Advertisement

Synthese

pp 1–22 | Cite as

Towards a dual process epistemology of imagination

  • Michael T. StuartEmail author
Article

Abstract

Sometimes we learn through the use of imagination. The epistemology of imagination asks how this is possible. One barrier to progress on this question has been a lack of agreement on how to characterize imagination; for example, is imagination a mental state, ability, character trait, or cognitive process? This paper argues that we should characterize imagination as a cognitive ability, exercises of which are cognitive processes. Following dual process theories of cognition developed in cognitive science, the set of imaginative processes is then divided into two kinds: one that is unconscious, uncontrolled, and effortless, and another that is conscious, controlled, and effortful. This paper outlines the different epistemological strengths and weaknesses of the two kinds of imaginative process, and argues that a dual process model of imagination helpfully resolves or clarifies issues in the epistemology of imagination and the closely related epistemology of thought experiments.

Keywords

Epistemology of imagination Thought experiments Scientific imagination Dual process model of cognition 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I’d like to thank Marco Buzzoni, Nancy Nersessian, Catherine Elgin, John Norton, Margherita Arcangeli, Jim Brown, Michael Hannon, Philip Thonemann, Bryan Roberts, Michael Strevens, Deena Weisberg, Alison Hills, Christoph Baumberger, Susan Carey, Boris Babic, Victoria Hoog, Agnes Bolinska, Maël Pégny, Leonardo Bich, Carol Cleland, Andrew Inkpen, Mattias Unterhuber and audiences at the Summer Seminar on Understanding at Fordham University, the London School of Economics Research Seminar in the Philosophy of Natural Sciences, the Nordic Network for Philosophy of Science, the philosophy of science annual conference in Dubrovnik and the Imagination and Knowledge conference in Konstanz. This paper was funded by the University of Pittsburgh’s Center for Philosophy of Science, as well as SSHRC Grant Number 756-2016-0830.

References

  1. Aggleton, J. P., Vann, S. D., Denby, C., Dix, S., Mayes, A. R., Roberts, N., et al. (2005). Sparing of the familiarity component of recognition memory in a patient with hippocampal pathology. Neuropsychologia, 43, 1810–1823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arcangeli, M. (2010). Imagination in thought experimentation: Sketching a cognitive approach to thought experiments. In L. Magnani, et al. (Eds.), Model-based reasoning in science and technology (pp. 571–587). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arcangeli, M. (2017). Interacting with emotions: Imagination and supposition. The Philosophical Quarterly, 67, 730–750.  https://doi.org/10.1093/pq/pqx007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Atkinson, R. C., & Juola, J. F. (1973). Factors influencing the speed and accuracy of word recognition. In S. Kornblum (Ed.), Attention and performance IV (pp. 583–612). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  5. Atkinson, R. C., & Juola, J. F. (1974). Search and decision processes in recognition memory. In D. H. Krantz, R. C. Atkinson, & P. Suppes (Eds.), Contemporary developments in mathematical psychology (pp. 243–290). San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
  6. Becker, A. (2018). Thought experiments in Plato. In M. T. Stuart, et al. (Eds.), The Routledge companion to thought experiments (pp. 44–56). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Berto, F. (2018a). Taming the runabout imagination ticket. Synthese.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-1751-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berto, F. (2018b). Aboutness in imagination. Philosophical Studies, 175, 1871–1886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bokulich, A. (2001). Rethinking thought experiments. Perspectives on Science, 9, 285–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bokulich, A., & Frappier, M. (2018). On the identity of thought experiments: Thought experiments rethought. In M. Stuart, et al. (Eds.), The Routledge companion to thought experiments (pp. 545–557). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Botzung, A., Denkova, E., & Manning, L. (2008). Experiencing past and future personal events: Functional neuroimaging evidence on the neural bases of mental time travel. Brain and Cognition, 66, 202–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brown, J. R. (1986). Thought experiments since the scientific revolution. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 1, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brown, J. R. (1991/2011). The laboratory of the mind: Thought experiments in the natural sciences. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Brown, J. R. (2004). Why thought experiments do transcend empiricism. In C. Hitchcock (Ed.), Contemporary debates in the philosophy of science (pp. 23–43). Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  15. Buzzoni, M. (2008). Thought experiment in the natural sciences. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.Google Scholar
  16. Buzzoni, M. (2013). Thought experiments from a Kantian point of view. In M. Frappier, et al. (Eds.), Thought experiments in science, philosophy, and the arts. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Buzzoni, M. (2018). Kantian accounts of thought experiments. In M. Stuart, et al. (Eds.), The Routledge companion to thought experiments (pp. 327–341). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Byrne, R. M. J. (2005). The rational imagination: How people create alternatives to reality. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cipolotti, L., Bird, C., Good, T., Macmanus, D., Rudge, P., & Shallice, T. (2006). Recollection and familiarity in dense hippocampal amnesia: A case study. Neuropsychologia, 44, 489–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Clement, J. (2008). Creative model construction in scientists and students: The role of imagery, analogy, and mental simulation. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Clement, J. (2009). Analogy 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
  22. Currie, G., & Ravenscroft, I. (2002). Recreative minds. Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. De Mey, T. (2003). The dual nature view of thought experiments. Philosophica, 72, 61–78.Google Scholar
  24. Dennett, D. (1984). Elbow room: The varieties of free will worth wanting. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Dennett, D. (2013). Intuition pumps: And other tools for thinking. New York: W. W. Norton and Company.Google Scholar
  26. Di Nucci, E. (2013). Mindlessness. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  27. Dreyfus, H. (2002). Intelligence without representation: Merleau Ponty’s critique of representation. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 1, 367–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Elgin, C. Z. (2014). Fiction as thought experiment. Perspectives on Science, 22, 221–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Engel, P. (2016). The epistemology of stupidity. In M. Á. F. Vargas (Ed.), Performance epistemology: Foundations and applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Evans, J. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Evans, J., & Frankish, K. (2009). In two minds: Dual processes and beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Evans, J., & Over, D. (1996). Rationality and reasoning. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  33. Fortin, N. J., Wright, S. P., & Eichenbaum, H. (2004). Recollection-like memory retrieval in rats is dependent on the hippocampus. Nature, 431, 188–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Frankish, K. (2004). Mind and supermind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Frappier, M., Meynell, L., & Brown, J. R. (Eds.). (2013). Thought experiments in science, philosophy, and the arts. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Fridland, E. (2017). Automatically minded. Synthese, 194, 4337–4363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Funkhouser, E., & Spaulding, S. (2009). Imagination and other scripts. Philosophical Studies, 143(3), 291–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gendler, T. S. (2000). Thought experiment: On the powers and limits of imaginary cases. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Gendler, T. S. (2004). Thought experiments rethought—and reperceived. Philosophy of Science, 71, 1152–1163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Gendler, T. S. (2007). Philosophical thought experiments, intuitions and cognitive equilibrium. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 31, 68–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Gilbert, D. (1999). What the mind’s not. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 3–11). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  42. Goldman, A. (2006). Imagination and simulation in audience responses to fiction. In S. Nichols (Ed.), The architecture of the imagination (pp. 41–56). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Gooding, D. (1992a). The procedural turn; or, why do thought experiments work? In R. N. Giere (Ed.), Cognitive models of science (pp. 45–76). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  44. Gooding, D. (1992b). What is experimental about thought experiments? PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 2, 280–290.Google Scholar
  45. Hadamard, J. (1996). The mathematician’s mind: The psychology of invention in the mathematical field. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Häggqvist, S. (1996). Thought experiments in philosophy. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell International.Google Scholar
  47. Hintzman, D. L., & Curran, T. (1994). Retrieval dynamics of recognition and frequency judgments: Evidence for separate processes of familiarity and recall. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Holton, G. (1998/1978). The scientific imagination. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Hopp, W. (2014). Experiments in thought. Perspectives on Science, 22, 242–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Horowitz, T., & Massey, G. (1991). Thought experiments in science and philosophy. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  51. Ierodiakonou, K. (2018). The triple life of ancient thought experiments. In M. Stuart, et al. (Eds.), The Routledge companion to thought experiments (pp. 31–43). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  52. Jacoby, L. L. (1991). A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 513–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Jacoby, L. L., & Dallas, M. (1981). On the relationship between autobiographical memory and perceptual learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 3, 306–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  55. Kahneman, D., & Miller, D. T. (1986). Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychological Review, 93, 136–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Khemlani, S. S., Mackiewicz, R., Bucciarelli, M., & Johnson-Laird, P. (2013). Kinematic mental simulations in abduction and deduction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, 110, 16766–16771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Kieran, M., & McIver Lopes, D. (2003a). Introduction. In M. Kieran & D. McIver Lopes (Eds.), Imagination, philosophy, and the arts. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Kieran, M., & McIver Lopes, D. (Eds.). (2003b). Imagination, philosophy, and the arts. Routledge: London.Google Scholar
  60. Kind, A. (Ed.). (2016). The Routledge handbook of philosophy of imagination. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  61. Kind, A., & Kung, P. (Eds.). (2016). Knowledge through imagination. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  62. Kosslyn, S. (1994). Image and brain: The resolution of the imagery debate. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  63. Kosslyn, S., Behrmann, M., & Jeannerod, M. (1995). The cognitive neuroscience of mental imagery. Neuropsychologia, 33, 1335–1344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Kosslyn, S., Thompson, W. L., & Ganis, G. (2006). The case for mental imagery. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Kuhn, T. S. (1964). A function for thought experiments. In T. Kuhn (Ed.), The essential tension (pp. 240–265). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  66. Lennox, J. G. (1991). Darwinian thought experiments: A function for just-so stories. In T. Horowitz & G. Massey (Eds.), Thought experiments in science and philosophy. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  67. Mach, E. (1883/1919). The science of mechanics: A critical and historical account of its development (J. McCormack, Trans.). Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar
  68. Mandel, D., Hilton, D., & Catellani, P. (2005). The psychology of counterfactual thinking. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  69. Mandler, G. (1980). Recognizing: The judgment of previous occurrence. Psychological Review, 87, 252–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Markman, K., Klein, W., & Suhr, J. (2009). Handbook of imagination and mental simulation. New York: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  71. McAllister, J. (2013a). 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.Google Scholar
  72. McAllister, J. (2013b). Reasoning with visual metaphors. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 28, 367–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. McAllister, J. (2018). Historicism and cross-culture comparison. In M. Stuart, et al. (Eds.), The Routledge companion to thought experiments (pp. 425–438). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  74. McGinn, C. (2004). Mindsight: Image, dream, meaning. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Meinong, A. (1907/1973). Das Gedankenexperiment. In R. Haller and R. Kindinger (Eds.), Über die Stellung der Gegenstandstheorie im System der Wissenschaften. Graz-Austria: Akademische Druck und Verlagsanstalt.Google Scholar
  76. Meynell, L. (2014). Imagination and insight: A new account of the content of thought experiments. Synthese, 191, 4149–4168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Meynell, L. (2018). Images and imagination in thought experiments. In M. Stuart, et al. (Eds.), The Routledge companion to thought experiments (pp. 498–511). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  78. Miščević, N. (1992). Mental models and thought experiments. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 6, 215–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Miščević, N. (2007). Modelling intuitions and thought experiments. Croatian Journal of Philosophy, 7, 181–214.Google Scholar
  80. Moran, R. (2017). The philosophical imagination: Selected essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Nanay, B. (2015). Perceptual content and the content of mental imagery. Philosophical Studies, 172, 1723–1736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Nersessian, N. J. (1992). How do scientists think? Capturing the dynamics of conceptual change in science. In R. N. Giere (Ed.), Cognitive models of science. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  83. Nersessian, N. J. (1993). In the theoretician’s laboratory: Thought experimenting as mental modeling. Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association, 2, 291–301.Google Scholar
  84. Nersessian, N. J. (2007). Thought experiments as mental modelling: Empiricism without logic. Croatian Journal of Philosophy, 7, 125–161.Google Scholar
  85. Nersessian, N. J. (2008). Creating scientific concepts. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Nersessian, N. J. (2018). Cognitive science, mental modeling, and thought experiments. In M. Stuart, et al. (Eds.), The Routledge companion to thought experiments (pp. 309–326). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  87. Nichols, S. (2006). Architecture of the imagination. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Nichols, S., & Stich, S. (2000). A cognitive theory of pretense. Cognition, 74, 115–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Nichols, S., & Stich, S. (2003). Mindreading. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Norton, J. D. (1991). Thought experiments in Einstein’s work. In T. Horowitz & G. Massey (Eds.), Thought experiments in science and philosophy. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  91. Norton, J. D. (1996). Are thought experiments just what you thought? Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 26, 333–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Norton, J. D. (2004a). On thought experiments: Is there more to the argument? Philosophy of Science, 71, 1139–1151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Norton, J. D. (2004b). Why thought experiments do not transcend empiricism. In C. Hitchcock (Ed.), Contemporary debates in the philosophy of science. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  94. Pearson, J., Naselaris, T., Holmes, E. A., & Kosslyn, S. M. (2015). Mental imagery: Functional mechanisms and clinical applications. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19, 590–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Pylyshyn, Z. W. (2002). Mental imagery: In search of a theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25, 157–182.Google Scholar
  96. Radder, H. (1996). In and about the world: Philosophical studies of science and technology. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  97. Richardson, A. (1969). Mental imagery. New York: Springer Publishing Company Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Salis, F., & Frigg, R. (forthcoming). Capturing the scientific imagination. In P. Godfrey-Smith, & A. Levy (Eds.), The scientific imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  99. Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Sloman, S. A. (2002). Two systems of reasoning. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 379–398). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Sorensen, R. (1992). Thought experiments. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  102. Stanley, J. (2011). Know how. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Stanovich, K. E. (1999). Who is rational? Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Elrbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Stevenson, L. (2003). Twelve conceptions of imagination. British Journal of Aesthetics, 43, 238–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Stevin, S. (1586/1955). The principal works of Simon Stevin. In E. Crone, E. J. Dijksterhuis, R. J. Forbes, M. G. J. Minnaert & A. Pannekoek (Eds.). Amsterdam: C. V. Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  106. Strawson, P. F. (1970). Imagination and perception. In L. Foster & J. W. Swanson (Eds.), Experience and theory (pp. 31–54). Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
  107. Strohminger, M. (2016). Review of Amy Kind and Peter Kung (Eds.), Knowledge through imagination. Resource Document. Notre Dame Philosophical Review. http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/knowledge-through-imagination/. Accessed January 2018.
  108. Stuart, M. T. (2016a). Taming theory with thought experiments: Understanding and scientific progress. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 58, 24–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Stuart, M. T. (2016b). Norton and the logic of thought experiments. Axiomathes, 26, 451–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Stuart, M. T. (2017). Imagination: A sine qua non of science. Croatian Journal of Philosophy, 49, 9–32.Google Scholar
  111. Stuart, M. T. (2018). How thought experiments increase understanding. In M. Stuart, et al. (Eds.), The Routledge companion to thought experiments (pp. 526–544). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  112. Stuart, M. T. (forthcoming). The role of imagination in social scientific discovery: Why machine discoverers will need imagination algorithms. In M. Addis et al. (Eds.), Scientific discovery in the social sciences. Springer Synthese Library.Google Scholar
  113. Stuart, M., Fehige, Y., & Brown, J. R. (Eds.). (2018a). The Routledge companion to thought experiments. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  114. Stuart, M., Fehige, Y., & Brown, J. R. (2018b). Thought experiments: The state of the art. In M. T. Stuart, et al. (Eds.), The Routledge companion to thought experiments (pp. 1–28). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  115. Suddendorf, T., Addis, D. R., & Corballis, M. C. (2009). Mental time travel and the shaping of the human mind. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 364, 1317–1324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Suddendorf, T., & Busby, J. (2003). Mental time travel in animals? Trends in Cognitive Science, 7, 391–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Swenson, L. S. (1970). The Michelson–Morley–Miller experiments before and after 1905. Journal for the History of Astronomy, 1, 56–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Thagard, P. (2010). The brain and the meaning of life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Thagard, P. (2014). Thought experiments considered harmful. Perspectives on Science, 22, 288–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Walton, K. (1990). Mimesis as make-believe: On the foundations of the representational arts. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  121. Wansing, H. (2017). Remarks on the logic of imagination. A step towards understanding doxastic control through imagination. Synthese, 194, 2843–2861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. 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
  123. Westra, E. (2017). Spontaneous mindreading: A problem for the two-systems account. Synthese, 194, 4559–4581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Williamson, T. (2016). Knowing by imagining. In A. Kind & P. Kung (Eds.), Knowledge through imagination (pp. 113–123). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Wiltsche, H. A. (2018). Phenomenology and thought experiments: Thought experiments as anticipation pumps. In M. T. Stuart, et al. (Eds.), The Routledge companion to thought experiments (pp. 342–366). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  126. Yablo, S. (1993). Is conceivability a guide to possibility? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 53, 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Yonelinas, A. P., Kroll, N. E. A., Quamme, J. R., Lazzara, M. M., Sauve, M. J., Widaman, K. F., et al. (2002). Effects of extensive temporal lobe damage or mild hypoxia on recollection and familiarity. Nature Neuroscience, 5, 1236–1241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of GenevaGenevaSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations