Although thinking is the core business of scientists, we rarely ponder how it thrives best; this is ironic, as there is abundant scientific insight to draw upon. For example, it is now known that thinking has two complementary modes: roughly, association versus reasoning (1). We systematically underestimate the role of the first (1), and the way our institutions, meetings, and teaching are organized heavily reflects this imbalance. By contrast, many of the greatest scientists systematically nurtured a balanced dual-thinking process. We should follow their example and reform scientific practice and education to catalyze the unusual combinations of knowledge that often turn out to have the highest impact (2).
|Journal||Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America|
|Publication status||Published - 2014|