Massimo Pigliucci argues that creativity isn't optional in science and philosophy. Good scientists and philosophers must be creative to do their work well, and writing for a general audience demands personal creative engagement, not just technical knowledge.
Chapters
Oh, that's a, that's a good question. So I usually don't think of what I do as a sort of artist— artistic, right? But in fact it is, because as you say, creativity is everywhere. I mean, and you know, people normally draw these sharp distinctions between, let's say, the sciences on the one hand, or even some of the humanities like philosophy, and then the arts, right? Music and painting and all that sort of stuff. But in fact, I've actually occasionally argued that it takes a lot of creativity to be a decent scientist. Since there is no such thing, the scientific method is not an algorithm that you just sit there and apply step by step like a computer. It needs creativity. Good scientists, I don't want to talk about exceptional scientists, but even good scientists, if they don't engage in creative thinking, they're nothing, they're just technicians. The same goes for philosophers. Creative philosophers need to be creative. Good philosophers need to be creative. So I think that in the last few years, I've started thinking about what I do And of course, when it comes to writing, you know, especially writing for a general public, then you definitely need to be creative. You're not just repeating somebody else's ideas. You have to put your own sort of heart and soul into it.
