Abstract
The apparent conflict between standardization in research, due to the use of various methods as established procedures, and the uniqueness of a scientific discovery, are discussed in the article. It is indicated that this paradox may be eliminated if the differentiation of methods as to the degree of definiteness is taken into account. The role of methods at the various levels of goals which research is to attain is analysed. From that point of view the division of labour, as seen in present-day science, is of special significance. Intertwining of inventiveness and method-based procedures proves a characteristic of scientific research.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
The realization of that fact is now fairly common. See in this connection J. Ziman, Public Knowledge, Cambridge University Press 1968.
Cf. H. Reichenbach, The Rise of Scientific Philosophy, 1951.
See G. Polya, How To Solve It? Princeton University Press 1945, and by the same author, Mathematical Discovery. On Understanding, Learning and Teaching Problem Solving vol. 1 1962, vol. 2 1965.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1998 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Szaniawski, K. (1998). Method and Creativity in Science. In: Chmielewski, A., Woleński, J. (eds) On Science, Inference, Information and Decision-Making. Synthese Library, vol 271. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5260-0_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5260-0_3
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-6213-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-5260-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive