Darwinian 'blind' hypothesis formation revisited

Synthese 175 (2):193--218 (2010)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
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.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
KRODBH
Revision history
Archival date: 2011-03-05
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Objective Knowledge.Popper, Karl R.

View all 24 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2009-04-20

Total views
315 ( #9,744 of 40,669 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
60 ( #9,087 of 40,669 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.