Darwinian ‘blind’ hypothesis formation revisited.
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...
| Publicado en: | Synthese Vol. 175; no. 2; pp. 193 - 219 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Springer Nature
Jul2010
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=52575561&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 52575561 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 00397857 4LI jtl: Synthese issn: 00397857 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Jul2010 vid: 175 iid: 2 pid: 237 pub: Springer Nature artinfo: ui: 52575561 10.1007/s11229-009-9498-8 ppf: 193 ppct: 26 formats: fmt: @attributes: type: P size: 269KB tig: atl: Darwinian ‘blind’ hypothesis formation revisited. aug: au: Kronfeldner, Maria affil: Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Berlin Germany su: Theory of knowledge Biological evolution Probability learning Biological invasions Memory Genotype-environment interaction Cognitive analysis sug: subj: Theory of knowledge Biological evolution Probability learning Biological invasions Memory Genotype-environment interaction Cognitive analysis keyword: Blind variation Campbell Creativity Darwinism Evolutionary epistemology Guided variation Guidedvariation Hypothesis formation Lamarckism Popper Simonton ab: 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. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: Synthese is a copyright of Springer, 2010. All Rights Reserved. item: Synthese holder: Springer Nature dt: @attributes: year: 2010 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|