2 ms·

In my opinion, science is an exercise in creative thinking, and thinking is an exercise in creative writing. Apply the >>= operator of the creative monad. QED.

In my opinion, science is an exercise in creative thinking, and thinking is an exercise in creative writing. Apply the >>= operator of the creative monad. QED. In all seriousness, I think that writing ideas down, condensing them, reading the result aloud and re-editing vigorously is where the real thinking takes place. That iterative process is thinking, for anything complex. It cannot be done by a computer. If you are completely confident in your ideas before you have written them down in concrete form, they are probably not novel enough to be worth publishing.

PeterisP 3y ago
In many fields of science your ideas don't really matter, it's about reproducible data - sure, ideas and motivation matter for choosing the experiments and interpreting them, but any reader is effectively expected to read your ideas, assume that they're wrong, worthless and discardable, take a look at your data (which is the key part of the publication, not the creative writing) and see if the reader's ideas and interpretations based on that data match yours. In the end, your thinking is a process, not the outcome. It is a tool to prove an outcome based on data and logic; better thinking and better writing makes the argument easier to understand, but should lead to exactly the same outcome for the reader, just with a bit less effort compared to sloppy thinking and sloppy writing.