PSYCHOLOGY
How Do Scientists Think?
David Lagnado
ave you ever wondered what goes on second half of the book, Feist charts this proinside scientists’ heads when they gression with originality and insight. His
formulate a grand theory? Or when speculations on the origins of scientific
they decide what hypothesis to test? How thinking are particularly impressive and draw
does this differ from the munwell on recent cognitive psyThe Psychology of
dane reasoning involved when
chology. He identifies several
Science and the Origins
you explain why your car
core components of thought—
of the Scientific Mind
won’t start or choose a birthobservation, categorization,
day present for a relative?
pattern recognition, hypotheby Gregory J. Feist
More generally, do scientists
sis testing, and causal thinkYale University Press, New
use the same cognitive meching—and argues that these
Haven, CT, 2006. 336 pp. $38,
anisms available to us all
were progressively augmented
£25. ISBN 0-300-11074-X.
(supplemented with formal,
as scientific thinking passed
conceptual, and technological
from the preverbal stage
tools)? Or does scientific thinking require through to the explicit research we have
more specialized cognitive abilities, avail- today. Critical developments along the way
able to only a talented few?
included explanatory thinking (greatly aided
If you are interested in such questions, by the advent of language), measurement,
then Gregory Feist’s The Psychology of mathematics, and finally the hallmark of
Science and the Origins of the Scientific modern science, the experimental method.
Mind is the book to read. As the title sugThis account is well argued and innovagests, Feist (a psychologist at the University tive, but more could be made of the dynamic
of California, Davis) argues the case for a interplay between the key components. For
new discipline of “psychology of science” example, both observation and categorization
and explores the evolutionary and historical are hypothesis-driven (1) and can be influroots of scientific thinking. The first half of enced by prior causal thinking (2). This imthe book gives a brief history of three domi- plies that these components co-develop rather
nant areas in which science itself has been than arise in an incremental fashion. Further
the object of study (history, philosophy, and support for such co-development is prosociology of science) and reviews a wealth vided by the recent
of research implicitly engaged in the psy- emphasis in cognitive
chology of science. This research is divided neuroscience on actionalong traditional lines (biological, develop- based representations
mental, cognitive, personality, and social (3). Thus it appears
psychologies), and Feist makes a convincing that our internal modcase for their inclusion in the new discipline. els of the world are
However, his survey lacks an overarching heavily shaped by the
framework and reads more as an assortment demands of effective
from subordinate disciplines. (The desired action. Indeed, “motor
unification is not helped by the traditional cognition” could be
divisions already in place.) If we are envi- added as a key comsioning a new discipline, now is a great time ponent in the preto rethink the classic taxonomy—if not to verbal stage of scienreplace it, at least to give it a sound and log- tific thought.
ical explanation.
Notably absent from the book are any
What of the origins and precursors of sci- discussions of the formal or normative modentific thought? How did we move from pre- els that scientists (or everyday reasoners)
literate hunter-gatherers who eat their meat ought to use and how these models relate to
raw to sophisticated reasoners with a taste descriptive models of scientific reasoning.
for relativity theory and fine cuisine? In the Although it is common to distinguish how
people actually reason (descriptive) from
how an ideally rational person would reason
The reviewer is in the Department of Psychology, Uni(normative), both play crucial roles in
versity College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT,
current psychological research. Normative
UK. E-mail: d.lagnado@ucl.ac.uk
H
1390
8 SEPTEMBER 2006
VOL 313
SCIENCE
Published by AAAS
models serve both as standards against
which to appraise human performance and
as a framework for understanding cognition
(4, 5). For example, there is a growing movement in cognitive psychology and neuroscience that advances a Bayesian perspective on the mind (6).
Indeed, one of the appeals of causal maps
(which are discussed by Feist in his chapter
on cognitive psychology) is that they are formally well defined and normative (7). The
question of whether people use fully fledged
causal graphs (and Bayesian methods), or
instead use simplifying heuristics that approximate these norms, is contentious. But
there is little doubt that formal models are
critical to the development of cognitive
models. Moreover, the psychology of science has a special stake in these issues,
because the status of normative models is
itself keenly debated in current philosophy
of science.
Another topic of concern is Feist’s
attempt to prescribe guidelines for recognizing scientific talent (and its consequences
for education and selection policies). He
makes much of correlational studies that
allow predictions of scientific achievement
from intelligence and personality tests and
demographics. Such an emphasis is worrying for two reasons: First, there are wellknown problems with using correlational
studies as a basis for policy interventions.
Correlation does not imply causation, and
these studies may include all kinds of confounding factors. Second, even if the predictors are valid precursors for the
prototypical scientist, would we
really want to risk excluding
less stereotypical thinkers? Einstein would have fared pretty
poorly in terms of early college
achievements.
Lastly, there is a hint of paradox in introducing a new discipline to bridge the gap between
related disciplines. Once the
new discipline is established
(complete with specialized conferences and journals), it runs
the risk of reducing rather than increasing
cross-disciplinary talk. There are now three
independent groups that need to share information rather than two, so new bridges must
be built, and so on. In the case of the psychology of science, this is not just a theoretical worry. The subdisciplines of psychology
already suffer a lack of integration and
cross-fertilization; adding another discipline (however much its content spans the
divide) might simply add to the problem.
www.sciencemag.org
CREDIT: DAVID RIDLEY/IMAGES.COM/CORBIS
BOOKS ET AL.
BOOKS ETAL.
The barbarism of specialization looms anew.
In spite of these worries, The Psychology
of Science and the Origins of the Scientific
Mind succeeds on many levels. Feist pulls
together a vast range of psychological
research with clarity and insight, and he
advances an intriguing framework for the
cognitive origins of scientific thinking. The
book makes a strong case for an integrated
study of the psychology of science.
about the workings of nature
Big Bang. Or it might
with interested nonscientists.
be an in-depth examinaWe should therefore weltion of new and exciting
come books like Marcus
developments in a parChown’s The Quantum Zoo:
ticular discipline. Or,
A Tourist’s Guide to the Neverfor that matter, it might
ending Universe. Chown’s work
just involve bringing a
is an admirable attempt to
storyteller’s eye and a
delve into the mysteries of
gift for narrative to illuthese two great theories, quanminate a forbidding comtum mechanics and relativity,
plex of ideas.
References
and express them in terms
Unfortunately, The
1. R. L. Gregory, Eye and Brain: The Psychology of Seeing
that
an
intellectually
curious
Quantum
Zoo isn’t really
(Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, ed. 5, 1998).
nonexpert can understand. And
distinguished in any of
2. M. Jeannerod, Motor Cognition: What Actions Tell to the
Self (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2006).
for the most part the book
those ways. Chown is a
3. S. A. Sloman, Causal Models: How People Think About the
succeeds. Chown (a science
fine explainer, but he
World and Its Alternatives (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford,
writer
who
trained
as
a
physidoesn’t take us over any
2005).
cist) has a pleasant writing
ground that others haven’t
4. J. R. Anderson, The Adaptive Character of Thought
(Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1990).
style and a facility with simtrod before. For exam5. D. Marr, Vision: A Computational Investigation into the
ple metaphors and analogies
ple, after a good explaHuman Representation and Processing of Visual
that helps bring difficult con- Tunneling site. Proton tunelling nation of bosons and
Information (Freeman, San Francisco, 1982).
6. N. Chater, J. B. Tenenbaum, A. Yuille, Trends Cognit. Sci.
cepts into sharp focus.
allows hydrogen fusion in the Sun to fermions takes us up to
10, 287 (2006).
The book is divided into occur “even at the ultralow tempera- the connection between
7. J. Pearl, Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference
two sections: “Small Things” ture of 15 million degrees.”
spin and statistics, Chown
(Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2000).
and “Big Things.” In the forsimply admits that this
10.1126/1132467
mer, as you might guess, he covers the quan- “brings us to the end of what can easily be
tum world, explaining the crucial ideas of conveyed without opaque mathematics.”
PHYSICS
superposition and interference, and braving Later, after foreshadowing about how superdifficult topics such as the uncertainty prin- fluid helium can do strange things like crawl
ciple, entanglement, and the collapse of the up the sides of a container, the book never
wave function. Chown moves easily from actually explains why that happens. Dark
historical examples such as Young’s double- energy is not explained any more deeply
slit experiment and Rutherford’s scattering than “the repulsive force of empty space.”
to modern issues such as quantum comput- After whetting our appetites for more subSean M. Carroll
ers and teleportation. In the second section, stantive explanations, we are left feeling a
here’s no reason why
devoted to relativity, he little unsatisfied.
everyone shouldn’t underswiftly covers the basics
The primary shortcoming of the book
The Quantum Zoo
stand the basics of quanof spacetime and relativ- seems to be the lack of some specific point
tum mechanics and relativity.
ity, gravitation, and cosmo- to the project. The subtitle, A Tourist’s Guide
A Tourist’s Guide to the
These two cornerstones of 20thlogy. The appropriate hot to the Neverending Universe, gives an indiNeverending Universe
century physics have become a
topics are mentioned, if cation of the unfocused nature of the text.
Marcus Chown
basis for our deepest understandbriefly: black holes, string I suspect that Chown could have written an
Joseph Henry Press
ing of reality, as well as of great
theory, inflation, and dark interesting and useful book about quantum
(National Academies
practical importance to familiar
energy. The brevity of the mechanics, starting with the basics and
Press), Washington, DC,
technologies from lasers to the
text is not a shortcoming; going into some detail about modern devel2006. 212 pp. $24.95, C$27.95.
global positioning system. And,
not every popular book opments in atomic and molecular physics,
ISBN 0-309-09622-7.
despite their reputations for
needs to be a massive and quantum information theory, and quantum
being somewhat abstruse and
comprehensive tome. The computation. Or, alternatively, an interestinaccessible, the basic points of each theory popular audience at which The Quantum Zoo ing and useful book about relativity, concan be stated simply enough that an inter- is aimed should learn a lot from reading the centrating on some specific aspect such as
ested person with no technical background book and enjoy themselves in the process.
gravitational waves, black holes, or dark
in physics should be able to understand
And yet, there is a sense in which the energy. Instead, Chown’s book is compethem. At a time when science seems both book is a disappointment. There are other tent but uninspiring, a somewhat superfimore central than ever and more removed books out there, after all, that deal with the cial look at the foundational theories of
from our everyday world, it is certainly topics of quantum mechanics and relativity. modern physics. The explanations are
worth the effort to share what we’ve learned To stand out from the crowd, any new entry clear, and the interested reader will be able
should have something distinct to offer. It to learn quite a lot. But there is not quite
might be the unique insight of a true master any reason to choose The Quantum Zoo
The reviewer is at the Physics Department, California
of the field, as we find when Richard from among the other titles on the popularInstitute of Technology 452-48, 1200 E. California Blvd,
Feynman writes about quantum electrody- science shelf.
Pasadena, CA 91125, USA. Web site: http://preposternamics or George Gamow writes about the
ousuniverse.com
10.1126/1130369
The Universe,
Too Quickly Toured
CREDIT: PHOTOS.COM
T
www.sciencemag.org
SCIENCE
VOL 313
Published by AAAS
8 SEPTEMBER 2006
1391