CREATRTE SCIENCE 333 



ideas. One possessor of such a temperament comes vividly to life in 

 Richet's sketch: 



Magendie was delighted when experiment gave a result contrary to 

 what he was expecting. "Well!" he used to say, "I was mistaken, but 

 it is much more interesting than if I had succeeded. I foresaw, as 

 probable, a logical orthodox fact, which everybody might expect; 

 and it is just the contrary that happens. There is therefore a new phe- 

 nomenon, so much the more important as it was so little expected." 

 And Magendie did not hide his satisfaction at having run aground. 



A Magendie can then view with detachment— nay, with positive 

 enthusiasm— the failure of the presuppositions that inspired his work. 

 Is this the route, open perhaps only to Magendies, by which one ar- 

 rives at that openness to experience that C. R. Rogers considers 

 characteristic of the creative individual? 



. . . instead of perceiving in predetermined categories ("trees are 

 green," "college education is good," "modem art is silly") the indi- 

 vidual is aware of this existential moment as it is, thus being alive to 

 many experiences which fall outside the usual categories (this tree is 

 lavender; this college education is damaging; this modem sculpture 

 has a powerful effect on me ) . 



However produced, this openness to experience is a critical determi- 

 nant of the scientist's capacity to make what we call "accidental dis- 

 coveries." 



Accidental Discoveries 



We regard as accidental those experimental discoveries that, in the 

 absence of any preconception of what was to be found, were less 

 sought than stumbled upon. Such discoveries fall in two classes. 

 Focal discoveries involve observation of some unanticipated occur- 

 rence within the area of primary attention. A very much smaller 

 group of peripheral discoveries involve recognition of occurrences 

 quite outside that area, over the horizon of expectation. 



FOCAL DISCOVERIES 



Perhaps as accidental as any discovery could well be is Malus' de- 

 tection of the polarizability of light. Apparently quite idly, he hap- 

 pened to look through a doubly refractive crystal at the late after- 



