Nie rusz, Michal, tego kwiatka (1999) (original) (raw)
Related papers
Curiosity: A Behavioral Biology Perspective
Since Berlyne's groundbreaking work in the 1960's, curiosity has been a popular topic for psychological research. Despite a rich history of research, scientists have not been able to agree upon a single definition or taxonomy of curiosity. These diverging perspectives have led to a breadth of research that has yet to be integrated under one framework. Moreover, most research on curiosity has focused on neural mechanisms and ontogenetic characteristics, while the evolutionary aspects of curiosity have received little attention. I propose that research on curiosity can benefit from an evolutionary perspective, and more broadly from a biological perspective on information-gathering behavior. In this chapter, I synthesize the literature on curiosity from the perspective of behavioral biology-i.e., Tinbergen's four questions. The behavioral biology framework provides a powerful lens through which questions about behavior can be asked and iterative empirical work and theoretical construction can take place. In particular, I argue that evolutionary perspectives on curiosity can help identify the "joints" of nature at which curiosity may be carved. By identifying the function of different types of curiosity, a more robust and universal taxonomy of curiosity can be created.
Curiosity is commonly referred to as a way of being, or an object of curiosity. How curiosity is part of our daily lives, how we engage with curiosity intellectually has a long and interesting history. Since the sixteenth century it has been manifest in cabinets of curiosity, museums and curio cabinets; exercises in collecting, self-reflection and discovery. However, the end of the twentieth-century has altered our sense of the world, through the speed and accessibility of information leaving a changed relationship with wonder. This paper discusses the role of curiosity in research as a "habit of curiosity", (Benedict 2001, 2) a method for discovery. It reviews its historical manifestations and concerns, locating it through objects and actions, and questions what new meanings the twenty-first century brings with it. Is curiosity at risk? Is it still risky? The relationship between the individual and their interior and exterior socio-cultural landscape continually creates n...
Afterthoughts on Critiques to The Philosophy of Curiosity
In this paper I respond to and elaborate on some of the ideas put forth on my book The Philosophy of Curiosity (2012) as well as its follow-up “Curiosity and Ignorance” (2016) by Nenad Miščević, Erhan Demircioğlu, Mirela Fuš, Safiye Yiğit, Danilo Šuster, Irem Günhan Altıparmak, and Aran Arslan.
A refl ection on the method of research into curiosity
DIAL PHIL MENT NEURO SCI 2019; 12(1):25-32, 2019
This article reviews literature on some of the methods used in current research on human curiosity and attempts to reveal some of the problems related to objectivity, naïve realism, positivism and scientifi c verifi cation. It raises also the question as to what scientists mean by empirical. In doing so, solutions to these problems are off ered in terms of the needed construct that would transform present methods towards an adequate scientifi c approach to human research.