Creativity 2:

The Artist & The Scientist

GALILEO: The Debate between 2 Systems

Ptolemy (c. 85 – c. 165) )was the mostinfluential of Greek astronomers andgeographers of his time. He propoundedthe geocentric theory that prevailed for 1400 years.

Copernicus (1473 – 1543) was a Polishastronomer and mathematician who wasa proponent of the view of an Earth in daily motion about its axis and in yearlymotion around a stationary sun. Thistheory is heliocentric.

GALILEO: The Protagonists

• Salviati [representing the Copernican system]• Simplicio [representing the Ptolemaic system]• Sagredo [moderator]• The subject is the path of an object thrown into the

air as part of a proof that the earth is motionless. – Salviati asks whether Simplicio can defend this

phenomenon without referring to the stillness of the earth as Aristotle does.

– Simplicio answers: “by means of the senses”

GALILEO: The Argument I

• Salviati shows him that his argument assumes what it is trying to prove -- that the earth stands still. “They take as known that which is intended to be proved.”– Task: Arrange the argument in the form of a

categorical syllogism.

• How does Salviati reply to Sagredo’s comments?– He shows that there is an unstated assumption

concerning the rock’s not being able to have two motions at once.

– And that Aristotle has already stated that there are two motions possible in the case of fire.

• So then you would have to explain how the motion of the falling ball and the fire were different.

– Simplicio replies that the air moves the fire, but not the heavier metal ball.

– Then Salviati asks if his example is similar enough being a ship on water vs. on land.

GALILEO: The Argument II

• Then Salviati asks if his example is similar enough comparing the path of a metal ball in relation to a ship vs. that on the land.– It turns out that Simplicio has not carried out

this experiment, relying on reports of others.– What fallacy does Salviati then claim Simplicio

has made?– How does Salviati show Simplicio wrong in the

end? • That in fact the fall of the ball is the same in both

cases, thus you cannot deduce that the earth is motionless from this example.

GALILEO: The Argument III

Kuhn on “Normal Science”

• “Normal Science “ is based on the assumption that the scientific community knows what the world is like" – Scientists take great pains to defend that

assumption. – To this end, "normal science often suppresses

fundamental novelties because they are necessarily subversive of its basic commitments"

Galileo & “Normal Science”• List the links you can find between

Salviati’s argument and Kuhn’s discussion of “Normal Science.”

Feyerabend: Against Method

>> Science is an essentially anarchistic enterprise: theoretical anarchism is more humanitarian and more likely to encourage progress than its law-and-order alternatives.

>> The consistency condition which demands that new hypotheses agree with accepted theories is unreasonable because it preserves the older theory, & not the better one.

>> Hypotheses contradicting well-confirmed theories give us evidence that cannot be obtained in any other way.

>> Proliferation of theories is beneficial for science, while uniformity impairs its critical power.

>> Uniformity also endangers the free development of the individual.

>> No theory ever agrees with all the facts in its domain, yet it is not always the theory that is to blame.

>> Facts are constituted by older ideologies, and a clash between facts and theories may be proof of progress

>> It is also a first step in our attempts to find the principles implicit in familiar observational notions.

Feyerabend On Galileo I

Feyerabend On Galileo II

Consider the tower argument which the Aristotelians used to refute the motion of the earth. >> The argument involves “natural interpretations” - ideas so closely connected with observations that it needs a special effort to recognize them>> Galileo identifies the natural interpretations which are inconsistent with Copernicus and replaces them by his own.

>> In addition to natural interpretations, Galileo also changes sensations that seem to endanger Copernicus.

>> He admits they exist, & praises Copernicus for disregarding them, then he claims to have removed them with the help of the telescope. >> However, he offers no theoretical reasons why the telescope should be expected to give a true picture of the sky.>> Galileo prevails because of his style and his clever techniques of persuasion, because he writes in Italian rather than in Latin, and because he appeals to people who are temperamentally opposed to the old ideas and the standards of learning connected with them.

Feyerabend On Galileo II

Feyerabend

• What are Feyerabend’s basic reasons for recommending that science be more anarchistic?

• Find 2 ways his view is similar to Kuhn and 2 ways it is different.

– Are any connected to our discussion of creativity?

KUHN: The role of anomalies in paradigm shifts

• An anomaly "subverts the existing tradition of scientific practice bringing about a shift in the commitment to shared assumptions.– These shifts are what Kuhn describes as scientific

revolutions which are “tradition shattering”

• New assumptions require the reconstruction & reevaluation of prior assumptions and of prior facts, which the establishment resists. – When a shift takes place, "a scientist's world is

qualitatively transformed [and] quantitatively enriched by fundamental novelties of either fact or theory".

KUHN:Revolutions as Changes of World View

• When paradigms change, the world itself changes with them. During scientific revolutions, scientists see new and different things when looking with familiar instruments in places they have looked before.– Familiar objects are seen in a different light and joined

by unfamiliar ones as well.– Scientists see the world of their research-engagement

differently.– Scientists see new things when looking at old objects.– In a sense, after a revolution, scientists are

responding to a different world.

KUHN:Why does a shift in view occur?

• Genius? Flashes of intuition? Sure.• Paradigm-induced gestalt shifts? Perhaps.• Because different scientists interpret their

observations differently? No.– Observations (data) are themselves nearly always

different.– Because observations are conducted (data collected)

within a paradigmatic framework, the interpretive enterprise can only articulate a paradigm, not correct it.

• Changes in definitional conventions? No.• Because the existing paradigm fails to fit. Always.• It is hard to make nature fit a paradigm.

What are the creative elements in paradigm shifts?

• Look for connections with Siddhartha & Tomas.– Siddhartha:

seeking/finding – knowledge/wisdom– Tomas:

• rule-governed vs. directed• original vs. creative• passive imagination vs. critical control• logical coherence vs. artistic coherence.