|
|
|
|
|
|
by antasvara
1324 days ago
|
|
|
As a child, a lot of innovation comes from riffing on things you see/learn from the world around you. When you talk to people that had scientific experiences as a child, a significant component of the learning comes from tinkering with already built devices, seeing an experiment and thinking "what else would work in this," etc. Science isn't neatly labeled in a box. However, a decent chunk of it is using previously done research to guide new questions, a process that is emulated on a smaller level by chemistry sets. |
|
|
“Previously done research” like “these things taste good together” and “add this to cleaner to get a nice smell.” Sounds like riffing on the world right around them. You’re not going to get functionally fixed on when and where to use generic language like “previously done research” are you?
The rigor can come in when the work demands it. Kid’s chemistry sets are not saving lives or unlocking new truths. The industrial pipeline to produce them hardly seems worth it.
You do you. Personally, I prefer the path of least resistance for myself; buying less, dealing with less mess, and using the immediate environment to explore the same language and ideas. Of course it means having an imagination. Something adults often lack, seeing the path of least resistance as living in their memory, behaving literally in lock step with it.