NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, this article made me think about it, so let's see what others feel.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16102-material-slicker-than-teflon-discovered-by-accident.html

Basically, by sheer dumb luck, they invented something with less friction than teflon. They were not trying to. Which do you think is better for inventing things; lucking into it or deliberately attempting to create something?

Which do you think has been more effective in the course of humanity?

I'm inclined to think that most inventions are the result of deliberate attempts. The results may not always be what was intended, but the environment is created through deliberate effort.

Which do you think is better for inventing things; lucking into it or deliberately attempting to create something?

Which do you think has been more effective in the course of humanity?

Many of the most useful things science has given us were first stumbled upon/conceived of while doing something else (e.g. penicilline). Often the scientist in question does not even know what use it will be (e.g. electricity).
That is why fundamental research - research for the sake of research - is so important.

Directed research can then vastly improve what was found.

we shall see. though things more slick then Teflon have existed for awhile.
Teflons ability is you can put it on anything very easily.

as for accident or intention. Depends how you measure. this was made during scientific trials. they just made something different then anticipated. if that is an accident then happy accidents are 75% of invention.

THIS is probably the best accidental discovery ever http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6584229.stm

I once discovered a stone slab while digging a hole for a tree
does that count?

The cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) was discovered by accident. Penzias and Wilson tried really hard to get rid of the background noise they were detecting and then they were told about some papers which predicted this noise (and well, that it wasn't noise at all). They got a Nobel prize.

Although apparently a Russian (Zel'dovich maybe?) had predicted that the instrument at Bell labs was probably perfect for detecting the CMBR before it was detected, the Americans down the road who were looking for it were unaware and trying to think of how they were going to detect it.

A lot of important break-throughs, certainly those that may change our paradigm for thinking about a specific subject are often due to accidents. Making these discoveries into something useful is due to directed research however. You need a balance of the two and as a result funding for so-called "blue skies" research is just as important as funding for application directed research. Shame the funding bodies sometimes forgot this.

Stainless steel was invented by accident.

America was not what Columbus was trying to discover.

luck is probably the single biggest driving factor in human development,

penicillin - luck
most land masses "discovered" by European explorers - luck
metallurgy-luck
lsd-luck
nylon-luck

most human development happens because of chance