نقش هستی‌شناسی شهودی، ساخت‌مندی و تمثیل در تخیل خلاق علمی

نوع مقاله : علمی ـ پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشیار دانشگاه اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران.

2 کارشناسی‌ارشد فلسفه، دانشکده الهیات و معارف اهل‌بیت(ع)، دانشگاه اصفهان، ایران

چکیده

این مقاله تحلیلی بر تخیل خلاق علمی به‌عنوان مهم‌ترین عامل پیشرفت علم بر مبنای الگوهای نظری و نتایج تجربی علوم شناختی ارا‌‌ئه می‌دهد. بیشتر استنتاج‌های استقرایی انسان ‌با مناسبات هستی‌شناسی شهودی عجین است؛ یعنی از راه استدلال به‌دست نیامده‌اند. هستی‌شناسی شهودی یک مجموعۀ محدودِ مقوله‌بنیاد است که چارچوب‌های نظری را شکل می‌دهد. خلاقیت علمی با انتظارات هستی‌شناختیِ پیشین ساخت‌مند شده است و بنابراین پیشرفت علم در گرو جدایی مسیر از هستی‌شناسی شهودی است. تمثیل‌ها ابزار معرفتیِ قدرتمندی جهت غلبۀ دانشمندان بر محدودیت‌های یادشده است، اما تمثیل‌ها نیز تحت تأثیر هستی‌شناسی شهودی‌اند؛ زیرا دانشمندان در محدودۀ ذهن خود از تمثیل استفاده می‌کنند. استفاده از دانش موجود در خلاقیت، تخیل ساخت‌مند است، پس پیشرفت علم براساس معرفت‌های موجود است و عملِ تولید انگاره‌های خلاقانه به یک شیوه است: ایجاد خلاقانۀ اکتشاف یا اختراع جدید از بعضی مفاهیم آشنا. رابطۀ مشاهده و نظریه‌ در علم برمبنای ساختار فوق از طریق تخیل خلاق برقرار می‌شود، نه تعمیم الگوهای موجود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

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

نویسندگان [English]

  • Ahmad Ebadi 1
  • Ammar Ishaq 2
1 Associate professor, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
2 MA student of philosophy, Faculty of Theology, University of Isfahan, Iran
چکیده [English]

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.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Intuitive ontology
  • analogy
  • creativity
  • scientific imagination
  • structured imagination

مراجع

1. نامور مطلق، بهمن (1386)، «پدیدارشناسی تخیل نزد باشلار»، هنر و معماری: پژوهشنامه فرهنگستان هنر، ش6.
2. مفتونی، نادیا (۱۳۸۸)، «خیال مشایی، خیال اشراقی و خلاقیت»، خردنامه صدرا، ش ۵۵.
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, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
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. __________ (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 (1596), Mysterium Cosmographicum, 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), “Infantsknowledge 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. (1994), “Structured Imagination: The Role of Category Structure in Exemplar Generation,” Cognitive Psychology, No. 27.
24. __________ (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.
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. __________ (1988), “Problem Solving and Creativity,” In: R. J. Sternberg (ed.), The Nature of Creativity: Contemporary Psychological Perspective, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار