Gerald Koch said:
Serendipity does indeed happen. Edison, instead of looking at the properties of the elements, systematically tried each and every one when trying to perfect the light bulb. In doing so he created a lot of un-necessary work for himself but finally found tungsten.
But beside serendipity there is also the example of the forward pass -- three things can happen and two of them are bad. Before altering a developer one must consider all consequences. Those who added ascorbic acid rather than sodium ascorbate to Rodinal got quite a surprise when they came up with blank film. A perfect example of disturbing the balance of a developer. Mixing Rodinal and Xtol together, as suggested by some, is not going to produce supermicroultrafinegrainol. My comments also apply to throwing in a bit of glycin or pyrogallol or catechol. It's a lot easier if you are aware of the properties of the developer you wish to alter and of the chemicals to intend to add.
I'm not opposed to experimenting, it's fun. But before one can claim to have found the perfect developer there remains a lot of testing and measurement.
Personally, I think serendipity is most likely to happen to those who are treading known paths but keep their eyes on the surroundings. Those who added ascorbic acid instead of the ascorbate ignored my instructions. They probably never even read the original article.
The original definition of serendipity is not trial and error. It's an accidental discovery of something valuable that you were not looking for. It often happens during some trial and error process. It's really a consequence of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. One who thinks theories are infallible will not likely suffer from serendipity. Neither will they suffer it in others. The fact is that almost every theory began with serendipity.
Certainly, any discovery should be verified. We have scientific journals as much to propose theses for testing as to propound accomplished facts. Those who stuck their heads out to announce cold fusion were quickly decapitated. I expect the same to happen to me here if I propose something outlandishand that doesn't come true. What I do not expect is out-of-hand rejection, on the basis of some theory, of a fact that I did observe. Someone may freely contest my powers of observation, but should repeat my experiments first.
Enough, already.