PUZZLES AND PROBLEMS

Science is devoted to puzzle solving, not problem solving.

We are conditioned to think of science as solving enormously complex problems.  We romanticize about Salk or Madame Curie heroically making life better for all kind.  We romanticize about the problem solving ability of science.

Yet most scientific efforts are akin to puzzle solving, rather than problem solving.  Most scientific effort is focused on the confirmation of expected results.  That is to say, some of the best scientists are expert puzzle solvers.

Most of science is similar to the assembly of a jig saw puzzle.  When you complete a jig saw puzzle, you know what it is supposed to look like by the picture on the box.  The assembly of the puzzle is intricate.  Good method is rewarded.  Yet the assembly is largely repetitious.  The solution is assured.  And the only innovation is how efficient you completed the puzzle.

The scientific method is largely the same type of activity.  Most experiments are designed to reinforce the current paradigm.  Experiments are not designed to foster the unexpected novelty.  Think of the experiments you did in science class in grade school.  Yes, the nail wrapped in wire and attached to a battery picked up other nails.

“Many of the greatest scientific minds have devoted all of their professional attention to demanding puzzles of this sort.  On most occasions any particular field of scientific specialization offers nothing else to do…”  1.

A question that has been asked in these pages, more or less, is why can’t architecture / design be more like science?  After all, scientists get paid more than architects.  In the STEM curriculum, there is no D for design.

Maybe we don’t want design to be more like science.  We certainly don’t want design to have a limited and narrow scope. When we start to solve a design problem, we don’t want to be assured of the solution.  We don’t want to know the solution in advance.  We don’t want our solutions to be merely confirmation of a paradigm.  We don’t want to already see the picture before we start.

We believe in the wide range and power of the imagination.  We believe that imagination can conceive.

Down with the scientific method?  More to come.

1.  Kuhn, Thomas.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.  The University of Chicago Press:  Chicago.   1962.  p38.