[mkagenius]

I do not exactly get the arguments author present here. What the author sees as a tension is only for a moment -- the accuracy/truth prevails eventually even if a scientist fools himself into believing a wrong theory for some time (and eventually deriving the correct result). Its like when people assume the opposite when trying to prove some theorem in mathematics (ex: assuming there is an intergral solution to fermats theorem.. so on)

[coldtea]

>What the author sees as a tension is only for a moment

Well, people could be incapable of going for one or the other as needed, even just "for a moment" -- which is the main issue.

Just it being "for a moment" doesn't preclude that moment to be very crucial to the resulting development.

[hammock]

>the accuracy/truth prevails eventually

This is true in principle. In practice, efforts towards accuracy are based on current beliefs, ideas and assumptions about the world. However creativity allows one to move beyond that, to explore if there exists some other local maximum higher that the current one. A better truth, so to speak. And without creativity you won't get there.

That is what I believe the author means when they say "somehow [the creative scientists'] early errors helped them find their way to the truth. They were...making many mistakes, mostly in the right direction."

[nikki93]

What about in cases where there is no one "solution" due to an environment that you are embedded in or something: like writing a good song or making a painting or writing a nice poem for a friend?

[cJ0th]

Art is a bit like white noise or a fluffy cloud: You can see everything you want in it – and that's exactly what you see. So basically everything qualifies as a solution. This is easy to see with poems or more abstract music (like drones). But I think the same holds true for pop music only that there are some rules on top of it and a marketing department that "assists" the consumer a bit in what they should see in it.