I was drawn to the conversation with Professor Katherine Blundell of Oxford. As someone deeply interested in how we build scientific understanding, I found Blundell’s reflections on the Padua Rainbow especially compelling—particularly her insight that the framework omits a crucial, invisible force behind discovery: human expectation. In her view, expectation isn’t just a backdrop to scientific progress; it’s an active agent that shapes what we notice, what we record as data, and even which theories we consider plausible. What struck me most was her ability to connect this abstract idea to her own research in radio astronomy. She described a pivotal moment when she challenged prevailing ideas about “radio quiet quasars” by designing an experiment that could test both competing hypotheses. Her expectations, shaped by training and curiosity, guided her approach—but so did her openness to being surprised. Her results ended up shifting the debate entirely.
The most surprising takeaway for me was just how embedded our expectations are, even when we think we’re being objective. It reminded me that what we don’t expect to see can be just as revealing as what we do. Ancient astronomers, for instance, clung to the idea of perfect celestial circles for over a thousand years—not necessarily because of the data, but because of deeply ingrained expectations about what the heavens should look like.This interview is a thoughtful reminder that science isn’t just data and logic—it’s imagination, perspective, and sometimes, a bit of stubbornness. Expectation, as Blundell shows, is both a lens and a limitation—and understanding it might be the key to moving science forward.