As observed in Chapters 1 and 2, the psychology of science is not a homogeneous research area. On one side of the disciplinary divide are psychologists who conduct laboratory experiments on problem solving to tease out the logic of discovery. On the other side are psychologists who subject active scientists to psychometric assessment techniques to discern the personal attributes associated with scientific creativity and genius. Of these two divergent traditions, the second is the oldest. Francis Galton's (1874) survey of Fellows of the Royal Society of London represents the first bona fide psychological study of distinguished scientists. Since then, a vast literature has accumulated on the characteristics and backgrounds of creative scientists (Feist, 1998; Mansfield & Busse, 1981; Simonton, 1988b). This body of knowledge belongs to a more inclusive literature on the personal attributes of creative individuals of all kinds (Martindale, 1989; Simonton, 1999a).

The last fact raises a critical issue: to what extent is scientific creativity separate from other forms of creativity? Is the psychology of the creative scientist really no different from that of the creative artist? Or are there some fundamental contrasts? From the logic perspective, it would seem that scientific creativity must differ from artistic creativity at least insofar as science depends more heavily on logical analysis, especially mathematics and statistics. The zeitgeist perspective also suggests a fundamental discrepancy.