Read Letters to a Young Scientist for Free Online Page B

no immediate relation to theology. This suggestion is not meant to be cynical, nor does it imply a closing of the scientific mind.
    If proof were found of a supernatural entity or force that affects the real world, the claim all organized religions make, it would change everything. Science is not inherently against such a possibility. Researchers in fact have every reason to make such a discovery, if any such is feasible. The scientist who achieved it would be hailed as the Newton, Darwin, and Einstein, all put together, of a new era in history. In fact, countless reports have been made throughout the history of science that claim evidence of the supernatural. All, however, have been based on attempts to prove a negative proposition. It usually goes something like this: “We haven’t been able to find an explanation for such-and-such a phenomenon; therefore it must have been created by God.” Present-day versions still circulating include the argument that because science cannot yet provide a convincing account of the origin of the universe and of the setting of the universal physical constants, there must be a divine Creator. A second argument heard is that because some molecular structures and reactions in the cell seem too complex (to the author of the argument, at least) to have been assembled by natural selection, they must have been designed by a higher intelligence. And one more: because the human mind, and especially free will as a key part of it, appear beyond the capability of the material cause and effect, they must have been inserted by God.
    The difficulty with reliance on negative hypotheses to support faith-based science is that if they are wrong, they are also very vulnerable to decisive disproof. Just one testable proof of a real, physical cause destroys the argument for a supernatural cause. And precisely this in fact has been a large part of the history of science, as it has unfolded, phenomenon by phenomenon. The world rotates around the sun, the sun is one star out of two hundred million or more in one galaxy out of hundreds of billions of galaxies, humanity descended from African apes, genes change by random mutations, the mind is a physical process in a physical organ. Yielding to naturalistic, real-world understanding, the divine hand has withdrawn bit by bit from almost all of space and time. The remaining opportunities to find evidence of the supernatural are closing fast.
    As a scientist, keep your mind open to any possible phenomenon remaining in the great unknown. But never forget that your profession is exploration of the real world, with no preconceptions or idols of the mind accepted, and testable truth the only coin of the realm.

The potential community of contacts in contemporary human relationships (lines) is illustrated by political blogs (dots) in the 2004 U.S. presidential election. The same applies to disciplines of science. Modified from “The political blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. election: divided they blog,” by Lada A. Adamic and Natalie Glance, Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Link Discovery (Link KDD’05) 1: 36–43 (2005).

Five

    T HE C REATIVE P ROCESS

    T O KNOW HOW scientists engage in visual imagery is to understand how they think creatively. Practicing it yourself while you receive your technical training will bring you close to the heart of the scientific enterprise. When earlier I said you can surely succeed, I also assumed that you are able to daydream. But be prepared mentally for some amount of chaos and failure. Waste and frustration often attend the earliest stages. When a workable idea emerges, the research becomes more routine, and also much easier to think about and explain to others. This is the part I have always enjoyed the most.
    Since so much of good science—and perhaps all of great science—has its roots in fantasy, I suggest that you yourself engage in a bit right now. Where would you like to be, what would you most like to be