Scientists are story tellers. For a long time, I thought scienstists say what is (re-contextualizing Augstein) and the scientific method produces the output logically determined like a mechanical system. However, turns out the scientific method is a only tool to figure out a story as it unfolds. Still, the scientist needs to tell it. At least, the impactful scientist.

In fact, I think every impactful individual is a story teller. Only by telling a story do you convince reviewers, students, supervisors, and job candidates. And, most importantly, convince yourself.

Of course, there are differences between scientific stories and other stories. Why do you tell a story? How do you tell a story? To whom do you tell a story? How convincing is your story? How much does your story correspond with reality, how plausible is it, and how well is it grounded in scientifically tenable statements? I'd say, scientists are some of the best story tellers in the world as they tell a previously untold story. An optimistic story. As stringent as it gets. An easy-to-follow story for an often highly complex, non-fictional plot.

Thoughts inspired from discussions with Reinhard Schütte, Tobias Grosse-Puppendahl, and Bettina Luescher.

Science is the endeavour of solving difficult problems under uncertainty. These difficult problems are generally rooted in the lack of non-trivial knowledge.

That's why great science is closely related to great enterpreneurship. Both activities share that they are predominantly characterized by uncertainty. Sometimes, the whole problem and its boundaries are uncertain. Sometimes, the problem determinants are uncertain. And sometimes, "only" the solution to an already well-structured problem is uncertain.

Therefore, conducting research is mostly the process of eliminating uncertainties, e.g., through implementation, observation, or reasoning.

Thoughts inspired from discussions with Reinhard Schütte and Andreas Fender.

Individuals make the difference. Institutions have no talent, knowledge, skill, experience, or expertise. Individuals do.

Of course, institutions are better or worse in their tendency of attracting individuals with talent, etc. But talented people can be where you don't expect them and vice versa. Therefore, you need to be on the constant lookout for talent.

In science-and any creative role really, this specifically means if there is a great outcome, it is not due to the institution. It is because of one good individual. And, maybe they were renting out DVDs in the video rental store, only to write and direct Pulp Fiction a few years later.

Sometimes, one might think there are whole teams or departments that created something. But there is no next-level support when you are already at the edge. Nope, in fact, the better the outcome, the lower the number of people that are behind it. Either you solve whatever problem, or it remains a problem. Either you are the expert, or no one is. Either you develop the skill, or no one has it. Either you do it, or no one does.

PS: Especially in larger organizations, there is the tendency to develop the believe that good processes can replace good individuals. That's a fallacy. (I've never heard anyone talk of Agile Development in any good software company. Just get your code into CI.)

Thoughts inspired from discussions with Reinhard Schütte, Christian Holz, and Daniel Cremers.