Issue 111( Most important discoveries or creation are accidental; it is usually while seeking the answer to one question that

  Most important discoveries or creation are accidental; it is usually while seeking the answer to one question that  we come across the answer to another.

 

 I don't agree the author's view that it is an accidental that we discover most important technique and creation. I cocede that we usually come across the answer to another while seeking the answer to one question which similiar in logical. In fact, at most time, we find the answer to one question from the answer to another.

 In the history, there are several creations found by accidental. For instance, the found of antibiotic by German scientist, the electric-magnetic reation by US scientist, etc, these examples are not doubtful. While scientist was seeking the answer to one question , they found them by accident. The author's view has well-reason, but it didn't suvey the whole range of the science example. In the real life, to the contrast, the most important discoveries are found by regually which scientist works hard for them. There are most example support it, just from our daily life, we use the computer for our work and entertainment, which creats by regually; the bulb light our dark which creats from thousands of times experiment; the T-shirt we wear that discover in the stone by regually; etc. Through the contrast, we can conclud that most important creations are regular found by scientist who works day and night for them, and less important discoveries are found by accident which also through the hard work that scientist do.

 It is clear that  without the scienist and most techniques' hard work, it is impossible to found the important discoverie and creation, either by accident or by regullar. It is the normal things that we think out one answer from another answer similary in logic. I am not a psy... of  student, but I assume that without the solitary base on the science, without the deligent in the work, without the deeper thinking on the question, it is imagenation for us to found the discoveries that influence the world's progress.  

  Just as the people's say: Nothing in the world happened in accedental; behind it is the regullar. So we can infer that behind the important discoveries, there are 99% hard work add 1% talent, maybe a little of lucky also. Nomatter what the things changed, nomatter how the answers being found,  being interested in you work,  doing hard for it, it is all that we can do by ourself.

  To sum up, I feel the author's view pays to much attention to the accedental, that we can't control or chage; and ignores the human's deligent. It isn't the idea we recommend. Our idealist is changing the world by our hands.