Serendipity is the discovery of something unexpected while you were in search of something completely different. this idea has been present in many aspects of discoveries in technology, sciences, and education. Examples range from the discovery of the substance LSD to the antibiotic penecilin to the invention fo the Post-It note. However, one key element that has been argued on this concept is the effects of luck in these observations over mere scientific intellect or experimentiation. There does seem to be some form of coincidence or luck involved when making these ground-breaking discoveries because the experiments involved were actually not those that were directed towards the outcome in any way. There have also been accounts where the end result was actually what was expected, but it was not acctually thought to be able to work.
One point that has been made, which I believe is one of the key aspects of the argument for luck, is that the things discovered could have actually beed found by other means if that is what they were looking for. It is not that serendipity was the only way to find the many types of inventions we have; it is only considered serendipity because there was actually no work towards this outcome. Many argue that penicilin would have been discovered as an antibiotic if someone had been looking for it. This is why I belive that luck is a major contributor to serendipity, and a better addition to the definition from earlier should read that it is through the use of luck, as well as knowledge of the scientific principles that are present.
I really enjoyed your perspective on this, especially your description of luck as an agent through which serendipity is applied to situations. However, I was wondering is serendipity really requires the individual involved to be searching for something else? One of the other posts for this assignment cites the story to Archimedes discovering the displacement method of measuring volume as an example of serendipity. At the time, he was in fact searching for a way to determine the density of a crown, which would bring it outside of this definition of serendipity. He found the answer in an unexpected place, but only because he was searching for it.
ReplyDeleteMatthew Mendenhall Section: J5
ReplyDeleteI like the arguments you present on the subject that serendipity doesn’t exist and how it is in the end all luck. Not too many people have presented this side of the question and it was nice to see someone’s point of view to use in comparison. I do agree with the opinion that yes, discovering things serendipitously requires some luck but does it require no work? You mentioned that it is considered serendipity, because there was no work done toward the outcome. Do people that find these serendipity discoveries really do no work toward there discoveries? At the time they are unaware what they are discovering, but after when the scientist realizes that the original intent was unachieved and something else was produced they have to work to retrace their steps to see what exactly went wrong. Then they have to recreate the actual experiment to produce this new discovery. This blog link (http://www.squidoo.com/serendipity-luck-coincidence) does a good job of showing all the points of view of serendipity and you may find it interesting.
I think you did a nice job with your post. The arguments were well supported and the viewpoints were original. I like the use of examples of serendipity discovering but it may have been nice to incorporate them in the argument; overall though, nice post Drew.