Stumbling

It's quite interesting to me how Kant compares the search for "enlightenment" to logistical science. He talks a lot about how important it is to have a train of ideas or hypothesis, as one does not merely stumble upon scientific or logical laws.

While I suppose I agree that it is not possible for one to make a scientific law unless one has a distinct idea of what they are searching for, I slightly disagree with him on his scorn of the act of stumbling itself. (Now I must add the disclaimer that I haven't quite finished the reading, so it will be interesting to see where he takes all this. Naturally with this scientific progression of logic he must be headed somewhere to explain something.) 

It's just that recently in chemistry, Dr. Shelly mentioned that many of the world's greatest discoveries didn't happen because someone said "eureka!", but because someone saw something abnormal and said, "well that's funny..."

I mean, I don't really see why Kant himself would be questioning the things he does unless he had a natural curiosity. This natural curiosity wouldn't be systematically produced, but naturally experiences, or "stumbled upon". Ah well. We'll see where this goes!

Oh, and chats up on Hannah's :)