Novel & worthy: Creativity as a thick epistemic concept (original) (raw)
Related papers
Creativity, pursuit and epistemic tradition
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 2023
This paper revisits the standard definition of scientific creativity in the contemporary philosophical literature. The standard definition of creativity says that there are two necessary, and jointly sufficient, conditions for creativity, novelty and value. This paper proposes to characterize the value condition of creativity in terms of “pursuitworthiness”. The notion of pursuitworthiness, adopted from the debate on scientific pursuit in philosophy of science, refers to a form of prospective epistemic worth. It indicates that a certain object (such as a scientific hypothesis) is promising or has the potential to be epistemically fertile in the future, if further investigated. To support the claim that creative scientific instances are, qua creative, valuable in the sense of pursuitworthy, three examples of creative hypotheses taken from the modern history of the geosciences are introduced: MacCulloch’s continuity hypothesis in mid- 19th-century geology, Baron et al.’s phylogenetic hypothesis in contemporary paleontology, and the widely discussed Anthropocene hypothesis.
Creativity and Innovation Management, 1996
Magyari-Beck applied familiar themes from the history of science, this article borrows extensively from the latest thinking in the philosophy of science, thus continuing the debate started by Magyari-Beck at the ontological and epistemological plane. The contribution of this article lies in the fact that it uncovers some basic assumptions researchers hold about the nature of the (social) world and ways they can obtain knowledge about that world. As such it challenges orthodox ideas about "good" research and theory building.
THE PHILOSOPHY OF CREATIVITY, 2014
reativity pervades human life. It is the mark of individuality, the vehicle of self-expression, and the engine of progress in every human endeavor. It also raises a wealth of neglected and yet evocative philosophical questions: What is the role of consciousness in the creative process? How does the audience for a work for art influence its creation? How can creativity emerge through childhood pretending? Do great works of literature give us insight into human nature? Can a computer program really be creative? How do we define creativity in the first place? Is it a virtue? What is the difference between creativity in science and art? Can creativity be taught? The new essays that comprise The Philosophy of Creativity take up these and other key questions and, in doing so, illustrate the value of interdisciplinary exchange. Written by leading philosophers and psychologists involved in studying creativity, the essays integrate philosophical insights with empirical research.
'It is music and dancing that makes me at peace with the world, and at peace with myself.' Nelson Mandela.1 Every day and every moment of our waking lives we live with the creativity of the past. It surrounds and envelops us in all that we do whether it is a cultivated garden or park, the architecture in which we live or work, the clothes we wear, the food we cook, the furniture we use, the social and economic expectations we have or the language we speak. Most of the time we do not perceive it – it is just what it is, but we can also focus our minds on it and then a stream of new questions arises. When we ask ourselves what effect does this space have on me, and why? Why do I use this particular word to describe something I feel? Why do I prefer this picture for my wall? Why are some actions acceptable in one culture but are not considered proper in another? These questions are creative in themselves. They take us into new realms. In human history there has always been creativity and this capacity has had a determinative influence on how we lead our lives, but what really changes over time is how we think about this capacity for creativity and make it conscious. In human history there has always been creativity and this capacity has had a determinative influence on how we lead our lives, but what really changes over time is how we think about this capacity for creativity and make it conscious. The contemporary vibrant discussion on the value of creativity and innovation and their connection to our emotional life is not new. However, it is different. Utilising the powers of fire, developing the linguistic skills to communicate, creating the first wheel or clay pot, the discovery of metallurgy, building houses for habitation leading to larger and larger communities, finding ways of coordinating social endeavours and aspirations, have all deeply affected human evolution. The inventions and innovations of today should be measured against the discoveries of the past with certain humility. It is all too easy to have hubris about our present state compared to the achievements of our ancestors. Creativity, from the invention of knitting needles to the manufacture of iPads, is synonymous with our continuously evolving sense of identity. " … never before has the pace of innovation accelerated so dramatically, filling our lives with new fashions, new electronics, new cars, new music, new architecture … And even now a new crop of artists gaze at the Mona Lisa with an eye to turning it into something fresh and dazzlingly creative. The human chain of invention remains unbroken and in our superbly connected world, our singular talent to create races ahead of us. " 2 (Pringle, H. 2013) In this age of frenzied newness we also need an anchor lest the 'race' exhausts us and the 'unbroken chain' is snapped. To find our bearings we need more than ever the salutary thought that someone, somewhere, somehow created this, and what they created becomes, as it were, 'spellbound' in time and material. Then we can create the connectedness between the past and the present that we need. '… our lives increasingly require the ability to deal with conflicting messages, to make judgments in the absence of rule, to cope with ambiguity, and to frame imaginative solutions to problems we face.'3 (Eisner. 2002) '… our lives increasingly require the ability to deal with conflicting messages, to make judgments in the absence of rule, to cope with ambiguity, and to frame imaginative solutions to problems we face.' (Eisner. 2002) The question of 'how " something is created or invented is usually answerable in some form, at least in terms of what has been created since the Renaissance, which was a time when art became self-conscious and a more alert attention began to be paid to an individual's innovative attainments. Those who embarked on a creative career at that time became celebrated for their work, hence overturning St. Augustine's authoritative and stern edict " Creature non potest creare " (a creature should not presume to create). In contrast, Alberti in 15 th century Florence likened the painter's work to that of 'another God' 4(On Painting. 1435). A battle was begun for the human soul and in many ways the battleground is the same now as it was then. This was the starting point of the early modern age in European history of which we are the heirs. We speak about " disruptive technology " when contemplating the changes wrought upon our lives in the last few years but in the longer term the real disruptive technologies are the arts. They cause us to see and experience the world and our fellow human beings differently, and our ways of perception fluctuate with the influence of our times, our changing cultural and natural environment and our sense of selfhood. We speak about " disruptive technology " when contemplating the changes wrought upon our lives in the last few years but in the longer term the real disruptive technologies are the arts. The Ancient Greeks well knew with their theatrical concept of 'catharsis', whereby immersing ourselves in the art of the theatre and the tragic god-given destiny of mythological characters, we are able to find new depths and strengths in ourselves to face the challenges within our individual biographies. They celebrated creativity in their exuberant poetic hymns to Pallas Athene, who combined the interconnected capacity of the hands to produce craftwork and that of the mind that lead to clarity of thought. Human creativity is actually a complex continuum of activity, relationships and inner change. It meanders, flows, doubles back on itself, offers up contradictions, requires nurturing and concentration,
Paul ES, D Stokes 2018 Attributing Creativity
Among the questions that a theory of creativity should answer, importantly, are these. What conditions are conceptually necessary for some thing to be creative? Second, when one competently applies the concept CREATIVE, what precisely is one attributing to that thing, and what cognitive and perceptual features typify that attribution or judgment? The conceptual question is one for metaphysics, but a metaphysics informed by our cultural practices. The second pair of questions are broadly epistemological. We argue that a process condition is necessary for creativity: for any thing to be creative, it must be produced in the right kind of way. This bears important consequences for creativity judgments. Even if the subject of one's creativity judgment is specifically a product-say, a painting or sculpture-this judgment, if competent, will still involve attribution of the right kind of process. The second set of issues, then, is psychological. However, these issues are not analyzed (at least not centrally) empirically, since they are rooted in (i) what is conceptually or analytically necessary for some thing to be creative and (ii) what is involved in competently applying the concept CREATIVE. The simple argument schema that connects these two issues and our analyses thereof goes as follows. Let x = some idea or object.
Innovation Observed. Niklas Luhmann and the Theory of Creativity
The medium of art renders the creation of forms at once possible and improbable. The medium always contains other possibilities and makes everything determined appear to be contingent … In this way the artwork directs the beholder's awareness toward the improbability of its emergence.'