"Datagatherer"

The scientist is in the first instance an artist, not a philosopher. He sees certain aspects of the universe and describes how these aspects are connected together, but makes no attempt to question why these aspects or their connections exist—that he leaves to God and the philosophers. The colours with which he paints his picture are certainly different from those in the paint pot of an artist, but they fulfil the same function. In fact, in the more "sciency" sciences (e.g., Physics), these colours are numerical. The beauty of this approach is that the most highly-developed branch of science, mathematics, is very adept at handling numerical lection of paint pots and a canvas even today do not constitute a painting, neither does a mere collection of numbers—no matter how difficult the collection—constitute science. In fact, such data is in it-self incredibly dull. By the way, that brings me to a second swear word, "datagatherer," a word which applies to those so-called scientists who believe that the mere collection of data is of value.

It is at this point that the scientist becomes rather like a detective. He begins to notice regularities in his data and by a process of abstraction attempts to see, as it were, what is behind this raw data: To see if his mess of data is consistent with some simple general principle, especially some principle which dovetails into the knowledge fabric already existing. The terrific power of his method comes from his regarding each regularity as a numerical fingerprint by comparing the fingerprints obtained both from his process of abstraction, often painted in the mathematical manner, with fingerprints obtained from other collections of data, collections often dictated by his abstract ideas.

This desperate urge to abstraction, to go beyond the superficial outer shell of experience, is not essentially different from that of the artist. What a thrill to match two fingerprints! What a thrill to capture that moving colour on a canvas!

At first sight it would appear that the scientist does differ from the poet in that the scientist is mainly conscious of the exterior world while the poet is more conscious of himself and even in portraying the exterior world is often dealing with his own problems. This may be so, but both require imaginative vivacity—a mind capable of seeing things in an unusual, in an unconventional way.