Everyday Scientific Imagination
- 6 Downloads
Imagination is necessary for scientific practice, yet there are no in vivo sociological studies on the ways that imagination is taught, thought of, or evaluated by scientists. This article begins to remedy this by presenting the results of a qualitative study performed on two systems biology laboratories. I found that the more advanced a participant was in their scientific career, the more they valued imagination. Further, positive attitudes toward imagination were primarily due to the perceived role of imagination in problem-solving. But not all problem-solving episodes involved clear appeals to imagination, only maximally specific problems did. This pattern is explained by the presence of an implicit norm governing imagination use in the two labs: only use imagination on maximally specific problems, and only when all other available methods have failed. This norm was confirmed by the participants, and I argue that it has epistemological reasons in its favour. I also found that its strength varies inversely with career stage, such that more advanced scientists do (and should) occasionally bring their imaginations to bear on more general problems. A story about scientific pedagogy explains the trend away from (and back to) imagination over the course of a scientific career. Finally, some positive recommendations are given for a more imagination-friendly scientific pedagogy.
I would like to thank the Lab Directors and researchers in my study for welcoming me into their labs and graciously sharing so much of their time with me. For funding, I thank the Center for Philosophy of Science at the University of Pittsburgh and the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada. This study would not have been possible without the kindness and generosity of Nancy Nersessian, who shared her expertise with me, helped me establish a relationship with P1, and provided so much vital advice during the project (and still to this day). For comments on earlier drafts of the paper, I would like to thank the Narrative Science group at the London School of Economics as well as audiences at the University of Leeds Imagination in Science Workshop, St. Mary’s University, and the Society for the Philosophy of Science in Practice meeting in Rowan, New Jersey.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The author declares no conflict of interest.
- Bohm, D. and Peat, F. D. (1987/2000). Science, Order, and Creativity. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Burawoy, M. (1991). Ethnography unbound. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- Burawoy, M. (2000). Global ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- Castoriadis, C. (1987). The imaginary institution of society. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Chandrasekharan, S., Nersessian, N., & Subramanian, V. (2012). Computational modelling: is this the end of thought experiments in science? In Frappier et al. (Eds.), Thought experiments in science, philosophy, and the arts (pp. 239–260). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Chen, M. (2018). Imagination machines, Dartmouth-based Turing tests, & a potted history of responses. AI & SOCIETY. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-018-0855-3.
- Clement, J. (2009). Analogical reasoning via imagery: the role of transformations and simulations. In B. Kokinov, K. Holyoak, & D. Gentner (Eds.), New frontiers in analogy research. Sofia: New Bulgarian University Press.Google Scholar
- Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory method: prodecures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology 13, 3–21.Google Scholar
- Croce, M. (2019). Exemplarism in moral education: problems with applicability and indoctrination. Journal of Moral Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2019.1579086.
- Darden, L. (1991). Theory change in science: strategies from Mendelian genetics. New York: Oxford University.Google Scholar
- Gaut, B. (2003). Creativity and imagination. In B. Gaut & P. Livingston (Eds.), The creation of art: new essays in philosophical aesthetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill valley: Sociological Press.Google Scholar
- Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
- Hamrick, J. B., et al. (2017). “Metacontrol for adaptive imagination-based optimization.” ICLR. arXiv:1705.02670v1.Google Scholar
- Hart-Brinson, P. (2016). The social imagination of homosexuality and the rise of same-sex marriage in the United States. Socio, 2, 1–17.Google Scholar
- Lindesmith, A. (1947). Oppiate addiction. Bloomington: Principia Press.Google Scholar
- Mahadevan, S. (2018). Imagination machines: a new challenge for artificial intelligence. AAAI, 2018, 7988–7993.Google Scholar
- McAllister, J. (2013). Thought experiment and the exercise of imagination in science. In M. Frappier, et al. (Eds.), Thought experiments in philosophy, science, and the arts. New York: Routledge, pp. 11–29.Google Scholar
- McGinn, C. (2004). Mindsight: image, dream, meaning. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Nersessian, N. J. (1992). How do scientists think? Capturing the dynamics of conceptual change in science. In R. Giere (Ed.), Cognitive models of science (Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science) (Vol. 15, pp. 3–45). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
- Özdemir, F. (2009). Avoidance from thought experiments: fear of misconception. International Journal of Science Education, 31(8).Google Scholar
- Pascanu, R. et al. (2017). “Learning model-based planning from scratch.” arXiv:1707.06170v1.Google Scholar
- Piaget, J. (1981). Le possible et le necessaire I: l’Evolution du necessaire chez l’enfant. Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
- Plank, M. (1949). Scientific autobiography and other papers. New York: Philosophical Library.Google Scholar
- Savage-Rumbaugh, S., & McDonald, K. (1988). Deception and social manipulation in symbol-using apes. In R. Byrne & A. Whiten (Eds.), Machiavellian intelligence: social expertise and the evolution of intellect in monkeys, apes, and humans (pp. 224–237). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Schickore, J. (2018). Scientific Discovery. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/scientific-discovery.
- Stephens, A. L. & Clement, J. (2012). The role of thought experiments in science and science learning. In B. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (eds) Second International Handbook of Science Education: Springer International Handbooks of Education Vol 24, Part 2 (pp. 157–175). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
- Stokes, D. (2016). Imagination and creativity. In A. Kind (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of philosophy of imagination (pp. 247–261). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
- Strawson, P. F. (1970). Imagination and perception. In L. Foster & J. W. Swanson (Eds.), Experience and theory (pp. 31–54). Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
- Stuart, M. T. (2017). Imagination: a sine qua non of science. Croatian Journal of Philosophy, XVII(49), 9–32.Google Scholar
- Stuart, M. T. (2019). Towards a dual process model of imagination. Synthese. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02116-w.
- Thagard, P. (1984). Conceptual combination and scientific discovery. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 3–12.Google Scholar
- Walton, K. (1990). Mimesis as make-believe: on the foundations of the representational arts. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Weber, T. et al. (2017). “Imagination-augmented agents for deep reinforcement learning.” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 5690–5701. arXiv:1707.06203.Google Scholar
- Wilkes, K. (1988). Real people: personal identity without thought experiments. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Znaniecki, F. (1934). The method of sociology. New York: Farrar and Rinehart.Google Scholar