First World Problems.

 

Again with the LSD spook?

That is a very poor example of serendipity. His job was to find medicinal drugs that could be marketed and he was working on lysergic acid from ergot. As is typical for chemists approaching this sort of task, they start adding and subtracting to a structure hoping that he knows something important about the relevant structure-activity relationship. He played around with adding diethylamide to the structure - hoping to find a respiratory and circulatory stimulant. He found something else, which by the way, did not generate money for the company (which was the necessity) as would have been expected if he had succeeded in his initial goal. Nor can you say that LSD-25 was some kind of great invention (unless you are Tim Leary). Other similar psychedelic compounds exist naturally and predate LSD-25 by 100s of years.

Sure, I know it was a structured scientific exploration of chemical properties that led to the accidental discovery of LSD-25's intense psychedelic properties. LSD was one of the few recreational drugs that were undetectable by military drug tests back then.

17:00: Beginning dizziness, feeling of anxiety, visual distortions, symptoms of paralysis, desire to laugh.

 

Perhaps, if "Necessity is the mother of invention"
Then perhaps "Serendipity is the mother-in-law of discovery"

They seem to be related.

 

Necessity is the mother of invention ... and the mother-in-law of destruction.

 

LOVE IT!

As to whether necessity propagates invention - I have to agree that though many scientific breakthroughs have been the result of accidental discovery, it was almost always driven by a need to solve a problem. i.e. the bouncing bomb, a great and innovative solution to a problem where the need was to destroy a German dam.

Sometimes things are accidents. But those accidents don't just happen. They happen because someone is trying to solve a problem. Sometimes the problem is a silly one, still, the results of accidental discovery have been a twin of sorts to the sought goal of the inventor. Accidental discovery of Pink Polly for instance. The scientist wasn't trying to invent it. But due to being too tired to clean a beaker he discovered a substance that resisted the buildup of static electricity. I don't recall what it was he was attempting to invent, but as a twin offspring Pink Polly was born.

The static dissipative anti-static polyethylene material may have been a spinoff of an effort to make fabric softener dryer sheets.

 

Yes, serendipity can and does participate in important discoveries sometimes. But serendipity is closely related to opportunity. It takes a prepared mind, with the right attitude and openness to recognize it when it comes along.

Such coincidences tend to happen to people that work hard enough to increase the probability of having fortunate accidents.

 

The static dissipative anti-static polyethylene material may have been a spinoff of an effort to make fabric softener dryer sheets.

That sounds familiar. I think you're right.

 

and the mother-in-law of destruction.

Yeah, I've had two of them.

 

The story of Post-it notes. Could fall into the "invention by chance" category, or not.

One of the scientists at 3M came up with an adhesive that was not too strong. Nobody was interested in a weak adhesive.

https://www.post-it.com/3M/en_US/post-it/contact-us/about-us/

 

The story of Post-it notes. Could fall into the "invention by chance" category, or not.

One of the scientists at 3M came up with an adhesive that was not too strong. Nobody was interested in a weak adhesive.

https://www.post-it.com/3M/en_US/post-it/contact-us/about-us/

Yeah ... he was wise and prepared enough (plus had a generous amount of imagination) to recognize its potential

 

It rates right up there with "evolution is only a theory"

If evolution is not a theory ... how did differing bipeds exist during the time period contributing to two differing paths for human evolution. Evolution will never be a scientific law. It will however, remain a theory till the bugs are worked out. You nor I will be alive to see if the theory is valid.

 

If evolution is not a theory ... how did differing bipeds exist during the time period contributing to two differing paths for human evolution. Evolution will never be a scientific law. It will however, remain a theory till the bugs are worked out. You nor I will be alive to see if the theory is valid.

All of science is provisional. For example, Newton's laws of motion and gravity were widely accepted and used effectively. Then along came Einstein and these needed some refinements. What we now think of as established fact may be revised by future discoveries.

Some of what we know now seems to be pretty solid - Ohm's law? - and some is definitely flakey - string theory. Evolution seems to be towards the solid end of this scale but, like everything else, stands to be revised in the future.

 

JoeJester your comment reveals exactly what I expected from someone, and that is a complete lack of understanding of what theory means in science.

 

If evolution is not a theory ... how did differing bipeds exist during the time period contributing to two differing paths for human evolution. Evolution will never be a scientific law. It will however, remain a theory till the bugs are worked out. You nor I will be alive to see if the theory is valid.

Evolution is indeed a theory, but that's not the slight you take it to be. The word theory is not synonymous with the word hypothesis. Likewise, "scientific law" is not synonymous with true.

The theory of evolution -- like the theory of algebraic groups, the theory of general relativity, etc. -- is to scientific law as the novel War and Peace is to a sentence in War and Peace. Scientists use "laws" to build theories. The theory is the important part (it explains and provides a framework); the law is just a heuristic.

All that said, what's wrong with the idea that genetically different bipeds existed during some time period?

 

The theory of evolution -- like the theory of algebraic groups, the theory of general relativity, etc. -- is to scientific law as the novel War and Peace is to a sentence in War and Peace. Scientists use "laws" to build theories.

I believe the sequence is ... hypothesis, theory, law. Laws work in every case. Theories don't. I do like the theory definition.

I will agree that the theory of evolution fits some of the definition for theory, so you can call it what you want. The list, is oldest to newest, as definitions, like theories, are subject to change:

1 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena i.e. the wave theory of light
2 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action i.e. her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn
b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all
3 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b : an unproved assumption : conjecture
c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject i.e. theory of equations
4 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art music theory
5 : abstract thought : speculation
6 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

Homo heidelbergensis, Discovered in 1908 in Germany and is believed to be the earliest known member of the Homo group. Who was his ancestor? ... that is the question. There are two groups on the tree below him.

Every writer in the field of endeavor can have unconscious bias. You may not allow for that in human endeavors, but I do.

 

Homo heidelbergensis, Discovered in 1908 in Germany and is believed to be the earliest known member of the Homo group.

When was the first straight group?

 

One thing to keep in mind is that when the word "theory" or "law" is used as part of a name -- the Theory of Evolution or Kirchhoff's Voltage Law -- the word loses any tie to whatever definition might distinguish them and it is simply part of the name. Trying to infer meaning based on which word has become part of the label that is commonly used is a fool's errand.

 

When was the first straight group?

Nice use of the contemporary language. Some will take offense as their acute sensibilities have been triggered without warning.

 

Trying to infer meaning based on which word has become part of the label that is commonly used is a fool's errand.

Speaking two languages is a good antidote against that sort of mistake...

 

I believe the sequence is ... hypothesis, theory, law. Laws work in every case. Theories don't.

You've got this all wrong. So-called laws only work in limited cases; they are nothing more than generalized observations. Newton's laws of motion are an approximation that only work for idealized, inertial frames of reference; Ohm's law is an approximation that only works for idealized, linear elements.

Homo heidelbergensis, Discovered in 1908 in Germany and is believed to be the earliest known member of the Homo group. Who was his ancestor? ... that is the question. There are two groups on the tree below him.

You're questioning the validity of evolution on a missing link argument? What is your alternative hypothesis?