The Role of Intuitive Ontology, Constructivism, and Analogy in Creative Scientific Imagination

Document Type : The Quarterly Jornal

Authors

1 Associate professor, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran

2 MA student of philosophy, Faculty of Theology, University of Isfahan, Iran

Abstract

This paper provides an analysis of creative scientific imagination as the most important factor in the advancement of science in accordance to theoretical models and empirical findings of cognitive sciences. Most inductive inferences are intertwined with intuitive ontological relations; that is, they are not arrived at through reasoning. Intuitive ontology is a restricted categorical set, constituting theoretical frameworks. Scientific creativity is constructed by prior ontological expectations, and thus, the progress of science is owed to parting way from intuitive ontology. Analogies are powerful epistemic tools at the disposal of scientists to overcome such restrictions. Nevertheless, analogies are also affected by intuitive ontology, since they deploy analogies within the limits of their own minds. To deploy the repertoire within their creativity is to have constructed imagination. Thus, the progress of science is based on available body of knowledge, and the production of creative images is done in one way: to creatively bring about a discovery or an invention of certain familiar concepts. The relation between observation and theory in science is based on this construction via creative imagination, rather than a generalization of available models.

Keywords

References

  1. Namvar Motlaq, Bahman (1386 SH), “Padidarshinasi-yi Takhayyul nazd-i Bachelar,” Hunar wa Mi’mārī: Pazhūhishnāmi-yi Farhangistān-i Hunar, Vol. 6.
  2. Maftoni, Nadia (1388), “Khiale Mashaeii, Khiale Eshraghi Va Takhauool,” Kheradname Sadra, Vol. 50.
  3. Aubusson, P. J., Harrison, A. G., & Ritchie, S. M. (2006), “Metaphor and analogy,” In: Abusson, P. J., Harrison, A.G., & Ritchie, S.M. (eds.), Metaphor and analogy in science education, No.55.
  4. Barbour, Ian. (1990), Religion in an Age of Science, Technology, and Society at Carleton College, Northfield: Minnesota.
  5. Bassala, G. (1988), The evolution of technology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  6. Boyer, P. (2000), “Natural epistemology or evolved metaphysics? Developmental evidence for earlydeveloped, intuitive, category-specific, incomplete, and stubborn metaphysical presumptions,” Philosophical Psychology, No. 13.
  7. Burki, L. and Cavalluci, D. (2011), “Measuring the Results of Creative Acts in R & D: Literature Review and Perspectives,” In: D. Cavalluci, R. de Guio, and G. Cascini (eds.): Building Innovation Pipelines through Computer-Aided Innovation, CAI, Springer.
  8.  Cacciari, C., Levorato, M. C., & Cicogna, P. (1997), Imagination at work: Conceptual and linguistic creativity in children, In: T.B. Ward, S. M. Smith, & J. Vaid (eds.). Creative Thought: An Investigation Of Conceptual Structures And Processes, Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
  9. Capitani E., Laiacona M., Mahon B. Z. and Caramazza A. (2003), What are the facts of semantic category-specific deficits? A critical review of the clinical evidence, Cognit. Neuropsychol, No. 20.
  10. Caramazza A. and Shelton J.R. (1998), “Domain-specific knowledge systems,” in: J. Cognit (ed.), the brain: the animate– inanimate distinction, Neurosci, No. 10.
  11. Caramazza, A., & Mahon, B. Z. (2003), “The organization of conceptual knowledge: The evidence from category-specific deficits,” Trends in: Cognitive Sciences, No. 7.
  12. De Cruz, Helen; De Smedt, Johan (2006), “The Role of Intuitive Ontologies in Scientific Understanding – the Case of Human Evolution,” Biology & Philosophy, June 2007, Vol. 22, Issue 3.
  13. De Cruz, Helen; De Smedt, Johan (2010), “Science as Structured Imagination,” Creative Behavior, Vol. 44, No. 1, First Quarter.
  14. Dunbar, K (1997), “How scientists think: On-iine creativity and conceptual change in science,” In: T.B. Ward, S.M. Smith, & J. Vaid (eds.), Creative thought, An investigation of conceptual structures and processes, Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.
  15. Farah M.J. and Rabinowitz C. (2003), “Genetic and environmental influences on the organisation of semantic memory in the brain: is living things an innate category?,” Cognit, Neuropsychol, No. 20.
  16. Gelman S. A., Coley J. D. and Gottfried G. M. (1994), “Essentialist beliefs in children: The acquisition of concepts and theories,” In: Hirschfeld L. A. and Gelman S. A. (eds), Mapping the Mind, Domain Specificity in Cognition and Culture, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  17. HODDESON, L. (2007), “Analogy and cognitive style in the history of  invention: Inventor independence and closeness of compared domains,” In: S. Vosniadou, D. Kayser, & A. Protopapas (eds.), Proceedings of the European cognitive science conference , Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  18. Kepler, Mysteriumcosmographicum (1596), cited in: Gentner et aI., 1997.
  19. Perkins, D. N. (1981), The mind's best work, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  20. Spelke E. S., Phillips A. and Woodward A.L. (1995), “Infants’ knowledge of object motion and human action,” In: Sperber D., Premack D. and Premack A. J. (eds.), Causal Cognition.
  21. Tarek R. Besold, Ulf Krumnack, Angela Schwering, Kai-Uwe Kühnberger, (2012), “Analogies and Analogical Reasoning in Invention,” Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship, Publisher: Springer.
  22. Ward, T. B., &Sifonis, C. M. (1997), “Task demands and generative thinking: What changes and what remains the same?,” The Journal of Creative Behavior, No. 31(4).
  23. Ward, T. B. (1998), “Analogical distance and purpose in creative thought: Mental leaps versus mental hops,” In: K. Holyoake, D. Gentner, & B. Kokinov (eds.), Advances in analogy research: Integrationof theory and data from the cognitive, computational, and neural sciences, Sofia: New Bulgarian University.
  24. Ward, T. B. (1994), “Structured imagination: The role of category structure in exemplar generation,” Cognitive Psychology, No. 27.
  25. Ward, T. B., Patterson, M. J., SIFONIS, C. M., DODDS, R. A., & SAUNDERS, K. N. (2002), “The role of graded category structure in imaginative thought,” Memory and Cognition, No. 30.
  26. Weisberg, R. W. (1986), Creativity, genius and other myths, New York: Freeman.
  27. Weisberg, R. W., (1988), “Problem solving and creativity,” In R. J. Sternberg (ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspective, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics