Is_There_a_Logic_of_Discovery_

Is there a logic of discovery' Everybody has an opinion on this topic and nobody has been able to proof what the correct point of view is. A little research shows that there has been a long debate on this question among philosophers of science. People like Francis Bacon, John Stuart Mill and Hans Reichenbach answer “yes”, but no less important characters, such as William Whewell, Albert Einstein, Carl Hempel, and Sir Karl Poppel have a strong belief that the correct answer is “no”. But before getting deeper into this question let’s take a closer look to some views and the history of the methodology, which of course resulted in new views. To conclude the whole report some discussion points concerning the subject will be given. There are many views on the subject of discovery and creativity. One of these views state that discovery and creativity are linked to the end product and not so much on the process gone through to get there. There is also a strong stress on success. Some other views state that there is a large stress on geniality and originality, you should think out-of-the-box or lateral, break the rules. There is also a fascination for the creative moment, which is the moment on which everything happens, specified in an earlier lecture as the “aha” moment. Of course there are many more views but due to space limitations these are not given here. The methodology, meaning the study of the scientific methods, can be divided into three periods, each one showing some minor differences with the preceding ones. In the first period, ranging from the 17th to the 19th century, there was a belief in a unique procedure, a unique scientific method to come to discovery. The method to be used was both a method for discovery and for justification. There was a strong belief in algorithm for discover, meaning that it was all about applying the right procedure, the right methodical method and no geniality was involved. With the change of belief from “logic of discovery” to “no logic for discovery only for justification” the second period began. During the 19th and 20th century the belief in an old inductive method was abandoned and replace by a belief in hypothetical-deductive method. The belief in a unique scientific method remains on the other hand, but this method is only a justification method and no longer a discovery method. So it can be summarised that there is only a logic for justification, but a lot of attention is paid to discovery. During the third period, which started in the seventies, the belief in a unique scientific method was completely abandoned and methods were considered to be local. Another change was that discovery and justification could no longer be strictly separated and both were subject for logical scrutiny. However, recently there has been a new kind of history founded by Koyré. Before this new kind of history only the finished theories made the history, such as Galilei, Kepler and Newton. But the early stages of theories, which are sometimes proved wrong, are actually the most creative ones so Koyré made the change by including these in the history. Also the theories that were eventually proven to be incorrect but still involve a creative process are now included. Since theories will eventually disappear; creative processes on the other hand will be remembered even though they were not successful. These developments resulted in a new point of view, in which the basis was formed by Thomas Nickles. The biggest change compared to the earlier points of view is that there is now also interest in the processes gone through. Instead of looking at the macrostructure it is the microstructure which became more important. Also logic is no longer considered as relevant. This brings us back to the main question: “Is there a logic of discovery'”. As was already stated before there are two different standpoints concerning this question, the answer is either yes or no. Since it did not became totally clear to me during the lecture which point of view is considered to be correct, I took the liberty to take a closer look to both points of view. To my surprise the question turns out to be kind of a dilemma. On the one hand it turned out that discovery must be rational, since Newton, Lavoisier and even Einstein are considered to be exceptionally rational minds, meaning that they did not just solve the problems by luck. But for the process of discovery to be rational it needs to follow rational criteria and rules and thus a logic' But isn’t it so that luck is an important aspect for discovery' For example the discovery of the structure of benzene which came to Kekulé in a dream or the apple falling on Newton’s head. Some important questions resulting from this are: if there is a logic of discovery, meaning it is only a matter of rule following, doesn’t this mean that anyone can learn this' And why haven’t scientists used this logic to come up with even bigger achievements such as a cure for cancer' So from this all it seems that if there is a logic behind discovery and creativity it has not yet been revealed. Since no one so far has satisfactorily shown what this logic is, or codified its rules. “We cannot control discovery, but we can influence creativity.” Essay based on the lecture “Is there a logic of discovery'” by Prof. Joke Meheus, Department philosophy of science and logic, University Ghent.