Advertisement

Everyday Scientific Imagination

A Qualitative Study of the Uses, Norms, and Pedagogy of Imagination in Science
  • Michael T. StuartEmail author
Article
  • 6 Downloads

Abstract

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.

Notes

Acknowledgments

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.

References

  1. Arcangeli, M. (2018). Supposition and the imaginative realm. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bohm, D. and Peat, F. D. (1987/2000). Science, Order, and Creativity. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Burawoy, M. (1991). Ethnography unbound. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  4. Burawoy, M. (1998). The extended case method. Sociological Theory, 16, 4–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burawoy, M. (2000). Global ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  6. Byrne, R. (2005). The rational imagination. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Castoriadis, C. (1987). The imaginary institution of society. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Chandrasekharan, S., & Nersessian, N. (2015). Building cognition: the construction of computational representations for scientific discovery. Cognitive Science, 39, 1727–1763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. 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.
  11. 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
  12. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory method: prodecures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology 13, 3–21.Google Scholar
  13. Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: a reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 87–114 discussion 114–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Croce, M. (2019). Exemplarism in moral education: problems with applicability and indoctrination. Journal of Moral Education.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2019.1579086.
  15. Darden, L. (1991). Theory change in science: strategies from Mendelian genetics. New York: Oxford University.Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Gilbert, J., & Reiner, M. (2000). Thought experiments in science education: potential and current realization. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 265–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill valley: Sociological Press.Google Scholar
  19. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  20. Hamrick, J. B., et al. (2017). “Metacontrol for adaptive imagination-based optimization.” ICLR. arXiv:1705.02670v1.Google Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Hoyningen-Huene, P. (1987). Context of discovery and context of justification. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 18, 501–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jensvold, M., & Fouts, R. (1993). Imaginary play in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Human Evolution, 8, 217–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kind, A., & Kung, P. (2016). Introduction. In A. Kind & P. Kung (Eds.), Knowledge through imagination. Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kosem, S. D., & Özdemir, Ö. F. (2014). The nature and function of thought experiments in solving conceptual problems. Science and Education, 23, 865–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kosslyn, S. (1994). Image and brain. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lillard, A. (1993). Pretend play skills and the child’s theory of mind. Child Development, 64, 348–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lindesmith, A. (1947). Oppiate addiction. Bloomington: Principia Press.Google Scholar
  29. Mahadevan, S. (2018). Imagination machines: a new challenge for artificial intelligence. AAAI, 2018, 7988–7993.Google Scholar
  30. 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
  31. McGinn, C. (2004). Mindsight: image, dream, meaning. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Mitchell, R. (2002). Pretending and imagination in animals and children. Cambridge: CUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nersessian, N. J. (1984). Faraday to Einstein: constructing meaning in scientific theories. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. Nersessian, N. J. (2008). Creating scientific concepts. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Özdemir, F. (2009). Avoidance from thought experiments: fear of misconception. International Journal of Science Education, 31(8).Google Scholar
  37. Pascanu, R. et al. (2017). “Learning model-based planning from scratch.” arXiv:1707.06170v1.Google Scholar
  38. Piaget, J. (1981). Le possible et le necessaire I: l’Evolution du necessaire chez l’enfant. Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  39. Plank, M. (1949). Scientific autobiography and other papers. New York: Philosophical Library.Google Scholar
  40. Pylyshyn, Z. W. (2002). Mental imagery: in search of a theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25, 157–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Schickore, J. (2018). Scientific Discovery. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/scientific-discovery.
  43. 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
  44. Stevenson, L. (2003). Twelve conceptions of imagination. British Journal of Aesthetics, 43, 238–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stokes, D. (2014). The role of imagination in creativity. In E. S. Paul & S. B. Kaufman (Eds.), The philosophy of creativity (pp. 157–184). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stokes, D. (2016). Imagination and creativity. In A. Kind (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of philosophy of imagination (pp. 247–261). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Strauss, C. (2006). The imaginary. Anthropological Theory, 6, 322–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  50. 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
  51. Stuart, M. T. (2017). Imagination: a sine qua non of science. Croatian Journal of Philosophy, XVII(49), 9–32.Google Scholar
  52. Stuart, M. T. (2019). Towards a dual process model of imagination. Synthese.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02116-w.
  53. Stuart, M. T., & Nersessian, N. (2019). Peeking inside the black box: a new kind of scientific visualization. Minds and Machines, 29, 87–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Taylor, C. (2002). Modern social imaginaries. Public Culture, 14, 91–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Thagard, P. (1984). Conceptual combination and scientific discovery. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 3–12.Google Scholar
  56. Trafton, J. G., Trickett, S. B., & Mintz, F. E. (2005). Connecting internal and external representations: spatial transformations of scientific visualizations. Foundations of Science, 10, 89–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Trickett, S. B., & Trafton, J. G. (2007). “What if...”: the use of conceptual simulations in scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 31, 843–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Velentzas, A., & Halkia, K. (2011). The ‘Heisenberg’s microscope’ as an example of using thought experiments in teaching physics theories to students of the upper secondary school. Research in Science Education, 41, 525–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Velentzas, A., & Halkia, K. (2013a). The use of thought experiments in teaching physics to upper secondary-level students: two examples from the theory of relativity. International Journal of Science Education, 35, 3026–3049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Velentzas, A., & Halkia, K. (2013b). From earth to heaven: using ‘Newton’s Cannon’ thought experiment for teaching satellite physics. Science & Education, 22, 2621–2640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Walker-Andrews, A., & Harris, P. L. (1993). Young children’s comprehension of pretend causal sequences. Developmental Psychology, 29, 915–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Walton, K. (1990). Mimesis as make-believe: on the foundations of the representational arts. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  63. 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
  64. Weisberg, D. S., Sobel, D. M., Goodstein, J., & Bloom, P. (2013). Young children are reality prone when thinking about stories. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 13, 383–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wilkes, K. (1988). Real people: personal identity without thought experiments. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Znaniecki, F. (1934). The method of sociology. New York: Farrar and Rinehart.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of GenevaGenevaSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations