David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Synthese 175 (2):193--218 (2010)
Over the last four decades arguments for and against the claim that creative hypothesis formation is based on Darwinian ‘blind’ variation have been put forward. This paper offers a new and systematic route through this long-lasting debate. It distinguishes between undirected, random, and unjustified variation, to prevent widespread confusions regarding the meaning of undirected variation. These misunderstandings concern Lamarckism, equiprobability, developmental constraints, and creative hypothesis formation. The paper then introduces and develops the standard critique that creative hypothesis formation is guided rather than blind, integrating developments from contemporary research on creativity. On that basis, I discuss three compatibility arguments that have been used to answer the critique. These arguments do not deny guided variation but insist that an important analogy exists nonetheless. These compatibility arguments all fail, even though they do so for different reasons: trivialisation, conceptual confusion, and lack of evidence respectively. Revisiting the debate in this manner not only allows us to see where exactly a ‘Darwinian’ account of creative hypothesis formation goes wrong, but also to see that the debate is not about factual issues, but about the interpretation of these factual issues in Darwinian terms.
|Keywords||Darwinism blind variation creativity evolutionary epistemology Campbell Popper Simonton|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Herbert A. Simon (1969). The Sciences of the Artificial. [Cambridge, M.I.T. Press.
Karl R. Popper (1972). Objective Knowledge. Oxford,Clarendon Press.
David L. Hull (1988). Science as a Process an Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science. University of Chicago Press.
Paul Thagard (1988). Computational Philosophy of Science. Monograph Collection (Matt - Pseudo).
Citations of this work BETA
Chris Buskes (2013). Darwinism Extended: A Survey of How the Idea of Cultural Evolution Evolved. Philosophia 41 (3):661-691.
Similar books and articles
Alex Mesoudi (2008). Foresight in Cultural Evolution. Biology and Philosophy 23 (2):243-255.
Thomas Wachtler (2005). Interindividual Variation in Human Color Categories: Evidence Against Strong Influence of Language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (4):510-510.
Paul Thagard (1980). Against Evolutionary Epistemology. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1980:187 - 196.
James Blachowicz (1995). Elimination, Correction and Popper's Evolutionary Epistemology. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 9 (1):5 – 17.
Maria Kronfeldner (2007). Darwinism, Memes, and Creativity: A Critique of Darwinian Analogical Reasoning From Nature to Culture. Dissertation, University of Regensburg
Edward Stein & Peter Lipton (1989). Where Guesses Come From: Evolutionary Epistemology and the Anomaly of Guided Variation. Biology and Philosophy 4 (1):33-56.
F. Michael Akeroyd (2004). Popper's Evolutionary Epistemology Revamped. Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 35 (2):385 - 396.
Dean Keith Simonton (2001). Creativity as Cognitive Selection: The Blind-Variation and Selective-Retention Model. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24 (3):554-556.
Added to index2009-04-20
Total downloads112 ( #26,182 of 1,726,249 )
Recent downloads (6 months)16 ( #46,799 of 1,726,249 )
How can I increase my downloads?