progressed in the 1970s by scientists Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf, who developed the crucial communication protocols for the internet, the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) and the Internet Protocol (IP), according to computer scientist Harry R. Lewis in his book “ Ideas That Created the Future: Classic Papers of Computer Science ” (MIT Press, 2021). For this, Kahn and Cerf are often credited as inventors of the internet”.

In 1989, the internet evolved further thanks to the invention of the World Wide Web by computer scientist Tim Berners-Lee while working at CERN (The European Organization for Nuclear Research). According to CERN , "the basic idea of the WWW was to merge the evolving technologies of computers, data networks and hypertext into a powerful and easy to use global information system." The development of the WWW opened up the world of the internet to everybody and connected the world in a way that it had never been before.  

Related: Inventor of World Wide Web snags computer science's top prize

This key invention dates back more than 2,000 years to the Ancient Roman period and became possible only after humans developed the ability to cast and shape metal. Previously, wood structures had to be built by interlocking adjacent boards geometrically a much more arduous construction process.

Until the 1790s and early 1800s, hand-wrought nails were the norm, with a blacksmith heating a square iron rod and then hammering it on four sides to create a point, according to the University of Vermont . Nail-making machines came online between the 1790s and the early 1800s. Technology for crafting nails continued to advance; After Henry Bessemer developed a process to mass-produce steel from iron, the iron nails of yesteryear slowly waned and by 1886, 10 percent of U.S. nails were created from soft steel wire, according to the University of Vermont. By 1913, 90 percent of nails produced in the U.S. were steel wire.

Meanwhile, the invention of the screw - a stronger but harder-to-insert fastener -  is usually ascribed to the Greek scholar Archimedes in the third century B.C., but was probably invented by the Pythagorean philosopher Archytas of Tarentum, according to David Blockley in his book “ Engineering: A Very Short Introduction ” (Oxford University Press, 2012).

The use of fire is one of humankind's most powerful early inventions and radically changed the way our ancient ancestors lived. Offering warmth and the ability to cook foods such as meat, the campfire was also a social gathering place. Fire also provided some protection against predators. 

The exact date fire was discovered has long remained a mystery, with some studies suggesting it was first used by hominins in Kenya 1 million years ago to cook meat. Other evidence suggests that Neanderthals in Europe and Asia harnessed fire , while Homo sapiens evolving in Africa mastered the skill of creating fire. More recently, archaeologists in Israel found evidence of hominin fire use dating to 1.5 million to 2 million years ago.

Ancient Romans are credited as one of the first societies to use concrete in architecture, with Roman bathhouses and iconic sites such as the Colosseumand Pantheon dome constructed using concrete mixed with volcanic ash, lime, and seawater. Incredibly, many of these ancient buildings are not only standing, but remain in good condition some 2,000 years later — a testament to the longevity of Roman concrete . However, the ancient Egyptians used a crude form of concrete in their buildings much earlier in 3000 B.C., employing forms of concrete mixed with ash and salt water to create mortar. One study concluded that parts of the Great Pyramids of Giza might have been built using concrete . Concrete is strong in compression but breaks easily in tension, so the invention of reinforced steel-concrete toward the end of the 19th century in France, which lends concrete some of steel's tensile strength, enabled concrete to be used more widely in construction.

Franciscan friar and Oxford University scholar Roger Bacon first developed the magnifying glass in 1268. Sometimes dubbed "Britain's first scientist,"' Bacon's magnifying glass built on research by Muslim scholars .

However, the use of optical tools dates back much further. Evidence suggests that as early as 700 B.C., people in ancient Egypt noticed that they could look through crystals to improve vision.

The first battery dates back to 1800, when Italian physicist Alessandro Volta wrapped stacked discs of copper and zinc in a cloth, submerged it in salty water and discovered that it conducted energy. In 1802, Scottish professor William Cruickshank invented a variation of Volta's design known as the trough battery , which consisted of 50 discs of copper and zinc in a wooden box filled with a salt solution to conduct energy. However, it was French physicist Gaston Planté who invented the first practically used battery, in 1859. Modern variations on Planté's rechargeable lead-acid battery are still used in cars today.

The 15th century marked the beginning of the great voyages of discovery by adventurers and sea merchants and the development of a global ocean trade network . Trading vessels carried highly prized silk, spices, salt, wine and tea across often-treacherous seas for months on end. After the loss of four ships at sea in the Scilly naval disaster of 1707 , seafarers realized they needed an accurate way to determine longitude when out of sight of land.

In 1714, the British parliament offered a prize of 20,000 pounds to anyone who could solve the problem. Carpenter John Harrison won the bounty in 1735 with his marine chronometer. What is perhaps even more remarkable is that Harrison was a self-taught clockmaker. His ingenious timekeeping device was powered by the rocking motion of the ship rather than by gravity and could be used by sailors to accurately calculate longitude at sea.

The ability for humans to fly has captured the imagination of inventors for centuries, with the first human-operated flight taking place in 1783 when Joseph-Michael and Jacques-Ètienne Montgolfier took to the skies in a hot air balloon. In 1853 British engineer George Cayley designed the first glider to successfully take flight, but it wasn’t until 1903 that Orville and Wilbur Wright's plane became the first airplane to have a successful voyage. It not only took off from Kitty Hawk, North Carolina using its own power; it flew and landed without destruction, unlike many earlier aircraft inventions. The Wright brothers were inspired by watching' birds in flight. The glider took a page from birds' wings but had a 32-foot (10 meters) wingspan.

Refrigeration in some form has been around for thousands of years. Depending on the climate, ice or cold water was used to keep food cold in ancient times. But artificial refrigeration didn't come until 1748, when the physician William Cullen  first demonstrated evaporative cooling. Further breakthroughs came in 1834, when a vapor-compression system was developed by American engineer Jacob Perkins . In 1876, German engineer Carl von Linde came up with a process of liquifying the gas, ushering in the era of commercial refrigeration. In 1913, American engineer Fred Wolf invented the first domestic refrigerator , and as demand for fresh produce grew, so did the number of households with refrigerators.

Nuclear energy was first discovered in the 1930s by Italian physicist Enrico Fermi , who found that bombarding atoms with neutrons could split them, generating huge amounts of energy. He went on to develop the first nuclear chain reaction at the University of Chicago. This successful experiment led to the development of several nuclear plants in the 1950s, with Idaho launching the first nuclear plant in 1951 with electricity produced from atomic energy at its Experimental Breeder Reactor I site. Obninsk in the former Soviet Union became the first grid-connected nuclear power plant in the world in 1954, while Shippingport nuclear plant, Pennsylvania became the first commercial nuclear plant in 1957.

Nuclear power remains widely used around the world today, generating approximately 10% of global energy .

One problem is that existing nuclear power plants use fission to split atoms, and this produces radioactive substances that take ages to decay. And the risks of nuclear disasters, such as those at Chernobyl and the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power plant, highlight the challenges of fission-based nuclear power.

So scientists are working to create usable nuclear fusion reactors, which could theoretically generate clean, limitless energy. In 2022, scientists reported a minor breakthrough: a fusion reactor that generated more energy than was put into it. However, we're still a long way from a usable fusion reactor , experts say.

The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that approximately 2 million to 3 million lives are saved annually thanks to vaccinations against contagious diseases such as diphtheria, tetanus and measles.

The earliest rudimentary vaccination is thought to date back to the 10th century in China, when people inoculated small scratches in the skin with small doses of smallpox to provide protection against the disease. But in 1796, English physician Edward Jenner discovered that milkmaids rarely caught or died of smallpox because they were previously infected by the cowpox virus , also called Vaccinia. So he used cowpox to develop a smallpox vaccine. He inoculated an 8-year-old boy with cowpox and then with smallpox, and the boy never caught the deadly scourge. Jenner's experiment led to the creation of a smallpox vaccine and his work is regarded as the start of immunology. In 1980, smallpox was declared officially eradicated by WHO. But scientists continue to develop new life-saving vaccines — most notably, the coronavirus vaccines that played a large role in combatting the pandemic .

Like many famous inventions, the X-ray was discovered by accident. In 1895, German engineer and physicist Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen was undertaking a two-month study into the potential of radiation. In an experiment testing whether cathode rays could pass through glass, he noticed that the radiation was able to pass through screens of considerable thickness, leaving a shadow of solid objects. He soon discovered that X-rays could pass through human tissues to show a clear picture of the skeleton and organs. A year later, a group of physicians took the earliest X-rays on patients . These observations led to the development of radiology as we know it today and has since helped medical professionals diagnose broken bones, tumors, organ failures and more.

Editor's Note: This story was updated to correct the location of Edison's lab. It was Menlo Park, New Jersey, not Menlo Park, California.

Sign up for the Live Science daily newsletter now

Get the world’s most fascinating discoveries delivered straight to your inbox.

Jessica is a former staff writer for History of Royals and All About History magazines. She has both a Bachelor and Master's degree in History from the University of Winchester , with dissertations on 'The Power of Dress' in the French court between the mid-sixteenth to eighteenth centuries, and 'Abdicating Queens': an analysis of the contemporary and modern images of Juana la Loca, Mary, Queen of Scots and Christina, Queen of Sweden.'

Hurry, 'arguably Panasonic’s greatest camera ever' is at its lowest price this year

One of our favorite Garmin watches is now half-price at Walmart — and it's an ideal running companion

'Gambling with your life': Experts weigh in on dangers of the Wim Hof method

Most Popular

By Jamie Carter January 01, 2024

By Keumars Afifi-Sabet December 31, 2023

By Brandon Specktor December 29, 2023

By Keumars Afifi-Sabet December 29, 2023

By Laura Geggel December 28, 2023

By Sascha Pare December 28, 2023

By Annie Corinne Shaink December 27, 2023

By Harry Baker December 27, 2023

By Harry Baker December 26, 2023

By Elise Poore December 25, 2023

By Jennifer Nalewicki December 25, 2023

• 2 Error-corrected qubits 800 times more reliable after breakthrough, paving the way for 'next level' of quantum computing
• 3 Early humans lived on 'Persian plateau' for 20,000 years after leaving Africa, study suggests
• 4 1,700-year-old Roman fort discovered in Germany was built to keep out barbarians
• 5 Why NASA is launching 3 rockets into the solar eclipse next week
• 2 Early humans lived on 'Persian plateau' for 20,000 years after leaving Africa, study suggests
• 3 'It's had 1.1 billion years to accumulate': Helium reservoir in Minnesota has 'mind-bogglingly large' concentrations
• 4 Bite from toilet rat hospitalizes man in Canada

Scientific Thought Through the History Essay

Scientific revolution.

The scientific revolution was a period of integration of new ideas into the reason of nature. The period saw significant scientific changes in astronomy, human anatomy, physics, and chemistry. Questions of reason on matters of nature by the brilliant minds characterized this period.

Ideas by Rene Descartes, Francis Bacon, and Galileo contributed significantly to the scientific revolution (Boyer 45). Descartes contribution to philosophy and mathematics is evident in the scientific field. He developed the Cartesian system of coordinates and analytical geometry.

He is famous for several French philosophical theses. Francis Bacon developed procedural science. His Baconian method is widely used in scientific investigation in modern society. Galileo contributed to a variety of fields notably, physics, astronomy, and mathematics.

He improved the telescope, discovered the Jupiter’s satellites, and developed the basis for kinematics and the mathematical application in experimental physics (David 32).

Enlightenment

Before the revolution, the world believed that God metaphysically controlled the universe. To change this perception, great thinkers formed a movement known as ‘Enlightenment.’ Its goal was to encourage people to use science to understand nature.

It boosted people’s reconsideration into the old forms of governance such as primogeniture and feudalism. These great thinkers believed that ‘reason’ in the human capability could combat tyranny, ignorance, and superstition and consequently create a better world.

In America, the enlightenment of the leaders led to revolution. The democratic constitution in America was a result of enlightenment among leaders. Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, and Washington are some of the distinguished American revolutionists whom enlightenment inspired.

In France, Voltaire and colleagues struggled to enlighten the society that strongly held the culture of church and monarchy. d’Alembert, Montesquieu, and Pierre were some of the ‘rebellious’ who supported Voltaire in the campaign for freedom of the human mind.

Enlightenment in France led to a philosophical revolution and reign of terror (John 98).

Voltaire and Enlightenment

Voltaire was a French thinker who spread the teaching of enlightenment across Europe. Since people believed in Christianity and monarchy, they explicitly had no right to question nature or their governments. It was fatal to oppose the church and monarchy.

To free the people from this culture, Voltaire skillfully used the controversies by the Protestantism in Christianity. Historians argue that Voltaire contradicted the teachings of Protestants and Catholics to support his assertions.

Voltaire devoted considerable time in attacking the fundamentals of Christianity to undermine the credibility of the church.

This influenced other thinkers in France such as Pierre Bayle and Jean d’ Alembert who joined Voltaire in his bid to topple the power of the church for the freedom of the people (Biagioli 65).

Rousseau and his ideas

Geneva-born citizen, Rousseau was a Romanticism composer of the 18th century, great philosopher, and candid writer whose works influenced the American and the French revolutions.

To a larger extent, Rousseau contributed to the growth of sociological, educational and political thought in modern society. In the philosophical theory of nature of human, he wrote that morality was natural; not a societal construct.

He further noted that ferocity characterized human actions in their natural state. The human can only achieve self-restraint through civil education. In political theory, he argued that the adoption of law within the natural setting of the society degenerated the societal phase.

Although he posited that, the rule of law should be at the hands of the public, Rousseau was opposed to a representative of the people through the assembly. He proposed a republican government similar to Geneva. To him, education should train man how to reason (Cooper 108).

John Locke; How does his empiricism differ from rationalism?

John Locke was an English physician and philosopher whom scholars widely considered as the ‘Liberalism Father’ and an empiricist.

His works in philosophy significantly influenced the development of politics and epistemology, to greater extends he influenced Voltaire and Rousseau in their works of enlightenment.

Historians attribute American independence to his influence. Rationalism theory holds that human beings innately understand the logistics of life-right and wrong.

On the contrary, Locke’s theory of empiricism stated that experience shapes mind, tabula rasa, which according to Locke is an empty cabinet.

In the formulation of this theory, Locke asserted that human development from childhood to adulthood provided for more comprehension of the logic of nature. He further posited that education is very important for the development of the mind (Delanty 80).

Deism religious ideas

Deism was the position held by the great thinkers in the 17th century about God’s control over nature. Deism included un-Christians and anti-Christians. They had several ideas that contradicted the teachings about God and nature.

First, some deists believed in the existence of God, His creation and control over the universe. They believed that human could reason that God gave objectively. Humans were supposed to use this reasoning to explore nature and appreciate the beauty of God.

Secondly, others never believed in books such as the Bible and rejected the mysterious religion. According to these deists, religion confined the freedom of human thought.

They argued that the functions of nature occurred as per the ‘nature laws’ rather than God’s metaphysical control. Finally, deists believed in reason as the end for justification. They denounced the religious assertion that God is the ultimate judge of nature (Guy 123).

Causes of the French Revolution and the reign of terror

First, the Kingship lacked the knowledge of the commons. The people’s need for people-oriented leadership resulted in revolts. Secondly, King Louis XVI did not offer a participative form of leadership. He never consulted the states-general assembly.

Consequently, people revolted to create a participative decision-making system. Thirdly, the Kings were very powerful such that critics could not question their decisions. Other factors include enlightenment and human mistreatment.

Killings and torture marred the period of revolution in France, especially to those who were in power. For instance, they beheaded King Louis XVI in 1793 together with his family.

The influence of deism resulted in the persecution of Christians and the clergy with the closure of most churches in France. Historians have remarkably named this period as ‘reign of terror’ (Cooper 135).

Distinguishing the terms

Nationalism is a form of governance that strongly emphasizes collective involvement, loyalty, and obedience to one superior state. Historians claim that Gottfried coined the term with France and America the first states to use it after revolutions of the 1770s.

The Conservatism is a philosophy; sociological and political that promotes, supports, and maintains the customs of a society. Conservatism reluctantly supports minimum or no changes within society. This philosophy emerged in Europe in the 1660s that supported the monarchical divine right rule.

Socialism advocates for the equitable allocation of resources and power among all the members of the society.

The system aims in the reduction of bureaucracy and the promotion of adhocracy. Scholars used this term in the 18th century in their activism for rationalization of equality and opposition to capitalism.

Liberalism is a political and economic belief in freedom and equal rights within society. It advocates for democracy, free political competition, and a constitution. The Revolutionists in France and America used this philosophy to justify their armed overthrow of the autocratic rule in the 18th century (Guy 68).

How did Germany become a unified nation?

Until 1862, before Otto VonBismarck took the Prussian chancellor position, Germany states widespread as discrete units or traditionally controlled by Germany empires. When Bismarck took over, the majority of Germans held sentiments in favor of unification of these states.

Loyal he was, Bismarck initiated strategies to unify Germany. He invested in the army for preparation of conquest and reclamation of the Germany territories. In the German-Danish war of 1864, Bismarck emerged victoriously and acquired Lauenburg and Schleswig states.

In 1866, Bismarck defeated Austria, and Austria withdrew from the Confederation of Germany and ceded Holstein to Bismarck.

In 1867, Bismarck annexed Hannover, Hessen-Kassel, Frankfurt city and Nassau while the same year, north German established a confederation in which states from French Emperor joined in favor of Bismarck.

Since this angered the Napoleon III, Franco-German war broke from which Bismarck acquired Alsace-Lorraine in support of Southern states of German and Bavarian troops.

Having acquired several states, Germany’s princess formed the Empire of Germany in 1871, a federation of states (Whitfield 145).

Causes of European Imperialism

The 19th century saw the rapid expansion of most European countries in population growth. To explore new areas for the accommodation of their excess population, most of these countries opted to colonize other continents.

The economic constraint of the excess community motivated these nations to colonize other areas to control economic resources and feed their populations. Industrialization in Europe dictated for cheap labor, which was readily available in other countries.

To express their political supremacies, Europeans nations colonized other nations of the world. Historians argue that the more the colonies a government-owned, the powerful the nation.

The rivalries during WW II among countries such as France and Britain extended to the colonization of other nations. These nations struggled to possess the world and spread their political ideologies (Christian 24).

Works cited

Biagioli, Mario. Galileo, Courtier: The Practice of Science in the Culture of Absolutism , 1993. Web.

Boyer, Carl. A History of Mathematics . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985. Print

Christian, Henriot. New Frontiers: Imperialism’s New Communities in East Asia, 1842- 1953 , 2000. Web.

Cooper, Lane. Aristotle, Galileo, and the Tower of Pisa, 1935. Web.

David, Eugene. A Source Book in Mathematics , 1929. Web.

Delanty, Gerard. The Sage Handbook of Nations and Nationalism . London: Sage Publications, 2006. Print.

Guy, Ankerl. Beyond Monopoly Capitalism and Monopoly Socialism , Cambridge MA: Schenkman, 1978.

John Farrell. The Science of Suspicion-” Paranoia and Modernity: Cervantes to Rousseau” . Cornell UP, 2006. Print.

Whitfield, Bob. Germany, 1848-1914 Heinemann Advanced History Series, 2000. Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, March 1). Scientific Thought Through the History. https://ivypanda.com/essays/scientific-revolution/

"Scientific Thought Through the History." IvyPanda , 1 Mar. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/scientific-revolution/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'Scientific Thought Through the History'. 1 March.

IvyPanda . 2024. "Scientific Thought Through the History." March 1, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/scientific-revolution/.

1. IvyPanda . "Scientific Thought Through the History." March 1, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/scientific-revolution/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Scientific Thought Through the History." March 1, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/scientific-revolution/.

• Deism: The Child of the Renaissance
• Otto von Bismarck: Life and Significance
• The Views on Deism by David Hume, John Locke and Thomas Paine
• The History of Europe: Bismarck’s Goals and Strategy After 1871
• Moralistic Therapeutic Deism
• Napoleon, Metternich, and Bismarck: The Great Historical Figures
• Seven Weeks’ War Through the Lens of Clausewitz’s Paradoxical Trinity Concept
• War and Diplomacy in the Politics of a Nation
• Nationalism's Opposing Meanings
• Analysis of the Main Galileo’s Affair
• Concepts of the Penal Laws: The Popery Acts 1695-1756
• America and Britain Strategies
• Expeditions of Europeans Sailors to New Lands
• Features of World Dominance in 1500 and 1800 Years
• Cortes and Machiavelli’s Type of Conquest

Essay on Invention of Science

Students are often asked to write an essay on Invention of Science in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Invention of Science

The birth of science.

Science was not invented overnight. It developed from the curiosity of early humans about the world around them. They began to observe, question, and experiment, leading to the birth of science.

The Importance of Science

Science is crucial because it helps us understand the universe. It enables us to predict weather, cure diseases, and invent technologies. Without science, we would still be living in the Stone Age.

Science Today

Today, science is more important than ever. It’s at the forefront in tackling global challenges like climate change, pandemics, and food scarcity. It’s our hope for a better future.

250 Words Essay on Invention of Science

The genesis of science.

The invention of science can be traced back to the dawn of civilization when humans first began to observe and question their surroundings. This was not science in its modern form, but the rudimentary beginnings of a systematic approach to understanding the world.

Science: A Product of Curiosity

Science, as we know it, is the embodiment of human curiosity. It’s the result of our relentless quest to comprehend the universe, from the minutiae of atomic particles to the vast expanse of the cosmos. The invention of science isn’t attributable to a single moment or individual but is a collective endeavor over millennia.

The Scientific Revolution

The true invention of the scientific method, however, can be pinned to the period known as the Scientific Revolution. This era, spanning the 16th to 18th centuries, witnessed great minds like Galileo, Kepler, and Newton revolutionizing the way we perceive and interact with our world.

Science in the Modern Era

Today, science is an ever-evolving field, with new discoveries and theories constantly pushing the boundaries of our knowledge. The invention of science has led to remarkable advancements in technology, medicine, and environmental studies, among other fields.

In conclusion, the invention of science is not a singular event but an ongoing process fueled by human curiosity and the desire to understand our universe. It is a testament to our species’ ability to question, explore, and innovate, shaping the trajectory of human progress.

500 Words Essay on Invention of Science

Science, as we know it, is a cumulative, collaborative, and progressive endeavor. Its origins trace back to ancient civilizations, where early forms of scientific thinking were embedded in philosophical inquiries about the natural world. The ancient Greeks, for instance, were among the first to use logical reasoning to understand the world around them, laying the groundwork for modern science.

The Evolution of Scientific Disciplines

Over centuries, science evolved into distinct disciplines. The Scientific Revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries marked a pivotal period. This era saw the birth of empirical science, with pioneers like Galileo and Newton revolutionizing the way we perceive the universe. Their work in physics and astronomy, grounded in empirical evidence and mathematical reasoning, set the stage for the science we know today.

The Role of Technology in Scientific Advancements

The development of technology played a crucial role in scientific advancements. The invention of the microscope and telescope, for instance, expanded our understanding of the microscopic and macroscopic worlds. The advent of computers and digital technology has further propelled scientific research, enabling complex simulations, data analysis, and the exploration of theoretical concepts.

The Impact of Science on Society

Science has had profound impacts on society, driving technological innovations and shaping our understanding of the world. Medical advancements, for instance, have improved health outcomes and increased life expectancy. The development of renewable energy technologies, driven by our understanding of climate science, is paving the way towards a sustainable future.

The Ethical Implications of Scientific Inventions

While scientific inventions have brought about significant benefits, they also raise ethical considerations. The development of nuclear technology, for example, has both peaceful applications, such as energy generation, and destructive potential in the form of nuclear weapons. Biotechnological advancements, such as genetic engineering, also pose ethical questions about the boundaries of human intervention in nature.

In conclusion, the invention of science is not a singular event, but a continuous process of discovery, experimentation, and understanding. The evolution of science has been shaped by technological advancements and societal needs, and in turn, has significantly impacted society. As we continue to push the boundaries of scientific knowledge, it is crucial to consider the ethical implications of scientific inventions, ensuring that they are used for the betterment of humanity.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Importance of Science
• Essay on How Science Should Be Taught
• Essay on Science

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

To log in and use all the features of Khan Academy, please enable JavaScript in your browser.

World History Project - 1750 to the Present

Course: world history project - 1750 to the present   >   unit 3.

• BEFORE YOU WATCH: Origins of the Industrial Revolution
• WATCH: Origins of the Industrial Revolution
• READ: Scale of the Industrial Revolution

READ: The Scientific Revolution

• READ: The Industrial Revolution
• BEFORE YOU WATCH: Coal, Steam, and the Industrial Revolution
• WATCH: Coal, Steam, and the Industrial Revolution
• Origins of the Industrial Revolution

First read: preview and skimming for gist

Second read: key ideas and understanding content.

• What is the usual story of the Scientific Revolution?
• How does the author challenge the usual story of the Scientific Revolution?
• Who participated in the Scientific Revolution?
• What were some negative social effects of the Scientific Revolution?
• Does the author think the Scientific Revolution caused the Industrial Revolution?

Third read: evaluating and corroborating

• You just read an article about scale and the Industrial Revolution. In that article, the author questioned whether the Industrial Revolution happened in Britain because of local or global factors. What do you think explains the emergence of the Scientific Revolution in Europe during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries? Was this the result of local or global processes?
• Using the networks frame, explain why the Scientific Revolution happened in Europe and how it might have led to the Industrial Revolution.

The Scientific Revolution

Was it revolutionary, was it european, whose revolution, did it cause the industrial revolution.

• The word other can refer to the otherness of marginalize people. Anyone not belonging to the most powerful or privileged class can be a type of “other” due to race, gender, religion, socio-economic status, etc.
• It’s hard to say exactly when people started thinking about race, but it’s definitely not a natural and ancient idea. Of course, people had a sense of others outside their community, who they often looked down upon, but that wasn’t the same as seeing people as different races. For Europeans in the medieval period, humans were sorted into Christians, Jews, and heathens.

Want to join the conversation?

• Upvote Button navigates to signup page
• Downvote Button navigates to signup page
• Flag Button navigates to signup page

Essay on Science in English for Children and Students

Table of Contents

Essay on Science in English: Science is a systematic and logical study of occurrences, events, happenings etc.

Fill Out the Form for Expert Academic Guidance!

Please indicate your interest Live Classes Books Test Series Self Learning

Verify OTP Code (required)

I agree to the terms and conditions and privacy policy .

Fill complete details

Target Exam ---

Science is the study that logically explains the round shape of earth; it explains the twinkling of stars; why light travels faster than sound; why hawk flies higher than a crow; why the sunflower turns to the sunlight etc. Science doesn’t provide supernatural explanations; rather it gives logical conclusion to every question. Science as a subject is extremely popular with students. It’s indeed an essential subject for aspirants who want to make their career in science and related fields.

Knowledge of science makes people more confident and well aware of their surroundings. One who knows science will not be scared of natural occurrences, knowing their origin and reason.

On the other hand science also plays a significant role in technological development of a nation and hence also in removing growth impediments like unemployment and illiteracy.

Long and Short Essay on Science in English

We have provided below short and long essay on science in English for your knowledge and information.

The essays have been wisely written to deliver to you the meaning and significance of science.

After going through the essays you will know what is science and its importance in our day to day life, also how science helps in the development of a country.

You can use these science essay in your school’s or college’s essay writing, debate or other similar competitions.

Science Essay 1 (200 words)

Science involves extensive study of the behaviour of natural and physical world. The study is conducted by way of research, observation and experimentation.

There are several branches of science. These include the natural sciences, social sciences and formal sciences. These broad categories have further been divided into sub categories and sub-sub categories. Physics, chemistry, biology earth science and astronomy form a part of the natural sciences, history, geography, economics, political science, sociology, psychology, social studies and anthropology are a part of the social sciences and formal sciences include mathematics, logic, statistics, decision theory, system theory and computer science.

Science has changed the world for good. There have been several scientific inventions from time to time and these have made life convenient for the human beings. Several of these inventions have become an integral part of our lives and we cannot imagine our lives without them.

Scientists worldwide continue to experiment and keep coming up with newer inventions every now and then with some of them bringing revolution worldwide. However, as useful as it is, science has also been misused by some, mainly by those in power, for fuelling an arms race and degrading the environment.

The ideologies of science and religion have not found any meeting ground. These seemingly contrasting ideas have given rise to several conflicts in the past and continue to do so.

Science Essay 2 (300 words)

Introduction

Science is a means to study, understand, analyze and experiment with the natural and physical aspects of the world and put them to use to come up with newer inventions that make life more convenient for the mankind. The observation and experimentation in the field of science is not limited to a particular aspect or idea; it is widespread.

Uses of Science

Almost everything we use in our daily lives is a gift of science. From cars to washing machines, from mobile phones to microwaves, from refrigerators to laptops – everything is an outcome of scientific experimentation. Here is how science impacts our everyday life:

Not just microwaves, grillers and refrigerators, gas stoves that are commonly used to prepare food are also a scientific invention.

• Medical Treatments

The treatment of several diseases and ailments has been made possible because of the advancement in science. Science thus promotes healthy living and has contributed in the increase of life span.

• Communication

Mobile phones and internet connections that have become an integral part of our lives these days are all inventions of science. These inventions have made communication easier and brought the world closer.

• Source of Energy

The discovery of atomic energy has given way to the invention and deployment of various forms of energies. Electricity is one of its main inventions and the way it impacts our everyday life is known to all.

• Variety of Food

The variety of food has also increased. Many fruits and vegetables are now available all through the year. You do not require waiting for a particular season to enjoy a specific food. The experimentations in the field of science have led to this change.

Science is thus a part of our everyday life. Our life would have been very different and difficult without the advancement in science. However, we cannot deny the fact that many scientific inventions have led to the degradation of the environment and have also caused numerous health problems for the mankind.

Science Essay 3 (400 words)

Science is basically divided into three broad branches. These include Natural Sciences, Social Sciences and Formal Sciences. These branches are further classified into sub-categories to study various aspects. Here is a detailed look at these categories and sub categories.

Branches of Science

• Natural Sciences

As the name suggests, this is the study of the natural phenomena. It studies how the world and universe works. Natural Science is further categorized into Physical Science and Life Science.

• a) Physical Science

Physical science includes the following sub categories:

• Physics: The study of properties of energy and matter.
• Chemistry: The study of substances of which matter is made.
• Astronomy: The study of the space and celestial bodies.
• Ecology: The study of relation of organisms with their physical surroundings as well as with each other.
• Geology: It deals with Earth’s physical structure and substance.
• Earth Science: The study of Earth’s physical constitution and its atmosphere.
• Oceanography: The study of biological and physical elements and phenomena of the sea.
• Meteorology: It deals with the processes of the atmosphere
• b) Life Science

The following sub categories form a part of the life science:

• Biology: The study of living organisms.
• Botany: The study of plant life.
• Zoology: The study of animal life.
• Social Sciences

This involves the study of the social pattern and human behaviour. It is further divided into various sub-categories. These include:

• History: The study of events occurred in the past
• Political Science: Study of systems of government and political activities.
• Geography: Study of Earth’s physical features and atmosphere.
• Social Studies: Study of human society.
• Sociology: Study of development and functioning of the society.
• Psychology: Study of human behaviour.
• Anthropology: Study of different aspects of humans within present and past societies.
• Economics: Study of production, consumption and circulation of wealth.
• Formal Sciences

It is that branch of science that studies formal systems such as mathematics and logic. It involves the following sub-categories:

• Mathematics: The study of numbers.
• Logic: The study of reasoning.
• Statistics: It deals with the analysis of numerical data.
• Decision Theory: Mathematical study to enhance decision making ability when it comes to profit and loss.
• Systems Theory: The study of abstract organization.
• Computer Science: The study of experimentation and engineering to form basis for designing and use of computers.

The experts in various branches of science have continually been studying the subject deeply and experimenting with different aspects to come up with newer theories, inventions and discoveries. These discoveries and inventions have made life easier for us; however, at the same time these have also made an irreversible damage to the environment as well as the living beings.

Science Essay 4 (500 words)

Science is the study of structure and behaviour of different physical and natural aspects. Scientists study these aspects, observe them thoroughly and experiment before coming to a conclusion. There have been several scientific discoveries and inventions in the past that have proved to be a boon for the mankind.

Concepts of Science and Religion

While a logical and systematic approach is followed in the field of science to come up with new ideas and inventions, religion, on the other hand, is purely based on belief system and faith. In science, a thorough observation, analysis and experimentation is done to derive a result whereas there is hardly any logic when it comes to religion. Their view of looking at things is thus completely different from one another.

Conflict between Science and Religion

Science and religion are often seen at loggerheads due to their conflicting views on certain things. Sadly, at times these conflicts lead to disturbance in the society and causes suffering to the innocent. Here are some of the major conflicts that have occurred between the advocates of religion and the believers of scientific methodologies.

• The Creation of World

Many conservative Christians believe that God created the world in six days sometime between 4004 and 8000 BCE. On the other hand, the cosmologists state that the universe is as old as around 13.7 billion years and that the Earth emerged around 4.5 billion years ago.

• Earth as the Centre of the Universe

This is one of the most famous conflicts. The Roman Catholic Church regarded Earth as the centre of the universe. As per them, the Sun, Moon, stars and other planets revolve around it. The conflict arose when famous Italian astronomer and mathematician, Galileo Galilei discovered the heliocentric system wherein the Sun forms the centre of the solar system and the Earth and other planets revolve around it.

Unfortunately, Galileo was condemned as a heretic and put in house arrest for the rest of his life.

• Solar and Lunar Eclipse

One of the earliest conflicts occurred in Iraq. The priests there had told the locals that lunar eclipse was caused because of the restlessness of gods. These were thought to be ominous and aimed at destroying the kings. The conflict occurred when the local astronomers came up with the scientific reason behind the eclipse.

While the astronomers state a strong and logical reason about the occurrence of the solar and lunar eclipse, myths and superstitions surrounding the same still continue in various parts of the world.

• The Evolution of Species

Taking reference from the biblical book of Genesis, the conservative Christians believe that all the species of flora and fauna were created during the six days period when God created the world. The biologists, on the other hand, argue that the various species of plants and animals evolved over hundred and millions of years via the procedures of natural selection.

Apart from these, there are several other arenas wherein the scientists and religious advocates have contradictory views. Even though the scientists/ astronomers/ biologists have a backing for their theories most people deeply follow the religious views.

It is not only the religious advocates who often raise voice against the scientific methodologies and ideologies, science has also been criticized by many other sections of society because its inventions are giving way to various social, political, environmental and health issues. Scientific inventions such as nuclear weapons pose a threat to the mankind. Besides, the procedures of preparation as well as the use of most scientifically designed devices are adding to the pollution, thereby making life difficult for everyone.

Science Essay 5 (600 words)

There have been several scientific discoveries and inventions in the last couple of decades that have made life much easier. Last decade was no exception. There were quite a few significant scientific inventions that received appreciation. Here is a look at the 10 most remarkable recent scientific inventions.

Recent Scientific Inventions and Discoveries

• Control over Biomechanical Hand through Mind

Amputee Pierpaolo Petruzziello, an Italian who lost his forearm in an unfortunate accident, learned how to control a biomechanical hand connected to his arm by way of his thoughts. The hand connected to his arm nerves via electrodes and wires. He became the first person to master the art of making movements such as finger wiggling, grabbing objects and moving fist with his thoughts.

• Global Positioning System

Global Positioning System, popularly referred to as GPS, became commercially viable in the year 2005. It was embedded into the mobile devices and proved to be a boon for the travelers worldwide. Looking for directions while travelling to newer places couldn’t get easier.

• Prius – The Self-Driving Car

Google initiated the self-driving car project in the year 2008 and soon Toyota introduced Prius. This car does not have brake pedal, steering wheel or accelerator. It is powered by an electric motor and does not require any user interaction to operate. It is embedded with special software, a set of sensors and accurate digital maps to ensure that the driverless experience is smooth and safe.

Known to be one of the most noteworthy inventions of the decade, Android came as a revolution and took over the market that was earlier flooded with Symbian and Java powered devices. Most smart phones these days run on the Android operating system. It supports millions of applications.

• Computer Vision

Computer vision includes several sub-domains such as event detection, indexing, object recognition, object pose estimation, motion estimation, image restoration, scene reconstruction, learning and video tracking. The field encompasses techniques of processing, analyzing, acquiring and comprehending images in high-dimensional data from the actual world so as to come up with symbolic information.

• Touch Screen Technology

The touch screen technology seems to have taken over the world. The ease of operating makes for the popularity of the touch screen devices. These devices have become a rage worldwide.

• 3D Printing Technique

The 3D printing device can make a variety of stuff including kitchenware, accessories, lamps and much more. Also known as additive manufacturing, this technique creates three-dimensional objects of any shape with the use of digital model data from electronic data source such as Additive Manufacturing File (AMF).

Launched in the year 2008, Git Hub is a version control repository revision control and Internet hosting service that offers features such as bug tracking, task management, feature requests and sharing of codes, apps, etc. The development of GitHub platform started in 2007 and the site was launched in 2008.

• Smart Watches

Smart watches have been in the market for quite some time. However, the newer ones such as that launched by Apple have come with several added features and have gained immense popularity. These watches come with almost all the features of the smart phones and are easier to carry and operate.

• Crowd Funding Sites

The introduction of crowd-funding sites such as GoFundMe, Kickstarter and Indiegogo has been a boon for the creative minds. By way of these sites, inventors, artists and other creative people get a chance to share their ideas and receive financial help they require to implement the same.

Scientists worldwide observe and experiment continually to bring forth new scientific inventions, making life easier for people. They do not only keep coming up with newer inventions but also improvise the existing ones wherever there is a scope. While these inventions have made life easier for the man; however, the amount of environmental, social and political hazards these have caused are not hidden from you all.

Related Information:

• Essay on Science and Technology
• Paragraph on Wonders of Science
• Paragraph on Science
• National Science Day
• International Week of Science and Peace
• The National Council for Science and Technology Communication ( NCSTC ) is a scientific programme of the Government of India for the popularisation of science,

Related content

Talk to our academic expert!

Language --- English Hindi Marathi Tamil Telugu Malayalam

Get access to free Mock Test and Master Class

Register to Get Free Mock Test and Study Material

Offer Ends in 5:00

The College Study

Essay, Letter , Paragrah , Aplication

Essay on Greatest Inventions of Science

Some modern inventions of science essay – 700 words.

• Scientific inventions have made life modern
• the motorcar has made traveling easy and comfortable
• the airplane can fly us over thousands of kilometers within hours
• the railway engine can pull many railway carriages with hundreds of people and heavyweights
• the tractor has made cultivation easy and quick
• the radio and television provide us with different kinds of programs all the time
• the VCR records TV programs, plays, and films to increase our knowledge and to entertain us
• the printing press has made reading easy and fast through books, magazines, and newspapers
• electronic watches and clocks
• the computer
• but many destructive inventions of weapons of war show the destructive use of science
• on the whole, modern life is possible only because of science.

“The scientific advancement and inventions of yesterday are the stepping stones for further inventions and discoveries.”

Scientific inventions in different parts of the world have made our life modern. Let us have a look at some of these. Motorcar made traveling easy and comfortable. The bus and jeep also came to be used afterwards. The airplane can take us to places thousands of kilometres away within a few hours. The railway engine (the locomotive) can pull many railway carriages with hundreds of people and with heavy weights. The tractor has made cultivation very easy and quick. It can plow vast (large and wide) areas of land within a few hours. The tube-well engine easily lifts up water from under the surface of the earth quickly and in huge quantities.

On the radio, we can hear people speaking hundreds or thousands of kilometres away from us. On television, we can see pictures as well as hear the voices. Now artificial satellites and dish antennas (aerials) can help us to view TV programmes of even other continents. TV has, thus, brought about a revolution in sound, picture and colour communication. No wonder it has given all the pleasures of the cinema plus a variety of colourful programmes of the either world within the four walls of a room. We get connected to the planet earth as a whole as we watch the sliding pictures on the mini-screen.[the_ad id=”17141″]

Next, we shall get connected with different planets and planetary systems. Connected with TV is the DVD (digital video disc), which records data and plays it back. The Blu-ray Disc is the latest development in this connection.

Through the camera, and now the camera in the mobile phone, we can have pictures in. black and white and in color. We can make films with these pictures. In the printing press, we can print newspapers, magazines and books on a large scale (in a big way). It is because of the printing machines that we have so many books, magazines and newspapers. Electronic watches and clocks and electronic instruments are the result of modern scientific research. Different medicines prepared by scientists can cure most of our diseases.

The computer is one of the latest inventions that have made the calculation, designing, printing and planning very easy. We can advance swiftly in different fields like space exploration, engineering, banking, and so on because of its magical operations. The E-mail and fax systems in it have made the communication of written messages in actual form within seconds and minutes possible.

There are a great many “destructive” inventions in the form of weapons of war. Big guns, bombs, and poisonous gases are some of these. Atomic weapons and missiles are another categories of the massive killers. We should avoid using science for destructive purposes as much as possible. We have thousands of allopathic and homeopathic and even Greek (“Unani” or “Hakimi”) medicines and modern surgical methods and instruments. They are the outcome (result) of thousands of years of continuous scientific research and experimentation.[the_ad id=”17142″]

Life-saving drugs and surgical operation theatres in our well-equipped hospitals are a standing (permanent) witness to the power and usefulness of science. In the ultimate analysis, modern life is possible only because of the scientific inventions and discoveries around the world.

Some Modern Inventions of Science Essay – 450 Words

The saying: The more you do, the more you can do applies better in science than in any other field of human activities. In fact the march of our civilization is the march of science. Scientists are the greatest benefactors of mankind. When well are lulled to sleep, they are awake and busy in making new inventions. The history of our civilization is the record of constant human efforts to make our life more beautiful, comfortable and happier.

We are greatly indebted to the scientists and their new inventions. The most commonly used inventions of modern science are varieties of electric household appliances. Refrigerators, deep freezers, electric ovens and kettles, dishwashers, washing machines, heaters and air-conditioners, Lifts and elevators have made modern homes, hotels and offices more snug and comfortable.

Science and technology have made wonderful progress during the post-war period. The two are special features of the Space Age. The modern miracles-space journey, satellites, ocean-explorations, landing on the moon and assailing of other planets, would have been impossible without most recent technology. The most wonderful invention behind all these great achievements are computers, the mechanical brains. [the_ad id=”17150″]

The birth and evolution of computer technology will go down as the most significant event in human history. It has added a glow to human life in more than one ways. Computers have made great in-roads in national life. They have invaded all the fields – science, commerce, politics, education, Industry, news media, communication, medicine, amusements and management. It has rightly been called the eighth wonder of the world’. Use of computers has revolutionized our lives.

Modern offices hum with sounds of office machines – typewriters, calculators, dictation machines, copiers, fax and data-processing machines. Life in the past used to be simple, easy-moving and peaceful. It has now become full of hurry and worries. New sources of energy are being tapped for human use. Atomic energy, solar energy and nuclear energy have been harnessed to be used in the service of mankind. There is one dark cloud that mars the beauty of the whole thing. Unfortunately, these inventions are being used more for war purposes. War is always cruel and destructive. Atomic war weapons, long-range missiles, poisonous gases, compression bombs, hydrogen bombs, laser rays, germinal bombs and other secret weapons behind the Star-War are some of the satanic modern inventions.

The present arms-race among the powerful nations is an alarm bell for the human race. The new inventions are also signed of national triumph. Modern nationalism attaches greater importance to military power and triumph, political supremacy and economic success. Their current worship of MARS (war god) and Mammon (god of money) is a great danger to the survival of mankind. The best remedy is the scientists must refuse to put their inventions into the hands of crazy politicians.

[ PDF Download ]

2 thoughts on “ essay on greatest inventions of science ”.

Your essay is very good

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

Engineering interview questions, Mcqs, Objective Questions,Class Notes,Seminor topics,Lab Viva Pdf free download. CIVIL | Mechanical | CSE | EEE | ECE | IT | Chemical Online Quiz Tests for Freshers.

[pdf] essay about scientific inventions, essay about scientific inventions.

  SCIENTIFIC INVENTIONS

Cytotec price in baclaran the best and the safest. It is a prescription drug used to treat buy seroquel 100 mg perfidiously erectile dysfunction in men. In women with an history of previous miscarriages, it is lamisil pills price in india safe to be on clomid to prevent a further loss of pregnancy.

The most common side effects include headache, fatigue, nausea, vomiting, sexual dysfunction, dry mouth, dizziness, insomnia, and headache, among others. In the u.s., https://ameriaa.com/international-cosmetic-gynecology-dubai where to safely buy provigil online it is most often sold as generic viagra. The treatment is provided by our highly skilled medical staff who have years of clinical experience in the area of sexual dysfunction, including:.

Almost all things of necessity Comfort or Luxury that we see around us came from a scientific invention one day or the other. The whole medical system, the means of transport—cars, scooters, trucks, trains and all means of communication were invented in the past. Scientific inventions have changed the face of the world.

The most important and the most crucial scientific invention sin alpha the forties is nuclear power. The energy generated by the fusion of atom has helped the world by having more electricity. Hundreds of nuclear power stations have come up in different countries of the world. The latest was installed at Narora in Uttar Pradesh in India. Sophisticated Scientific inventions have some serious hazards too. If there is blast in these centres of energy radioactive clouds may kill thousands and thousands of people.

It can affect the health of the people. The Chernobyl blast in Russia killed thousands of people and rendered huge amounts of food not fit for human consumption. In Kerala 20,000 people die of cancer every year due to radioactive climate near Periyar River.

Most of the scientific inventions after fifties are in the field of ammunitions. There are long range missiles and rockets with nuclear heads. There are thousands of satellites moving round the earth. There are scientific laboratories in some of these. It is a great achievement of course. But these inventions have created a dark cloud of suspicion hovering over the world. LASER beams has added one more Chapter to the book of inventions. It can be used for mass destruction. But it helps in the communication system and radars too.

Besides computer robot is man’s most important invention. Both computer and robot are under the control of man. But now we are heading towards inventing a computer that can think like a human being and order the robot. We wonder if it will allow man to have rest or be a slave of this Superman.

The World has an eye on the latest inventions in the genetic science. The Scientist has been able to eliminate male factor in many plants. Banana is one of them. The day the scientist finds a way to have children without man the world may have only women. The whole pattern of the society will undergo a revolutionary change.