In this blog post, we’ll explore the significance of the psychological concept of “frames” for scientific thinking and the advancement of science, and examine why this way of thinking is essential for scientists and students of science and engineering.
Thinking That Breaks Free from Frames and the Beginnings of Science
The name Columbus is one that everyone reading this has likely heard at least once. Here, I’d like to share a brief anecdote about him.
After Columbus returned from discovering the New World, he was invited to a banquet hosted by the nobility. The nobles dismissed the discovery of the New World, claiming that anyone could have done it simply by sailing in one direction. In response, Columbus said:
“Is there anyone among you who can stand this egg on its point?”
One by one, the people at the table tried, but no one could get the egg to stand. When everyone declared it impossible, Columbus picked up the egg, tapped the tip lightly against the table to crack the shell slightly, and then casually stood it upright.
In psychology, the perspective through which we view problems, the mindset we use to understand the world, the framework through which we interpret the world, and stereotypes about people are all referred to as “frames.” Throughout history, humans have viewed the world solely through their own perspectives and lived trapped within them. Only a few people in history have broken out of these frames, and many of them have left their mark on history.
Frames tend to form particularly firmly among those, like the author, who majored in the natural sciences or engineering. This is because the nature of these disciplines—which center on theory, equations, and proofs—creates a strong tendency to maintain existing frameworks. In that sense, Professor Choi In-cheol’s ‘Frame’ is a book that awakens many science and engineering students to the importance of frames—an aspect they may not have fully considered.
Written by Choi In-cheol, a professor in the Department of Psychology at Seoul National University, this book aims to introduce the various research findings of psychology in a way that is easily understandable to the general public. Through diverse examples, the author explains the frames through which people live their lives and how those frames influence their behavior and judgment.
Although the author explains frames from the perspective of everyday life, I believe that those working in the fields of science and engineering, in particular, should understand the importance of frames and actively utilize them. However, even today, many science and engineering students tend to view psychology solely as a field within the humanities and social sciences, considering it a discipline largely irrelevant to their own work, which is based on scientific logic.
I would like to examine why this perception is misguided and why psychology—particularly the concept of “frames”—is necessary for students in science and engineering.
How are science and psychology connected?
Which areas of psychology actively utilize science? One prime example is cognitive psychology.
Cognitive psychology is a branch of psychology that scientifically studies the principles and mechanisms of various cognitive processes, such as human perception, memory, thinking, problem-solving, and language. It focuses primarily on how humans acquire, structure, and utilize knowledge. It is also closely linked to artificial intelligence, linguistics, and neuroscience, and has established itself as one of the core fields of modern cognitive science.
An understanding of biology and brain science is essential for studying human cognitive processes. In fact, cognitive psychology research often involves collaboration with researchers from various fields, such as neuroscience, life sciences, and medicine. This is because it is necessary to analyze how human thought and behavior are mediated by specific brain activity.
Other fields of psychology, including psychoanalysis, have also actively adopted scientific research methods in recent times due to advances in brain science and neuroscience. Furthermore, various fields such as developmental psychology, social psychology, and experimental psychology have continued to evolve alongside advancements in statistics, experimental design, life sciences, and computer science.
Conversely, however, many people find it difficult to answer the question, “What are some examples of psychology being applied in scientific fields?” Many students of science and engineering believe that psychology has no direct impact on scientific research. This is because they think within the framework that psychology belongs to the humanities and social sciences, which are distinct from the natural sciences.
However, psychology—and in particular, the concept of “frames” discussed in this book—is not limited to specific scientific fields; it is a crucial concept that can influence scientists’ very way of thinking.
How did the advancement of science become a process of breaking free from frames?
The history of science is replete with examples where breaking free from existing frames ushered in a new era. A prime example is the shift from the geocentric model to the heliocentric model.
Until the 16th century, many scholars accepted the geocentric model as truth. The geocentric model is a cosmological view in which the Earth is fixed at the center of the universe, and the Sun, Moon, and planets revolve around it. For a long time, this theory was regarded as absolute truth, and no one readily questioned it.
People at the time understood the world within the frame of the geocentric model. They were not even aware that their thinking was wrong, and even when evidence emerged that contradicted the existing theory, they tended to cling to their existing perspective rather than actively accepting the new evidence.
However, there were those who questioned this frame. Notable figures include Copernicus and Galileo Galilei. Copernicus proposed the heliocentric theory, in which the planets revolve around the Sun, and Galileo supported this through his observations. Later, Kepler further refined the heliocentric theory through his laws of planetary motion, and Newton’s theory of universal gravitation provided the physical foundation for explaining this new view of the universe.
Today, since the heliocentric model has become the foundation of modern astronomy, the geocentric model is no longer accepted as scientific. However, to people at the time, the heliocentric model actually seemed like a claim that defied common sense. That is how firmly entrenched the prevailing framework was, and breaking it was an extremely difficult task.
Ultimately, Copernicus questioned the existing absolute way of thinking and created a major turning point in the history of science by presenting a new perspective. This serves as an example demonstrating that the advancement of science does not begin with the unconditional rejection of existing knowledge, but rather through the process of continuously investigating phenomena that existing theories cannot explain and proposing new perspectives.
Einstein is another prominent scientist who transcended the existing framework. One of the first achievements that comes to mind when his name is mentioned is the theory of relativity. The Theory of Relativity is regarded as the theory that transcended the limitations of classical physics and ushered in a new era of physics.
With the emergence of the Theory of Relativity and quantum mechanics in the 20th century, physics prior to that period came to be classified as classical physics, while physics thereafter was classified as modern physics. This does not simply mean that an era had changed; it signifies that the fundamental framework of thought in physics had shifted.
Classical physics developed primarily around Newtonian mechanics and Maxwell’s electromagnetism. However, from the late 19th century through the early 20th century, a series of phenomena—such as the nature of light, electromagnetic phenomena, and the structure of the atom—were discovered that could not be adequately explained by existing theories.
At the time, many scientists believed that a medium called the “ether” was necessary for the propagation of light. However, the results of various experiments did not align with this hypothesis, and it was difficult to resolve these issues using the existing framework of physics alone. Furthermore, there were aspects of Newtonian mechanics and Maxwell’s electromagnetism that could not be harmoniously reconciled.
In addition, the discovery of X-rays, the discovery of radioactivity, and research on atomic structure continued to present new phenomena that existing physics could not explain. These problems could not be solved by merely tweaking existing theories; they required a more fundamental shift in thinking.
Many scientists before Einstein were aware of these problems, but most sought solutions within the framework of classical mechanics. This was because identifying a problem and transcending existing ways of thinking are two different things.
Einstein, on the other hand, rethought the very framework of existing thinking in order to resolve the contradictions between Newtonian mechanics and electromagnetism. He proposed a new perspective that viewed space and time not as absolute concepts but as closely interconnected ones, and based on this, he published the Special Theory of Relativity. He subsequently developed this into the General Theory of Relativity, laying a new foundation for modern physics.
Today, the theory of relativity is more than just a theoretical concept. It is actually applied in various fields—such as time correction for satellites, GPS positioning systems, astrophysics, and black hole research—and serves as a crucial foundation for modern science and technology.
Thus, in the history of science, “breaking the frame” does not simply mean rejecting existing theories; rather, it is a process of understanding phenomena that existing theories cannot explain from a new perspective and proposing a better explanatory framework. It is no exaggeration to say that the advancement of science has been achieved through repeated shifts in thinking like these.
Why Do Scientists Need the “Frame” of Psychology?
Psychology may be a somewhat unfamiliar discipline, at least to many students of science and engineering. To them, psychology is merely a branch of the humanities and social sciences, and it is easy to assume that it is not a field they—as aspiring scientists—need to master.
However, the concept of a “frame” is not limited to general human relationships or social phenomena. It is an important way of thinking that can be fully applied in any field requiring scientific thinking.
Of course, there is one distinction to be made here. The examples of Copernicus and Einstein in the history of science do not imply that they achieved greatness because they studied psychology. They advanced science by constantly questioning existing ways of thinking and proposing new perspectives. Psychology, on the other hand, is the discipline that studies how humans form these mental frameworks and why it is difficult to break free from existing ones.
In other words, the “paradigm shift” illustrated by the history of science and the “frame itself” studied by psychology are not the same concept. However, psychology helps us understand that humans have a tendency to cling to existing ways of thinking, and by providing an opportunity to objectively reflect on our own thinking, it offers meaningful insights for scientific thinking as well.
Scientists must be more logical than anyone else, but at the same time, they must avoid becoming overly attached to their own theories and hypotheses. Science is a discipline that advances through constant verification and falsification, and it requires an attitude of exploring new possibilities when encountering phenomena that cannot be explained by existing theories. In this process, recognizing that one’s own way of thinking is merely one frame among many can help foster a more flexible approach to research.
In fact, a look at the history of science reveals that great discoveries were not made by rejecting all existing knowledge, but rather through the persistent exploration of problems that existing theories could not explain. New paradigms emerged after thoroughly understanding existing research, identifying its limitations, and proposing new explanatory frameworks to address them.
Therefore, psychology does not directly create new scientific theories. However, understanding how human thinking becomes fixed and under what conditions it can shift to new perspectives can provide meaningful assistance to scientists in reflecting on their own research processes. In this regard, an understanding of frames can serve as a tool for fostering scientific creativity and critical thinking.
It is precisely for this reason that I believe psychology is necessary for students of science and engineering. This does not mean they must major in psychology, but rather that it is important to understand that human thinking occurs within certain frameworks and to maintain an attitude that recognizes that one’s own thinking, too, can become trapped within a single frame at any time.
Copernicus and Einstein, who changed the course of scientific history, also persistently explored problems that could not be solved by existing explanations and drove scientific progress by proposing new perspectives. Their examples clearly demonstrate how important it is to think outside the box. While psychology does not directly create this thought process, it is significant in that it helps us understand why humans tend to remain within existing perspectives and encourages us to reflect on our own thinking.
Scientific progress always begins with new questions. It is not about unconditionally rejecting existing theories, but rather adopting an attitude of reexamining premises we have taken for granted and constantly questioning unexplained phenomena—this is what leads to new discoveries. Understanding frames can serve as a starting point for cultivating this attitude.
If even one reader of this article begins to question an old frame they had previously taken for granted and starts to view the issue from a new perspective, this article will have served its purpose. After all, new science always begins with a small shift in how we view existing questions.
