Creative Thinking and
Critical Thinking
in Science
The excerpts below are from two parts of
A Detailed Examination of Scientific
Method:
the end of Section 5 (generating ideas for theories) and
the middle of Section 6 (generating ideas for experiments).
from Section 5 of A Detailed Examination of Integrated Scientific Method,
DOMAIN-THEORIES
and SYSTEM-THEORIES. A theory-based model
of an experimental system is constructed from two sources: a general
domain-theory (about the characteristics of
all systems in a domain) and a specific system-theory
(about the characteristics of one experimental system). During retroduction,
either or both of these theories can be revised in an effort to construct a
model whose predictions will match the known observations.
But a system-theory and domain-theory are
not independent. While playing with the possibilities for revising these
theories, an inventor may discover relationships between them. In particular,
a domain-theory (about all systems in the theory's domain) will usually influence
a system-theory about one system in this domain.
An interesting example of revising a system-theory
was the postulation of Neptune. In the mid-1800s, data from planetary
motions did not precisely match the predictions of a domain-theory, Newtonian
Physics. By assuming the domain-theory was valid, scientists retroductively
calculated that if the system contained an extra planet, with a specified mass
and location, predictions would match observations. Motivated by this
newly invented system-theory with an extra planet, astronomers searched in the
specified location and discovered Neptune. Later, in an effort to resolve
the anomalous motion of Mercury, scientists tried this same strategy by postulating
an extra planet, Vulcan, between Mercury and the Sun. But this time there
was no extra planet; instead, the domain-theory (Newtonian physics) was at fault,
and eventually a new domain-theory (Einstein's theory of general relativity)
made correct predictions for the motion of Mercury. In these examples,
both of the components used for constructing a model were revised; there was
a change in the system-theory (with Neptune) and in the domain-theory (for Mercury).
...< snip >...
STRATEGIES FOR RETRO-GENERALIZING.
When retroduction [a process of selecting or inventing a theory that can explain
known data] is constrained by multiple sources of data [so the theory must be
consistent with all of the known data], it may be easier to "cope with
the complexity" if a simplifying strategy is used. ... [one such method
is then briefly described] ...
A more holistic strategy is to creatively
search the data looking for an empirical pattern that, once recognized, can
provide the inspiration and guiding constraints for inventing a composition-and-operation
mechanism that explains the pattern. This process begins with no theory;
then there is a descriptive theory (based on an
empirical pattern) that can be converted into an
explanatory theory. While searching for patterns,
a scientist can try to imagine new ways to see the data and interpret its meaning.
Logical strategies for thinking about multiple experiments, such as Mill's Methods
of inquiry, can be useful for pattern recognition and theory generation.
RETRODUCTION and INDUCTION. Most of the discussion above has focused on the use of deductive logic during retroduction. Usually, however, retroduction also involves some inductive logic. ... The eclectic nature of generative inference should be recognized: usually, a scientific "inference to the best explanation" involves a creative blending of logic that is both inductive and deductive.
GENERATION AND EVALUATION.
Although C.S. Peirce (in the 1800s) and Aristotle (much earlier) studied theory
invention, as have many psychologists, most philosophers separated evaluation
from invention, and focused their attention on evaluation. Recently, however,
many philosophers (such as Hanson, 1958; and Darden, 1991)
have begun to explore the process of invention and the relationships between
invention and evaluation. Haig (1987) includes the process of invention
in his model for a "hypothetico-retroductive inferential" scientific
method.
Generation (by selection or invention) and
evaluation are both used in retroduction, with empirical evaluation acting as
a motivation and guide for generation, and generation producing the idea being
evaluated. It is impossible to say where one process ends and the other
begins, or which comes first, as in the classic chicken-and-egg puzzle.
The generation of theories is subject to
all types of evaluative constraints. Empirical adequacy is important,
but scientists also check for adequacy with respect to cultural-personal factors
and conceptual criteria: internal consistency, logical structure, and external
relationships with other theories.
INVENTION BY REVISION. Invention often begins with the selection of an old (i.e., previously existing) theory that can be revised to form a new theory.
ANALYSIS AND REVISION.
One strategy for revising theories begins with analysis; split a theory into
components and play with them by thinking about what might happen if components
(for composition or operation) are modified, added or eliminated, or are reorganized
to form a new structural pattern with new interactions.
According to Lakatos (1970), scientists often
assume that a "hard core" of essential
theory components should not be changed, so an inventor can focus on
the "protective belt" of auxiliary
components that are devised and revised to protect the hard core.
Usually this narrowing of focus is productive, especially in the short term.
But occasionally it is useful to revise some hard-core components. When
searching for new ideas it may be helpful to carefully examine each component,
even in the hard core, and to consider all possibilities for revision, unrestrained
by assumptions about the need to protect some components. By relaxing
mental blocks about "the way things must be" it may become easier
to see theory components or data patterns in a new way, to imagine new possibilities.
Or it may be productive to combine this analytical
perspective with a more holistic view of the theory, or to shift the mode of
thinking from analytical to holistic.
INTERNAL CONSISTENCY.
Another invention strategy is to construct a theory, using the logic of internal
consistency, by building on the foundation of a few assumed axiomatic components.
In mathematics, an obvious example is Euclid's
geometry. An example from science is Einstein's theory of Special Relativity;
after postulating that two things are constant (physical laws in uniformly moving
reference frames, and the observed speed of light), logical consistency -- which
Einstein explored with mental experiments -- makes it necessary that some properties
(length, time, velocity, mass,...) will be relative while other properties (proper
time, rest mass,...) are constant. A similar strategy was used in the
subsequent invention of General Relativity when, with the help of a friend (Marcel
Grossmann) who was an expert mathematician, Einstein combined his empirically
based physical intuitions with the powerful mathematical techniques of multidimensional
non-Euclidean geometry and tensor calculus that had been developed in the 1800s.
Although empirical factors played a role
in Einstein's selection of initial axioms, once these were fixed each theory
was developed using logical consistency. Responding to an empirical verification
of General Relativity's predictions about the bending of light rays by gravity,
even though Einstein was elated he expressed confidence in his conceptual criteria,
saying that the empirical support did not surprise him because his theory was
"too beautiful to be false."
EXTERNAL RELATIONSHIPS.
Sometimes new ideas are inspired by studying the components and logical structure
of other theories. Maybe a component can be borrowed from another theory;
in this way, shared components become generalized into a wider domain, and systematic
unifying connections between theories are established.
Or some of the structure in an old theory
can be retained (with appropriate modification) while the content of the old
components is changed, thereby using analogy to guide the logical structuring
of the new theory.
Another possibility is mutual analysis-and-synthesis;
by carefully comparing the components of two theories, it may be possible to
gain a deeper understanding of how the two are related by an overlapping of
components or structures. This improved understanding might inspire a
revision of either theory (with or without borrowing or analogizing from the
other theory), or a synthesis that combines ideas from both theories into a
unified theory that is more conceptually coherent and has a wider empirical
scope.
And sometimes a knowledge of theories in
other areas will lead to the recognition that an existing theory from another
domain can be generalized, as-is or modified, into the domain being studied
by a scientist. This is selection rather than invention, but it still
"brings something new" to theorizing in the domain. And the
process of selection is similar to the process of invention, both logically
and psychologically, if (as in this case) selection requires the flexible, open-minded
perception of a connection between domains that previously were not seen as
connected.
from Section 5 of A Detailed Examination of Integrated Scientific Method,
LOGICAL STRATEGIES for experimental
design. To facilitate the collection and interpretation of data for any
of the goals described above, logical strategies are available. Scientists
can use hypothetico-deduction or retroduction to make inferences about a domain-theory
or system-theory. Or they can calibrate a new experimental technique
with cross-checking logic that [as described earlier in Section 6] compares
data from the new technique and a familiar technique.
Logical strategies -- such as the systematic variation of parameters (individually or in
combinations) to establish "controls",
to discover correlations, and to determine the
individual or combined effects of various factors -- can be useful for designing
clusters of experiments to generate data that is especially informative.
One such strategy is Mill's Methods for experimental inquiry. Complementary
"variations on a theme" experiments can be planned in advance, or
improvised in response to feedback from previous experimental results.
By using inductive logic, a descriptive or
explanatory theory can be generalized into an unexamined part of a domain.
In making the logical leap of generalizing observations (or principles) from
a small sample to a larger population, scientists depend on two main criteria:
statistical analysis (by considering sample size, degree of agreement,...) and
sampling accuracy (by asking whether the sample accurately represents the whole
population). These criteria can be used for controlled experiments or
field studies.
In addition to these types of logic, each
area of science has its own principles for designing experiments. In certain
types of medical or social science experiments, for example, there are usually
design features such as "blind" observation
and interpretation, or controls for psycho-physical placebo effects and for motivational
factors (Borg & Gall, 1989) such as the John Henry Effect, Pygmalion
Effect, and Hawthorne Effect.
VICARIOUS EXPERIMENTATION.
So far, this discussion has not challenged an implicit assumption that the only
way to collect observations is to do an experiment. But one scientist
can interpret what another observes, so a "theoretician" can vicariously
design-and-do experiments by reading (or hearing) about the work of others,
in order to gather observations for interpretation.
This strategy won a Nobel Prize for James
Watson and Francis Crick. They never did any productive DNA experiments,
but they did gather useful observations from other scientists: xray diffraction
photographs (from Rosalind Franklin), data about DNA's water content (also from
Franklin), data about the ratios of base pairs (from Erwin Chargaff), and information
about the chemistry and structure of DNA bases (from Jerry Donohue). Then
they interpreted this information using thought-experiments and physical models,
and they retroductively invented a theory for DNA structure. Even though
they did not design or do experiments, a similar function was performed by their
decisions about gathering (and paying close attention to) certain types of observations.
CUSTOMIZED DESIGN. Effective problem formulation is customized to fit the expertise and resources of a particular research group. For example, if members of one group are expert at theorizing about a certain molecule, they may use a wide variety of experimental techniques (plus reading and listening) to gather information about their molecule. Another group, whose members have the expertise (and the expensive machine) required to do a difficult experimental technique, may search for a wide variety of molecules they can study with their technique.
TAKING ADVANTAGE OF OPPORTUNITIES.
Often, new opportunities for scientific research emerge from a change in the
status quo. A newly invented theory can stimulate experiments with different
goals: to test the theory and, if necessary, revise it; to explore
its application for a variety of systems within (or beyond) its claimed domain;
or to calculate the value of physical constants in the theory.
New experimental systems can be produced
by new events (a volcanic eruption,...) or by newly discovered data (rocks on
Mars,...) or phenomena (such as radioactivity in 1896, or quasars in 1960).
New experiments can include field studies of natural phenomena, and controlled
experiments such as the labwork used to study dinosaur bones.
New instrumentation technologies or observation
techniques can produce opportunities for designing new types of experimental
systems. When this occurs a scientist's goal can be to learn more about
an existing theory or domain by using the new tool, or to learn more about the
tool. Scientists can design their own instruments, or they can use technology
developed mainly for other purposes, or they can provide motivation for developing
new technologies by making known their wishlist along with a promise that a
market will exist for the new products. Or old technologies can be used
in a new way, such as setting up the Hubble Telescope on a satellite above the
optically distorting atmosphere of the earth.
When an area opens up due to any of these changes, for awhile the possibilities for research are numerous. To creatively take advantage of a temporary window of opportunity, an open-minded awareness (to perceive the possibilities) and speed (to pursue possibilities before they vanish due to the work of others) are often essential. For example, Humphrey Davy used the newly developed technique of electrolysis to discover 7 elements in 1807 and 1808. Of course, in science (as in the rest of life) it helps to be lucky, to be in the right place at the right time, but to take advantage of opportunity a person must be prepared. As Louis Pasteur was fond of saying, "Chance favors the prepared mind." Many other scientists were working in the early 1800s, yet it was Davy who had the most success in using the new technique for discovery.
The references cited
in this page are located in another
page.
This website for Whole-Person Education has TWO KINDS OF LINKS:
an ITALICIZED LINK keeps you inside a page, moving you to another part of it, and a NON-ITALICIZED LINK opens another page. Both keep everything inside this window, so your browser's BACK-button will always take you back to where you were. |
OTHER PAGES:
If you like this page, you may also like the following related pages:
Productive Thinking (Creative & Critical) • a sitemap for Thinking
Skills in Education: A Grand Tour of Learning, Teaching,
Thinking Motivations (and strategies)
for Learning Aesop's Activities for
Goal-Directed Education An Introduction to Design Method This area of Thinking Skills has
three sub-areas: |
This page is
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/think/prodsci.htm