[mkross]

Wait, science isn't creative? Someone go tell Einstein that his bizarre, nonsensical ideas about the universe can't be correct. Warn Galileo that thinking outside the box is anti-science. Let Pasteur know that meat doesn't rot because really small things are eating it.

Science is creative. We just don't usually think of it because science is that crazy thing with math and they like have this "scientific method" that they always follow. But why are experiments actually being carried out? Maybe someone has a crazy theory that under the right circumstances, a liquid can have 0 viscosity and start defying gravity. Or that there are forms of life that don't even need Phosphorous, one of the "key ingredients" to life.

[amichail]

It's constrained creativity. Not much fun.

[jacquesm]

> It's constrained creativity.

Constrained by the bounds of your imagination and physics. Like errrm.. Art!

> Not much fun.

I think that needs a qualifier: "according to me" or something like that, I personally think science is great fun.

[ezy]

Huh? Creativity is what humans do! For everything else we find a way to build machines to do it (or enslave other humans :-)).

There are very good arguments that constrained creativity is the best creativity -- or perhaps the only creativity. Just choosing a medium or style for your art is constraining. Making a web page is constraining, making chocolate cake is constrained by certain parameters.

I think what you're looking for is "expressive" -- and I'd agree, scientific discoveries are by necessity creative, but usually not expressive. But that's not really an aim...

[CamperBob]

Ballsy thing to type on your own 3000 MHz computer.

[rbanffy]

That's the kind of balls one earns by skipping too many science classes - one derived from a marginal understanding of the world around them.