Serendipity and Vision: Two Methods for Discovery Comments on Nickles |
| |
Authors: | Scott A. Kleiner |
| |
Affiliation: | (1) Department of Philosophy, The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, 30602-1627, U.S.A |
| |
Abstract: | Thomas Nickles challenges my thesis that innovative discoveries can be based on deliberately chosen problems and research strategies. He suggests that all significant innovation can be seen as such only in retrospect and that its generation must be serendipitous. Here I argue in response that significant innovations can and do often arise from self conscious critical appraisal of orthodox practice combined with regulated though speculative abductive argumentation to alternative explanatory schemata. Orthodox practice is not based upon monolithic systems of belief about the subject of inquiry. Rather major domains of scientific practice often are approached from different conceptualizations that provide grounds for critical dialectic and consilient empirical information. Abductive arguments that meet appropriate conditions of likelihood, probability and analogy are an important means of justifying allocating resources to innovative practices that have yet to produce products that can rival those of established orthodoxy. |
| |
Keywords: | abduction discovery Nickles novelty serendipity |
本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录! |
|