����������������������������������� ��������� SYLLABUS
FOR INFT 944
����������� ������ THE PROCESS OF DISCOVERY AND ITS
ENHANCEMENT
����������������������� ����������� IN ENGINEERING APPLICATIONS
����������������������������������� ������ ���� �������[D. Schum]
����������������������������������������������� ����� Spring 2003
����������������������������������������������� ������ **************
����������������������������������������������� ���� SYNOPSIS
����������� By
what means do we discover or generate new ideas ?� Since antiquity, many learned persons have
tried to answer this question; it remains one of the most important,
interesting, and difficult of all questions we might ask about our
intellectual capabilities. At the simplest level we might say that new ideas
are discovered as a result of imaginative reasoning. But what such reasoning
involves is anything but obvious. In every context including science and
engineering we draw conclusions about phenomena,
events, and situations based upon observations we make. Over the centuries
philosophers and others have come to recognize that it is one thing to justify
or defend a possible conclusion based on evidence but
quite another to determine how this possible conclusion and the evidence arose
in the first place. There are few if any situations in which possible
conclusions and all relevant evidential tests of them are provided for us.
Hypotheses, evidence, and arguments connecting them must be discovered by
someone.
����������� Rules,
canons, or logics for justifying deductive reasoning have been with us since
the time of Aristotle's Prior Analytics.
Rules for justifying inductive (or probabilistic) reasoning have been more
difficult to determine. If the philosopher Hume is correct, we may never have
any set of inductive rules that can be defended as being uniquely ideal. On
many accounts, imaginative reasoning involves something other than deductive or
inductive reasoning. If imaginative reasoning does in fact differ from
deduction or induction, does it nevertheless conform to any logic
? On one view, the process of discovery, and the imagination it
involves, is a distinctly psychological experience and one that cannot be
expected to obey any rules, canons, or logics. But on other views, some quite
recently expressed, it is argued that there is method in the apparent madness
of discovery and that we do have at least some hope for a
logic of discovery. One thing quite apparent is that study of the
process of discovery is a compelling enterprise in many different disciplines.
Consequently, we have scholarship and recorded experiences concerning discovery
and imaginative reasoning that come from many different disciplines. As
expected, different views of the process of discovery are provided by different
disciplines; this is providential. In studying intellectual processes of the
highest order, such as those involved in the discovery of new ideas, we need
all the help we can obtain, from whatever source it may come. Different
perspectives of imaginative reasoning and discovery each supply uniquely
valuable insights. As we will see, help comes from some disciplines whose very
existence is not widely recognized.
����������� Not
all new ideas deserve to be taken seriously. In grading the adequacy of a new
idea, novelty alone is not nearly enough. Many truly novel ideas fail to
explain anything, generate no new phenomena, or solve no problems. So we also
have to be concerned about the extent to which the process of discovery is also
efficient and productive. It is one thing to be able to
characterize imaginative thought but quite another to be able to demonstrate
how we might exercise our imaginations in more productive ways. In recent
years, and in several different disciplines, there has emerged a strong
interest in developing methods for providing computer assistance to persons
performing discovery-related tasks. Considerable research on this matter is now
in progress here at GMU.�
����������� As
the title of this seminar announces, we will become absorbed not only in
studying the process of discovery but also in studying ways in which this
process might be enhanced or assisted in engineering and in other contexts.
There is no single discipline from which we can obtain a necessary, much less a
sufficient, background for study of the process of discovery and the
imaginative reasoning it requires. The only major requisite for taking this
course is a willingness to consider scholarship and recorded experience from
many different disciplines. In our work we will examine discovery-related thoughts
of persons whose interests involve philosophy and logic, mathematics,
neurophysiology, artificial intelligence, probability, history, psychology, the
science of complexity, the study of chaotic processes, the writing of fiction,
and semiotics (the study of the signs of nature and their possible
meanings). It will be my essential role in this seminar to present
discovery-related ideas from this m�lange of disciplines in what I hope you
will agree is an orderly way. A bit later in this syllabus I will mention what
I believe your role should be.
����������������������������������� AN ANNOTATED
OUTLINE OF TOPICS
�
����������� I
have found it no easy task to decide how best to organize ideas from the vast
literature concerning discovery and imaginative reasoning. Here is a selection
of topics I believe congenial to the interests of persons who have different
theoretical and/or practical objectives in mind as far as study of
discovery-related processes are concerned. I have put no time-line on this
outline since I cannot now predict how long we will wish to dwell on each of
the following topics.
����������� It
is said that necessity is the mother of invention; it is also said that
curiosity is the mother of science. As we all know, evidence of human inventiveness
and curiosity goes back many thousands of years. No study of discovery and
imaginative reasoning would be adequate without at least some consideration of
human progress in discovery and invention from the earliest ages. The trouble
is that this history is now as vast as it is absorbing; we could easily spend
several semesters just examining the history of human scientific and
technological accomplishments. However, what will absorb us the most, as we
proceed through the ages, is what people seem to have thought about the process
of discovery in which we are able to generate new ideas that offer potential
explanations of phenomena of interest. It happens that developments in
mathematics are of particular interest to us. It was believed in earlier times
that all new ideas arise from processes similar to those involved in the proof
of theorems in mathematics. Many noted mathematicians have been especially
interested in the processes of discovery and invention.���
A. The Earliest Discoveries in Middle Eastern,
Eastern, and Hellenistic Cultures
����������� We
begin our historical tour of progress in discovery by considering a variety of
accomplishments made in early
B. The "Dark Ages": Were They Dark
Everywhere
����������� With
the demise of
C. The Rise of Experimental Science in the Early
European Universities
����������� With
the rise of the universities in
D. The Beginnings of Modern Science: The Arch of
Knowledge
����������� By
the time of Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo, there
were some definite ideas about the process of discovery. Using the metaphor of
an "arch of knowledge", we will be able to trace, quite
informatively, how the process of discovery was viewed by the likes of Bacon,
Galileo,
PART II. THEORIES OF DISCOVERY AND IMAGINATIVE REASONING
����������� �With one or two earlier exceptions, it was not
until the 1800s that some persons began to suspect that, during the process of
discovery, there may be forms of reasoning that are neither
deductive or inductive. As we know, in deductive reasoning there is no
content in a conclusion that is not already contained in premises. Induction
involves justifications, based on evidence, of hypotheses already generated or
discovered by other means.�
A. Discovery vs. Justification: More on the
"Arch of Knowledge"
����������� Using
the "arch of knowledge" metaphor, we will consider views about the
process of discovery as expressed in the very important works of John Herschel,
William Whewell, and John Stuart Mill. Both Herschel
and Whewell began to think that the generation or
discovery of a new idea involves something other than deduction or induction.
In the works of these three persons we will encounter a controversy that is
still with us today. It is one thing to study how some hypothesis might be
justified or defended on the basis of evidence but quite another, or so it
seems, to say how this hypothesis and evidence were generated or discovered in
the first place. Some persons argue that discovery and justification are made of
the same cloth; others disagree.
B. Discovery: A Matter for Philosophers or Psychologists ?
����������� For
many years, even quite recently, philosophers seem to have been quite content
to relegate the study of discovery to psychologists. The essential ground for
such a view is that discovery seems to involve apparently unsystematic
processes that cannot be captured by any form of logic we know about. As we
will note in a later section, many philosophers now seem to be repenting their
earlier disinterest in the process of discovery. Indeed, several contemporary
philosophers have recently "migrated" into the field of artificial
intelligence and are actively involved in research on computer-based means for
the analysis of discovery-related processes.
�
C. Charles S. Peirce on Abductive Reasoning and the Efficiency of Discovery
����������� It
appears that the first person who argued that the discovery of new ideas
requires reasoning other than deduction or induction was the American
philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914). Peirce coined the term abduction� (he also used the terms retroduction� or simply hypothesis)
to refer to the process by which a new idea is generated. But Peirce was not only concerned about how new ideas are
generated or discovered. He was also very much concerned about how we might
make the process of discovery efficient. As I noted earlier, not all new ideas
lead in productive directions. We will examine Peirce's
thoughts on abduction rather carefully since they form perhaps the first
attempt to study the process of discovery in a systematic way. In any case, his
work has been very influential and has given some persons hope of discovering a logic of discovery. Peirce's
thoughts on abductive reasoning and discovery were
indeed seminal. But they can also be rather confusing since Peirce
was not always precise or consistent in his discussions of abduction or retroduction. There are now some very valuable analyses of Peirce's works that we will examine carefully. From these
works we gain additional insight into abductive
reasoning and its connection with other forms of reasoning. There are some
surprises here. For example, on one account we have the discovery of a new idea
described in terms of the modern concept of an inference network.
D. Sherlock Holmes and Abductive
Reasoning
����������� � A very interesting coincidence is that, at
the same time Peirce was writing on abductive reasoning, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was providing
his fictional character Sherlock Holmes with reasoning skills that sound very
much like Peirce's abduction. Conan Doyle seems to
have been inspired by one of his medical school professors, Dr. Joseph Bell.
E. Semiotics and Abduction: Reading the Signs of
Nature
����������� A
well-established discipline many of us never hear about is semiotics, the science of signs. The word semiotics stems from the Greek semeiotikos, a word referring to
a person, such as a physician, who divines or interprets the meaning of signs.
Although interest in the interpretation of signs goes back at least to
Aristotle, contemporary semiotics has its roots in the work of Peirce. A sign is traditionally defined by the Latin phrase
aliquid stat pro aliqou� (something that stands for something
else). Observing the signs of nature, we attempt to discover their meaning;
here is the connection between semiotics and abduction. One contemporary semiotician, Umberto Eco, has attracted world-wide
attention through his novels The Name of
the Rose, Foucault's Pendulum, The Island of the Day Before, and
recently, Baudelino. One of the required
readings in this course is his work with Sebeok: The Sign of Three: Dupin,
Holmes, Peirce. I regard this work as a feast for
anyone interested in imaginative reasoning and discovery.
PART III. WHERE IS FANCY BRED?
����������� Peirce frequently associated abduction with the sudden
"flashes of insight" we all experience from time to time while we are
attempting to draw conclusions from evidence or are working on problems of
various sorts. But Peirce was not very informative
about how such insights arise, whether or not they occur to us suddenly. You
have certainly had the experience of deliberating on evidence, or working on
some problem, when possible hypotheses or possible answers are elusive. So, you
set the task aside for a while and later, often while occupied by other
matters, a hypothesis or answer suddenly occurs to you. Where did this new
hypothesis or possible answer come from? One suggestion, of course, is that
your brain/mind was at work on this problem all the while you were doing other
things. When it had an answer of some kind to report, it did so regardless of
what else you were doing. In the process, you might reflect upon the fact that
you were not at all aware of any mental processes that were taking place
regarding the task whose possible hypotheses or answers were so elusive. In
this section we come face to face with some very difficult matters concerning
the mental activities and processes by which new ideas and possible evidential
tests of them are generated or discovered. Be assured that all of the matters
we discuss in this section have been of concern to persons in all of the
sciences, especially in mathematics, physics, and in many other disciplines as
well.��
�����������
A. Insights: Where do They Come From
?
����������� Shakespeare
wrote: "Where is fancy bred? Or, in the heart or in the
head"? We all expect that fancies, in the form of new ideas,
somehow come from our heads. Once we start examining processes that may be
going on inside our heads, we immediately encounter a very old issue that is
certainly alive today. This issue concerns the distinction, if any, between our
minds and our brains. This is sometimes called the mind-body problem. One important element of this issue involves
distinctions between conscious and subconscious mental activities. It may come
as a surprise to you to learn how many eminent scientists and mathematicians
have been and are now vitally concerned about such matters. We might believe
that such matters are of interest only to philosophers and psychologists. On
several accounts that I will tell you about, explaining how our consciousness
arises is reckoned to be the most difficult research problem that can be
addressed. In addition, as noted above, many learned persons emphasize the role
of our subconscious mental processes during the process of discovery.
B. Methods of Study of Mental Processes
����������� Supposing
that discovery and imaginative reasoning are mental activities of some sort:
How are they to be investigated? We will examine several different methods that
have been employed or are now being employed in various disciplines. Different
methods will, of course, be informative in different ways.
C. Mind vs. Brain: Arguments About
the Distinction
����������� In
discussing intellectual processes such as discovery and imaginative reasoning,
arguments about the distinction between mind and brain seem unavoidable. There
have been no final answers in these arguments in the last 2500 years. I doubt
seriously whether we will be able to supply any during this semester. But there
are certainly some very strong advocates of various views that have been taken.
Again, be assured that study of this distinction is not an idle distraction. We
can easily observe the crucial role of our subconscious in work on problems in
which we have a strong vested interest.�
D. The "Enchanted Loom": A Bit of
Neurophysiology
����������� Persons
in various disciplines in which there is interest in the process of discovery
do not always talk to each other. When they do talk, sometimes they do not
listen very carefully. On some views, we can easily discuss discovery,
invention, and other "intelligent" activities without any reference
to the work of persons who have made careful studies of the structures and
functions of the human brain. I do not happen to be among those persons who
argue that neurophysiologists have nothing to tell us about the process of
discovery and the origins of insight. In this section we will have a look at
what nature has provided that seems to allow us to perform various discovery-related
activities. In current jargon, this involves study of the "wetware"
of our brains.
E. Neurophysiological
Correlates of Discovery
����������� �The human brain has been referred to as the
very "cathedral of complexity" in the known universe. It seems that
the highest level of the "services" or activities in this
"cathedral" involves creative, imaginative, or inventive reasoning.
Here we have a look at very current research on activities in the brain that
might plausibly be associated with the emergence of new insights. The views of
several different research activities come together on this matter. In the
process, I will provide you with what I regard as very informative work in an
emerging area called the science of
complexity.
PART IV. SOME MODERN SPINS ON ABDUCTION AND DISCOVERY
����������� In
this section we will examine various current views about discovery, abduction,
and imaginative reasoning. In particular, we will observe how the term
"abduction" has acquired a variety of different meanings in the field
of artificial intelligence.
A. Abduction as Inference to the Best Explanation
����������� The
word abduction� has many meanings; Peirce
himself was none too consistent in his use of this term. As some of you may
already know, this term has found current employment in various works in
artificial intelligence. On some interpretations in AI, abduction is said to be
inference to the best explanation.� This interpretation goes back at least to
John Stuart Mill. There is meaning here which is not reflected in any of Peirce's works on the topic. The word best�
is troublesome since it mixes justification with discovery. If
this interpretation read: inference to a
possible� explanation,� there would be a better correspondence.
However, we are all entitled to use words any way we please. In fact, Peirce used the term abductory induction� with reference to instances
in which discovery and induction seem to be mixed together. As we discuss in a
later section, we commonly experience various mixtures of abduction, deduction,
and induction.
�
B. Koestler, Bisociation, and Chaos in Discovery
����������� Another
work on your reading list is Arthur Koestler's The Act of Creation. Like Eco, Koestler wrote novels and thought very deeply about
imaginative reasoning and discovery. He describes a process he called bisociation,
wherein the mind makes leaps from one frame of reference to another. Quite
recently, in their work Turbulent Mirror,
Briggs and Peat have given an account of bisociation
in terms of the theory of chaotic
processes. This is fascinating stuff and leads to some very current
research on complex phenomena.
C. Any Hope for a Normative Theory of Discovery ?
����������� The
work Scientific Discovery: Computational
Explorations of the Creative Processes� (Langley,
Simon, Bradshaw, & Zytkow) attracted attention
since it suggested that there might be a logic for discovery, at least within
the context of science, that could be implemented by a computer. This work and
other computationally-oriented works to be mentioned are held in reverence by
Margaret Boden, whose book The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms� has
also been influential. Other persons in AI and elsewhere argue that there was
actually no discovery but only hindsight revealed in the work of Langley et
al.� et al.
Whether a computer can be truly imaginative is a controversial issue at
present.
D. Imagination, Creativity, and Invention
����������� These
three words are often used synonymously but they may refer to different
activities. After an attempt to sort out possible differences among these
activities, we will have a look at various studies of the characteristics of
persons whose works allow us to label them as being especially imaginative,
creative, or inventive. As expected, psychologists have been interested in
characteristics of imaginative or creative people. There are several works on
behavioral analyses of human imagination and creativity that are especially
valuable.
�����������������������
PART V. DISCOVERY
IN TIME: INQUIRY, SEARCH, AND HEURISTICS
����������� Most
of the previous topics concern the characterization of imaginative reasoning
and discovery. It is one thing to characterize these important activities but
quite another to discover ways of enhancing the process of discovery. We begin
in this section by examining how episodes of discovery are played-out over time
and how they all seem to involve the processes of inquiry and search. In some
current works, focus is directed more on search than upon inquiry. I believe
this to be unfortunate. My own view is that sophisticated search strategies are
necessary but not sufficient for productive and efficient discovery. Asking the
"right" questions is at least as important as having sophisticated
search strategies. Since discovery occurs over time, perhaps we do not yet have
on hand (in a searchable data base) information that will eventually lead us to
further productive discoveries. Such information we can only be obtained by inquiry,
a necessary topic of interest in its own right.
A. Temporal Patterns of Discovery, Justification,
and Choice
����������� �The word discovery
means different things to persons in different contexts. One reason is that
they experience different temporal mixtures or cycles of three intellectual
activities: discovery, justification, and choice. Stated another way, in
different contexts we experience different mixtures or cycles of abductive, deductive, and inductive reasoning together with
value assessments if our discovery and justification is a prelude to some
eventual decision. Many attempts to provide computer-based assistance to
persons facing difficult judgmental and decisional tasks have faltered because
it has not been acknowledged that the processes of discovery, justification,
and choice are frequently bound together in complex and interesting ways.
B. Time and the Interrogation of Nature
����������� We get
lots of information without asking for it. The trouble is that we frequently do
not get the information we need. Every day my mailbox is full of information
about products in which I have no interest. But it rarely contains information
I need in the research I perform. In many cases, of course, we do not even know
what information we ought to have in some problem we face. In science,
engineering, and in other disciplines we get very little information unless we
put questions to nature. Indeed, the process of inquiry is crucial in
any episode of discovery. How do we know which questions to ask? Some questions
we ask will be foolish or at least unproductive. Some questions will supply
useful answers that lead us to ask other questions. The process of inquiry
feeds on itself over time; we cannot ask all pertinent questions at once.
During discovery we have observations or data in search of hypotheses
(explanations) at the same time we have hypotheses in search of data. In short,
the process of discovery is bound together with the process of inquiry. We will
examine several theories of inquiry, the most notable being that of the
logician Jaakko Hintikka
and his colleagues. In the work The Sign
of Three� (Chapters 7 and 8) you will
discover that Hintikka believes the allegedly abductive talents of Sherlock Holmes can be better
explained by saying that Holmes was simply adept at asking strategically
important questions of nature.
C. Search and the Necessity of Heuristics
����������� On
some current accounts, the process of discovery amounts to having sophisticated
methods for search (of records, files, data bases, etc). But this assumes that
all the information we need to have is already at hand. But discovery is
usually played-out over time and it will rarely be the case that we have all
useful or relevant data at hand. In many situations we only begin to fill up a
database through the process of inquiry. But it is certainly true that study of
search is a necessary element of discovery (I just don't happen to believe it is
also sufficient). Sherlock Holmes tells Watson: "You know my method, it is based on the observation of trifles".
During discovery, trifles (or details) accumulate at an often-astonishing rate.
In some lucky cases, a single trifle can suggest a hypothesis (or possibility),
such as the finding of a fingerprint. In most cases, however, hypotheses are
generated (or abduced) from combinations of trifles. The trouble is that the number of trifle
combinations increases exponentially with the number of trifles we have. With
even a relatively small number of trifles we can readily exceed the capacity of
any known or possible computer to select all of their possible combinations.
So, we find it absolutely necessary to have some guides or heuristics� for deciding what trifle combinations
to examine. Peirce made the use of the term
"heuristic" central in his thinking.
D. Peirce, Polya, Lakatos, Lenat, and Others on Heuristics.
����������� �The word heuristic� can be defined as any aid to learning,
inquiry, or discovery. There are some very valuable works on heuristics by the
persons just mentioned. It will pay us to examine these works rather carefully.
E. Discovery and Theories of Probabilistic
Reasoning
����������� We
might ordinarily think of probability theories as being concerned only with
inductive justification and not discovery. However, I believe there to be
discovery-related heuristic merit in each of the current views of probabilistic
reasoning we routinely examine in INFT 842; here is the basis for this claim.
We ask questions about our evidence in the process of establishing its
relevance, credibility, and inferential force. But we also ask questions of
our evidence in generating (abducing) new hypotheses and further evidence.
Careful examination of the Bayesian, Baconian, and
Shafer-Dempster systems of probabilistic reasoning
each suggest various kinds of questions we should be asking about and of
the evidence we gather.
VI. DISCOVERY
AND ITS ENHANCEMENT IN VARIOUS APPLIED CONTEXTS
����������� Having
looked at what discovery is and the mental activities it seems to involve, we
now ask an important question: can we design various methods for enhancing our
ability to perform discovery-related tasks? I believe the answer to this
question is: yes. Here are some examples of discovery-related research
now underway at GMU. You may easily be able to mention work that is going on
elsewhere about which I may have no present awareness.
A. Discovery and the Marshalling of Evidence
����������� Several
years ago my colleague Peter Tillers (Cardozo School
of Law) and I enjoyed the support of the National Science Foundation in
studying ways of enhancing the discovery-related activities of criminal
investigators, auditors, historians, and many others whose work involves the
tasks of generating hypotheses, evidence, and arguments linking them. Our work
rests on a very simple premise that some may regard as too obvious to be
stated. The premise is: How well we
����������� A
former graduate student in our INFT doctoral program, Carl Hunt, has generated
some truly imaginative ideas for enhancing the important process of marshaling
thoughts and evidence. For his� doctoral dissertation he designed a
system called ABEM [Agent Based Evidence Marshaling] in which evidence items
can marshal themselves in the act of suggesting new hypotheses and new lines of
inquiry. Carl will tell us about his research and how it employs many concepts
from the emerging science of complexity that I mentioned above. I will also
tell you about how we are applying our work on evidence marshaling strategies
to current concerns regarding homeland security matters.
B. Discovering Software Requirements
����������� As
many of you know, we have in IT&E a vibrant research program on the design
and development of software systems. One of the most difficult tasks in this
area is discovering what a client does or should want a software system to
perform. This involves what has become known as Software Requirements Engineering.
Several recent doctoral dissertations at GMU have addressed discovery-related
issues in software requirements and others are in progress.
C. Abduction and Discovery in the Machine Learning
and Inference Laboratory
����������� Professor
Ryszard Michalski directs a
similarly vibrant research activity in artificial intelligence and related
fields. One ongoing project in this laboratory is of special interest since it
concerns the idea that learning involves mixtures of deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning. As others have noticed over the years,
there seems to be a very intimate connection between inference and learning.
D. Knowledge Discovery in Data Bases
����������� Dr.
Larry Kerschberg and his colleagues are involved in
yet another vibrant research effort at GMU. This project involves the process
of discovering knowledge in databases. As I noted in Section V-C above,
"trifles" accumulate very rapidly and we must have better strategies
for extracting useful knowledge from massive databases. This project concerns
development of strategies for discovering patterns, relationships, and
regularities or anomalies in large databases. This is very interesting since,
as we discuss in Section II-C, it is argued that a major element in scientific
discovery involves finding explanations for anomalies.
E. Engineering Design and Creative Problem Solving
����������� Professor
Tomasz Arciszewski is actively involved in the study of ways to enhance design
processes in engineering. He considers a wide assortment of techniques, some of
which he has developed himself, for solving engineering design problems in
imaginative ways. He offers a seminar on these topics in the Department of
Urban Systems Engineering [USE 690: Engineering Design and Creative Problem
Solving]. I hope Professor Arciszewski will be able to join us, as he has done
in the past, to give us his perspectives on imaginative or creative reasoning
as they influence engineering design processes. Tom and I have been working
together on applications of a very sophisticated evolutionary computation
system called Inventor �by means of which new and more adequate
designs for wind-bracing systems for tall buildings are generated. I was
fortunate to be asked to collaborate with Tom and Ken De Jong
on this project. I do hope Tom can join us as often as he can. As you will
observe, he has some remarkable insights into the processes of discovery and
invention.
����������������������������������������������� ASSIGNED
����������� There
is no textbook written for a course such as this one. But there are some very
excellent books available to get you started in thinking about discovery and
its possible enhancement. My only difficulty has been in making a choice of
works I regard as "required". The price of books is larcenous, as we
all know. Happily, three of the four books I will list below are in paperback.
Here are four books that I will ask you to read. Each of these books provides a
different perspective from which to view discovery and imaginative reasoning.
In class I will tell you why I have selected these four books in preference to
others I might have chosen.
1) Root-Bernstein, R. S. Discovering: Inventing and Solving Problems at the Frontiers of
����������� Scientific
Knowledge.
����������� 1991.
If you have trouble obtaining this work at our bookstore, you can order it
through ������ Amazon.com. Its ISBN Number
is: 0735100071. If you have trouble obtaining this work, please ��������� let me know.
2) Eco, U., Sebeok, T., The Sign of Three: Dupin,
Holmes, Peirce, Bloomington, Indiana, �� University of Indiana Press, 1988 Midland
Book (paperback) edition.
3) Koestler, A., The Act of Creation,
4) Hadamard, J. The Psychology of Invention in the
Mathematical Field,
����������� [paperback]
I addition to these books, I will have extensive
notes for you on every topic we discuss in class. By means of these notes I
hope to bring together, in some semblance of coherent form, the truly diverse
literature on discovery and imaginative reasoning. In addition, these notes
will contain a large assortment of matters not covered in the books I have
asked you to read.
����������������������������������� HOW SHALL WE PROCEED ?
����������� Some
of you already know of my fondness for what Francis Bacon said about the
requisites of scholarship: reading makes us full, discourse makes
us ready, and writing makes us accurate. This seminar will contain all
three of these ingredients. You will certainly have lots to read. I will
provide you with notes on each of the topics listed above. I will have these
notes for you before the time at which they are to be discussed in the seminar.
My intention is to maximize the time we spend in discourse about these topics.
Be prepared to answer questions about matters we will discuss and to bring in
your own thoughts about these matters as a result of your experience and/or
other reading.
�
����������������������������������� METHOD OF EVALUATION
����������� This
being a seminar on imaginative reasoning and discovery, my fondest hope is that
your own imagination will be sufficiently stimulated so that you will make a
discovery in your own area of research that brings you fame, if not fortune.
Failing this, I at least hope your curiosity is sufficiently aroused by a
discovery-related topic so that you will be driven to find out more about it
from existing literature. The choice of topic is entirely yours provided
that it involves the process of discovery and/or imaginative reasoning. If
it is possible, depending upon the enrollment, we will allow time in the
seminar for you to present your ideas to the class. In any case, at the end of
the seminar I will expect to have written evidence of your thoughts on the
topic you have chosen. As far as this paper is concerned, here is what you can
expect as far as my grading standard is concerned. By the way, these standards
are virtually the same as those you will face as far as your doctoral
dissertation is concerned.
����������� C =
A paper that simply lists what others have found regarding the topic of
interest to you. It is not enough to write that A says this and B says that.
Such uncritical and unintegrated efforts more closely resemble a high school
book report than they do an acceptable graduate paper.
����������� B =
A paper that provides a critical and a well-integrated assessment of existing
work in the topic you have chosen.
����������� A =
A paper that is critical and well-integrated assessment of existing work and,
in addition, gives evidence of your having applied your own imagination in
extending thought on the topic you have chosen. So, you can look upon an A as
representing the same criteria you can expect to be in force as far as your
doctoral dissertation is concerned.
����������������������������������� WHERE TO FIND YOUR INSTRUCTOR
����������� I
usually lurk in the vicinity of Room 111-A, Science and Technology II
(703-993-1694). I keep no office hours because you are always welcome at any
time. I also teach in the
�
FURTHER
REFERENCES ON DISCOVERY, INVENTION, AND IMAGINATIVE REASONING
����������� You
should regard this reference list as just a "seed" list to get you
started. You can find other valuable references in the bibliography of each of
the four works mentioned above. I have sorted the following references out in
terms of the topics listed above.
Asimov,
Bochner, S., The Role of Mathematics
in the Rise of Science,
����������� 1966
Cardwell, D. The Norton History of Technology. W. W. Norton & Co.,
NY, 1995
Corben, H. C., The Struggle to
Understand: A History of Human Wonder and Discovery,
Cromer, A. Uncommon
Sense: The Heretical Nature of Science.
Dampier, W. C., A
History of Science and its Relations with Philosophy and Religion,
�����������
����������� NY,
Drake, S. [translator]. Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo. Anchor Books, NY, 1957
Dunham, W. Journey
Through Genius: The Great Theorems of Mathematics.
Penguin Books,
����������� NY,
1991
Glenn, J. Scientific
Genius: The Twenty Greatest Minds. Crescent Books, NY.
1996
Gould, S. J. [ed]. Henri Poincare, The Value of Science: Essential Writings of Henri Poincare.
����������� �Modern Library, NY, 2001 (paperback) [A valuable� collection
of three of Poincare's ���������� most famous works concerning discovery and science. The
works are: Science and �������� Hypothesis; The Value of Science; and Science
and Method.]
Hall, M. B., The Scientific
Renaissance 1450-1630,
Heath, T., A
History of Greek Mathematics, (Two volumes),
James, P., Thorpe, N. Ancient Inventors. NY, Ballantine Books,
1994
Kirby, R., Withington,
S., Darling, A., Kilgour, F. Engineering in History.
NY
Koestler, A., The Sleepwalkers: A
History of Man's Changing Vision of the Universe,
����������� Arkana Books, 1989
Lindberg, D., Science
in the Middle Ages,
Lindberg, D., The Beginnings of
Western Science,
Mason, S., A
History of the Sciences, Collier Books, 1962
McClellan, J., Dorn, H. Science and Technology in World History: An Introduction.
�����������
����������� 1954
-
Ochoa, G., Corey, M. The Timeline Book of Science. Balantine Books, NY, 1995
Oldroyd, D., The Arch of Knowledge:
An Introductory Study of the History of the Philosophy and ���� Methodology
of Science,
Resnikoff, H., Wells, R., Mathematics
in Civilization,
Sarton, G., Ancient
Science Through the Golden Age of
Sarton, G., A History
of Science: Hellenistic Science and Culture in the Last Three Centuries BC,
�����������
Sivin, N. Science in
Ancient
Smith, D. E., History
of Mathematics, (Two Volumes),
Teresi, D. Lost Discoveries: The Ancient Roots of Modern
Science - From the Babylonians to the Maya.
�����������
PART II. THEORIES OF DISCOVERY AND IMAGINATIVE REASONING
A. On Scientific Discovery and Technological
Invention:
Bernard, C., An Introduction to the
Study of Experimental Medicince,
Beveridge, W. The Art of Scientific Investigation. Random House, NY. 1957
Binder, D., Bergman, P., Fact Investigation: From Hypothesis to Proof,
����������� West
Publishing Co., 1984
Bohm, D., Peat, F. D. Science, Order, and Creativity. Bantam Books, NY. 1987 [paperback]
Brian, D. Genius
Talk: Conversations with Nobel Scientists amd Other
Luminaries. Plenum
����������� Press,
NY, 1995
Brockman, J. The
Third Culture: Beyond the Scientific Revolution. NY
Touchstone Books. 1996
Bruner, J. On Knowing: Essays for the Left Hand. Belnap
Press,
Casti, J. The
�����������
Chandrasekhar, S. Truth
and Beauty: Aesthetics and Motivations in Science. University of
�����������
Changeux, J., Connes, A. Conversations on Mind, Matter, and
Mathematics.
����������� Press,
1995 [This interesting work is devoted almost entirely to the question: Is
����������� mathematics discovered or invented]
Darling, D. Equations
of Eternity: Speculations on Consciousness, Meaning, and the Mathematical
����������� Rules That Orchestrate the
Cosmos. Hyperion, NY, 1993
Dasgupta, S. Technology and Creativity.
Davis, P., Hersh, R. The Mathematical Experience.
Houghton Mifflin,
Dawkins, R. Unweaving
the Rainbow: Science, Delusion, and the Appetite for Wonder. Houghton
����������� Mifflin,
Farmelo, G. [ed]. It Must be
Beautiful: Great Equations of Modern Science. Granta
Books,
����������� 2002.
Gratzer, W. Eurekas and Euphorias: The
�����������
Hanson, N. R., Patterns
of Discovery: An Inquiry into the Conceptual Foundations of Science,
�����������
Holton, G. Einstein, History, and Other Passions. Addison Wesley, NY, 1996
Holton, G. The Advancement of Science, and Its Burdens.
Huntly, H. E. The Divine
Proportion: A Study in Mathematical Beauty.
Kayzer, W. A Glorious
Accident: Understanding�
Our Place in the Cosmic Puzzle. W. H. Freeman,
����������� NY,
1997
King, J. The Art of Mathematics.�
Lorimer, D. The Spirit of
Science: From Experiment to Experience. Continuum, NY, 1999
Medawar, P. The Threat
and the Glory: Reflections on Science and Scientists.
����������� Press,
1991 [paperback]
Medawar, P. The Strange Case of the Spotted Mice. Oxford University
Press, 1996 [paperback]
Peat, F. D. The Blackwinged Night:
Creativity in Nature and Mind. Helix Books,
����������� MA, 2000. [One of the best works I have read recently]
Petroski, H. Invention
by Design: How Engineers Get from Thought to Thing.
����������� Press,
1996
Poincare, H., Science
and Hypothesis,
Popper, K., The Logic of
Scientific Discovery,
Root-Berstein, R.
Root-Bernstein, M. Sparks of Genius: The
13 Thinking Tools of the World's
����������� Most Creative
People.
����������� with the one I have required you to obtain].
Rucker, R. Mind
Tools: The Five Levels of Mathematical Reality. Houghton Mifflin,
Salmon, W., The Foundations of
Scientific Inference,
Salmon, W., Logic,
New York, Prentice-Hall Inc., 1984
Schaffner, K. Discovery and Explanation in Biology and Medicine.
�����������
Schum, D., The Evidential
Foundations of Probabilistic Reasoning,
����������� Sons,
1994� (Chapter
9)
Weiner, N. Invention:
The Care and Feeding of Ideas. MIT Press, 1994
Wilson, E. Consilience: The Unity
of Knowledge. Alfred A. Knopf, NY, 1998
Wolpert, L., Richards, A. Passionate Minds: The Inner World of Scientists.
����������� Press,
B. On Peirce's Abduction:
Bernstein, R., (ed): Perspectives on Peirce:
Critical Essays on Charles Sanders Peirce, Yale
����� University
Press, 1965
Buchler, J., Philosophical
Writings of
Houser, N., Kloesel, C., [eds]The Essential Peirce:
Selected Philosphical Writings, Volume I
����� (1867-1893),
Houser, N. The Essential Peirce: Selected Philosphical
Writings, Volume 2
����� (1893-1913),
Levi,
�����
Levi,
Levi,
Peirce, C. S., Collected
Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, (8 Volumes),
Hartshorne, C., Weiss,
����� P., (eds. Vols 1-6), Burks, A., (ed. Vol. 7-8),
Peirce, C. S., Reasoning
and the Logic of Things:
�����
Rescher, N., Peirce's Philosophy of
Science: Critical Studies in His Theory of Induction and the
����� Scientific Method,
Schum, D. Species of Abductive
Reasoning in Fact Investigation in Law. Cardozo Law Review,
Vol.
����� 22, Nos. 5
- 6, July, 2001, pp 1645 - 1681
Tursman, R., Peirce's Theory of Scientific Discovery: A System of
Logic Conceived as Semiotic,
�����
Weiner, P., Charles
S. Peirce: Selected Writings (Values in a Universe of
Chance),
C. On Conan Doyle, Holmes, and
Baring-Gould, W., S., The Annotated Sherlock Holmes, (Two Volumes),
Carr, J., The Life of Sir Arthur
Conan Doyle,
Costello, P., The Real World of
Sherlock Holmes: True Crimes Investigated by Arthur Conan Doyle,
Hall, T., Sherlock
Holmes and His Creator,
Liebow, E., Dr. Joe
Bell: Model for Sherlock Holmes,
D. On Eco and on Semiotics:
Blonsky, M., (ed), On Signs,
Capozzi, R. Reading
Eco: An Anthology.
Deely, J., Basics of
Semiotics, University of
Deely, J., Williams, B., Kruse, F., (eds),Frontiers in Semiotics, Indiana University Press,
1986
Eco, U., A Theory
of Semiotics, University of
Eco, U., The
Name of the Rose,
Eco, U., Foucault's
Pendulum,
Haft, A., White, J., White, R., The Key to the Name of the Rose,
����� Ampersand
Associates, 1987
Hoopes, J., (ed), Peirce on Signs: Writings on Semiotic by Charles
Sanders Peirce, University
����� of
Sebeok, T., A Sign is
Just a Sign, Indiana University Press, 1991
Sebeok, T., An Introduction to
Semiotics,
PART III. WHERE IS FANCY BRED ?
Alkon, D., Memory's
Voice: Deciphering the Mind-Brain Code, Harper, 1992
Blakemore, C.,
����� Consciouness, Basil Blackwell, 1989
Cairns-Smith, A. G. Evolving the Mind: On the Origin of Matter and the Origin of
Consciousness.
�����
Churchland, P., Neurophilosophy:
Toward a Unified Science of the Mind/Brain,
����� MIT Press,
1993
Churchland, P., Matter
and Consciousness, MIT Press, 1993
Cotterill, R. Enchanted
Looms: Conscious Networks in Brains and Computers.
����� University
Press,
Crick, F., The Astonishing
Hypothesis: The Scientfic Search for the Soul,
Charles Scribner's,
����� 1994
Damasio, A., Descartes'
Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain, G. P. Putman's
����������� Sons,
1994
Damasio, A. The Feeling of
What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness. Harcourt
Brace & C0, NY., 1999
Dennett, D., Consciousness
Explained, Little, Brown & Co., 1991
Devlin, K. Goodbye
Descartes: The End of Logic and the Search for a New Cosmology of the Mind.
J. Wiley & Sons, 1997
Eccles, J., The Neurophysiological Basis of Mind,
Eccles, J., Facing
Reality, Springer-Verlag, 1970
Eccles, J., The Human Psyche: The
Gifford Lectures 1978-9, Routledge, 1992
Eccles, J. How
the Self Controls Its Brain.
Edelman, G., The Remembered
Present: A Biological Theory of Consciouness,
����� Basic
Books, 1989
Edelman, G., Bright
Air, Brilliant Fire: On the Matter of the Mind,
Basic Books, 1992
Gardner, H., The Mind's New
Science: A History of the Cognitive Revolution, Basic Books,
����� 1985
Gazzaniga, M., Ivry, G. Cognitive Neuroscience: The Biology of the
Mind.� W. W. Norton, NY., 1998
Harth, E., The
Creative
Llinas, R. R., The
Biology of the Brain from Neurons to Networks,� W. H. Freeman & Co.,
����� 1988
McCulloch, W., Embodiments
of MInd, MIT Press, 1965
McGinn, C., The Problem of
Consciousness, Basil Blackwell, 1991
Mountcastle, V. Perceptual
Neuroscience: The Cerebral Cortex.
Nadeau, R., Kafatos, M. The Non-Local Universe: The New Physics and
Matters of Mind.
�����������
Norretranders, T. The User
Illusion: Cutting Consciousness Down to Size. Viking, NY, 1998
Penrose, R., The Emperor's New
Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of
����� Physics, Penguin Books, 1989
Penrose, R., Shadows
of the Mind: A Search for the Missing Science of Consciousness,
�����
Penrose, R. The Large, the Small, and the Human Mind.
Pinker, S. How the Mind
Works. W. W.
Popper, K. Knowledge and the Body-Mind Problem.
Popper, K., Eccles, J., The Self and Its Brain: An Argument for Interactionism.
Priest, S., Theories
of the Mind, Houghton-Mifflin, 1991
Searle, J. Minds, Brains, and Science.
Searle, J. The Rediscovery of Mind. MIT Press,
Searle, J. The Mystery of Consciousness. The
Schrodinger, E., My View
of the World, Ox Bow Press, 1983
Schrodinger, E., What is Life ?, Mind and Matter, and Autobiographical Sketches,
�����
Scott, A. Stairway
to the Mind: The Controversial New Science of Consciousness.
Shepard, G. Neurobiology.
Thompson, R., The Brain: An
Introduction to Neuroscience, W. H. Freeman & Co., 1985
PART IV. SOME MODERN SPINS ON ABDUCTION AND DISCOVERY
Boden, M., Artificial
Intelligence in Psychology: Interdisciplinary Essays, MIT Press, 1989
Boden, M. The
Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms. Basic Books, NY,
1990.�
Boden, M. Computer
Models of the Mind,
Boden, M. The
Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence,
Boden, M. (ed), Dimensions of Creativity, MIT Press,
1994
Bohm, D. On Creativity. Routledge,
Broadbent, D., (ed), The Simulation of Human Intelligence,
Blackwell, 1993
Brockman, J. ed. Creativity. Touchstone Books, 1993
Briggs, J., and F. D. Peat. Turbulent
Mirror: An Illustrated Guide to Chaos Theory and the
����� Science of Wholeness,
Cornwell, J. (ed) Nature's Imagination: The Frontiers of
Scientific Vision.
����� Press,
1995
Csikszentmihalyi, M. Creativity:
Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. Harper, NY., 1996
de Bono, E., Lateral
Thinking: Creativity Step by Step,
���� (paperback edition)
de Bono, E., The
Mechanism of Mind,
Fogler, H., LeBlanc, S. Strategies
for Creative Problem Solving. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle
����� River, NJ,
1995
Grudin, R., The Grace of Great
Things: Creativity and Innovation,
����������� and
Discovery,
Howe, M. Genius
Explained.
Kellert, S., In the
Wake of Chaos: Unpredictable Order in Dynamical Systems, University of
�����������
Lipton, P., Inference
to the Best Explanation,
Miller, A., Imagery
in Scientific Thought,
Miller, A. Insights
of Genius: Imagery and Creativity in Science and Art.
Neapolitan, R., Probabilistic
Reasoning in Expert Systems: Theory and Algorithms,
Oliver, J., The Incomplete Guide
to the Art of Discovery,
���� 1991
Peng, Y., Reggia, J., A
Probabilistic Causal Model for Diagnostic Problem Solving, Parts I and ������ II, IEEE
Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Vol. SMC-17, 1987
Perkins, D. The
����������� NY,
2000
Roberts, R., Serendipity:
Accidental Discoveries in Science, John Wiley & Sons, 1989
Sternberg, R., (ed), The Nature of Creativity: Contemporary
Psychological Perspectives.
Sternberg, R., Davidson, J. [eds] The Nature
of Insight.
Thagard, P., Computational
Philosophy of Science, MIT Press, 1993
Weisberg, R., Creativity:
Beyond the Myth of Genius, W. H. Freeman & Co., 1993
Wolpert, L., The Unnatural Nature
of Science, Harvard, 1994
PART V.
DISCOVERY IN TIME: INQUIRY, SEARCH, AND HEURISTICS
Hintikka, J., The Concept of
Induction in the Light of the Interrogative Approach to Inquiry,
����� in: Earman, J., (ed) Inference, Explanations, and Other
Frustrations: Essays in the Philosophy of Science,
Hintikka, J., Bachman, J., What If ? : Toward Excellence in Reasoning,
����� Mayfield
Publishing Co., 1991
Lakatos,
Lakatos,
����� (eds) Worrall, J., Currie, G.,
Lakatos,
����� (eds) Worrall, J., Currie, G.,
Lenat, D., The Nature of
Heuristics,
����� Sciences Series CIS-12 (SSL-81-1), April, 1981
Lenat, D., EURISKO: A Program That Learns New Heuristics
and Domain Concepts, Artificial
Intelligence, Vol. 21, 1983, 61-98
Polya, G., Mathematics
and Plausible Reasoning Volume I: Induction and Analogy in Mathematics,
�����
Polya, G., Mathematics
and Plausible Reasoning Volume II: Patterns of Plausible Reasoning,
�����
Polya, G., How to
Solve It: A New Aspect of Mathematical Method,
PART VI. DISCOVERY AND ITS ENHANCEMENT IN VARIOUS APPLIED
CONTEXTS
�����������������������
Cercone, N., (ed), Special Issues
on Learning and Discovery in Data Bases, IEEE
Transactions
����� on Knowledge and
Data Engineering, December, 1993.
de Gennes, P., Badoz, J. Fragile
Objects: Soft Matter, Hard Science, and the Thrill of Discovery.
�����
Fayyad, U., Piatetsky-Shapiro,
G., Smyth,P., Uthurusamy, R. [eds] Advances in Knowledge
����� Discovery and Data Mining.
AAAIPress/MITPress,
Frawley, W., Piatetsky-Shapiro,
G., Matheus, C., Knowledge Discovery in Data Bases:
An Overview, AI Magazine, Fall, 1992
Matheus, C., Chan, P., Piatetsky-Shapiro,
G., Systems for Knowledge Discovery in Data Bases,
����� IEEE Transactions� on Knowledge and Data Engineering, �December, 1993
Piatetsky-Shapiro, G., Frawley, W., Knowledge Discovery in Data Bases,
������ Press,
1991
Piatetsky-Shapiro, G., (ed), Special
Issue on Knowledge Discovery in Data Bases and Knowledge
����� Bases, International Journal
of Intelligent Systems, Vol. 7, No. 7, 1992.
Schum, D., Tillers, P., Marshalling Evidence for
Adversary Litigation, Cardozo Law Review, Vol.13,
����������� �November 1991, 657-704
Schum, D. Marshaling Thoughts and
Evidence During fact Investigation.
����������� Vol.
40, No. 2, 1999, p 401-454
Tillers, P. Schum, D., A Theory of Preliminary Fact
Investigation, U. C. Davis Law Review,
Vol. 24, No. 4., �� 1991, 931-1012.
[I will add to this list as we proceed]
����������� ��