Epistemological Randomization, or On Creativity in Science

A. M. Dorozhkin, S. Shibarshina
{"title":"Epistemological Randomization, or On Creativity in Science","authors":"A. M. Dorozhkin, S. Shibarshina","doi":"10.5840/eps20236012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article attempts to comprehend the problem within the methodology of science. The authors compare the concepts of creativity and heuristics and suggest a semantic differentiation between them, and also offer their own viewpoint on the main types of activity corresponding to these concepts. The problem of creativity is associated with the characteristics that a person must have in order to solve tasks and problems. The authors consider the relationship between the problem and the task, as well as some major techniques to tackle them. Here they substantiate the idea of a wider adaptation of randomization as a special tactic, that is, going beyond the narrow framework of mathematical statistics and empirical research. In this context, the authors introduce the notion of “epistemological randomization”, designed to denote the following of open rationality without abandoning the rational way of solving scientific problems. This technique is viewed as a phenomenon related to the counterfactual thinking. The last part of the article proposes a typology of personalities as problem and task solvers – adaptive, heuristic and creative personalities. It is assumed that the “heuristic” personality aims to complete tasks, which, unlike problems, have a final solution, while the “creative” personality aims to expand the problem field. The latter type is characterized as capable and inclined to use the “epistemological randomization”, the techniques of lateral thinking and other techniques that suggest several methods of solving problems and tasks at once.","PeriodicalId":369041,"journal":{"name":"Epistemology & Philosophy of Science","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epistemology & Philosophy of Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/eps20236012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article attempts to comprehend the problem within the methodology of science. The authors compare the concepts of creativity and heuristics and suggest a semantic differentiation between them, and also offer their own viewpoint on the main types of activity corresponding to these concepts. The problem of creativity is associated with the characteristics that a person must have in order to solve tasks and problems. The authors consider the relationship between the problem and the task, as well as some major techniques to tackle them. Here they substantiate the idea of a wider adaptation of randomization as a special tactic, that is, going beyond the narrow framework of mathematical statistics and empirical research. In this context, the authors introduce the notion of “epistemological randomization”, designed to denote the following of open rationality without abandoning the rational way of solving scientific problems. This technique is viewed as a phenomenon related to the counterfactual thinking. The last part of the article proposes a typology of personalities as problem and task solvers – adaptive, heuristic and creative personalities. It is assumed that the “heuristic” personality aims to complete tasks, which, unlike problems, have a final solution, while the “creative” personality aims to expand the problem field. The latter type is characterized as capable and inclined to use the “epistemological randomization”, the techniques of lateral thinking and other techniques that suggest several methods of solving problems and tasks at once.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
认识论随机化,或论科学中的创造性
本文试图从科学方法论的角度来理解这个问题。作者比较了创造力和启发式这两个概念,提出了它们之间的语义区别,并对这两个概念对应的主要活动类型提出了自己的观点。创造力的问题与一个人为了解决任务和问题而必须具备的特征有关。作者考虑了问题和任务之间的关系,以及解决它们的一些主要技术。在这里,他们证实了将随机化作为一种特殊策略进行更广泛适应的想法,也就是说,超越了数学统计和实证研究的狭隘框架。在这种背景下,作者引入了“认识论随机化”的概念,旨在表示在不放弃解决科学问题的理性方式的前提下,遵循开放的理性。这种技巧被视为一种与反事实思维有关的现象。文章的最后一部分提出了作为问题和任务解决者的人格类型——适应性人格、启发式人格和创造性人格。假设“启发式”人格的目标是完成任务,任务与问题不同,有最终的解决方案,而“创造性”人格的目标是扩大问题领域。后一种类型的特点是能够并倾向于使用“认识论随机化”、横向思维技术和其他技术,这些技术建议同时使用几种方法来解决问题和任务。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Popper and His Popular Critics: Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend and Imre Lakatos: Appendix Has Science Ever Been “Normal”? A Reply to “How is Post-Normal Science Possible?” by Lada Shipovalova On the Universality of Philosophical Reflection: Reply to Critics The History of Science in the Context of the State Ideology Criticism of Cartesian Account of Self-Knowledge in English-speaking Analytic Philosophy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1