scholarly journals Varieties of (Scientific) Creativity: A Hierarchical Model of Domain-Specific Disposition, Development, and Achievement

2009 ◽  
Vol 4 (5) ◽  
pp. 441-452 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dean Keith Simonton
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Hierarchical Model ◽  
Family Background ◽  
Natural Sciences ◽  
Normal Science ◽  
Scientific Creativity ◽  
Developmental Experiences ◽  
Domain Specific ◽  
Scientific Disciplines ◽  
Specific Impact

Prior research supports the inference that scientific disciplines can be ordered into a hierarchy ranging from the “hard” natural sciences to the “soft” social sciences. This ordering corresponds with such objective criteria as disciplinary consensus, knowledge obsolescence rate, anticipation frequency, theories-to-laws ratio, lecture disfluency, and age at recognition. It is then argued that this hierarchy can be extrapolated to encompass the humanities and arts and interpolated within specific domains to accommodate contrasts in subdomains (e.g., revolutionary versus normal science). This expanded and more finely differentiated hierarchy is then shown to have a partial psychological basis in terms of dispositional traits (e.g., psychopathology) and developmental experiences (e.g., family background). This demonstration then leads to three hypotheses about how a creator's domain-specific impact depends on his or her disposition and development: the domain-progressive, domain-typical, and domain-regressive creator hypotheses. Studies published thus far lend the most support to the domain-regressive creator hypothesis. In particular, major contributors to a domain are more likely to have dispositional traits and developmental experiences most similar to those that prevail in a domain lower in the disciplinary hierarchy. However, some complications to this generalization suggest the need for more research on the proposed hierarchical model.

scholarly journals Transdisciplinarity: two preliminary issues

2013 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Renato Coletto
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Applied Sciences ◽  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Natural Sciences ◽  
Human Sciences ◽  
Demarcation Criterion ◽  
Special Sciences ◽  
Scientific Disciplines ◽  
Use Categories ◽  
The Way

Any discussion about transdisciplinarity presupposes some sort of recognition of the scientific disciplines and some agreement on how they are or should be grouped or classified. This article supplies a demarcation criterion to distinguish science from non- science and discusses the way the sciences should be grouped. The first issue can be summarized by the question: (how) can scientific disciplines be distinguished from non- scientific ones? To answer this question it is necessary to sketch what in philosophy of science is called a “demarcation criterion” to distinguish between scientific and non- scientific activities. Secondly, does it make sense to recognise groups of sciences and which disciplines should be placed in each group? Does it make sense to use categories like social, hard, soft, exact, applied sciences and so forth? To answer these questions it is necessary to assess the plausibility of some of the categories traditionally used to classify the sciences. The purpose of the article is to provide an initial (yet philosophically grounded) orientation in an area in which many academics seem to wander, and sometimes to accept simplistic answers.Keywords: Demarcation criterion, groups of sciences, natural sciences, social sciences, human sciences, groups of sciences, general sciences, special sciences, transdisciplinarity, 9Theory of) modal aspects, multi-modal sciencesDisciplines: Philosophy, Philosophy of science, (Basically, all sciences are interested)

scholarly journals Simplifying Theories of Creativity and Revisiting the Criterion Problem: A Comment on Simonton's (2009) Hierarchical Model of Domain-Specific Disposition, Development, and Achievement

2009 ◽  
Vol 4 (5) ◽  
pp. 462-465 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark A. Runco
Keyword(s):  
Hierarchical Model ◽  
Family Background ◽  
Simple Theory ◽  
Creative Potential ◽  
Actual Performance ◽  
Domain Specific ◽  
Arts And Humanities ◽  
The Arts

Simonton's (2009, this issue) hierarchical model represents a useful contribution to studies of creativity and eminence. Simonton breaks all kinds of new ground by extrapolating the hierarchy to the arts and humanities, interpolating it within disciplines, and relating it to family background and disposition. This commentary poses a few questions about the hierarchical model and proposes an alternative. I also introduce a candidate for a simple theory of creativity that focuses on a universally shared capacity. This simple theory complements Simonton's hierarchical view, though his applies best to actual performance and the simple theory of creativity applies to creative potential.

Religion in the Age of the Anthropocene

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arianne F. Conty
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Climate Change ◽  
Natural Sciences ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Risks And Benefits ◽  
Human Exceptionalism ◽  
The Earth ◽  
Contemporary Christian ◽  
Genesis 1 ◽  
Forms Of Life

Though responses to the Anthropocene have largely come from the natural and social sciences, religious responses to the Anthropocene have also been gaining momentum and many scholars have been calling for a religious response to complement scientific responses to climate change. Yet because Genesis 1:28 does indeed tell human beings to ‘subdue the earth’ monotheistic religions have often been understood as complicit in the human exceptionalism that is thought to have created the conditions for the Anthropocene. In distinction to such Biblical traditions, indigenous animistic cultures have typically respected all forms of life as ‘persons’ and such traditions have thus become a source of inspiration for ecological movements. After discussing contemporary Christian efforts to integrate the natural sciences and the environment into their responses to the Anthropocene, this article will turn to animism and seek to evaluate the risks and benefits that could ensue from a postmodern form of animism that could provide a necessary postsecular response to the Anthropocene.

Reflections into the Spirit of the Islamic Corpus of Knowledge and the Rise of the New Science

1993 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-164
Author(s):  
Mahmoud Dhaouadi
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Third World ◽  
New Physics ◽  
Western Civilization ◽  
Western Science ◽  
New Science ◽  
Scientific Disciplines ◽  
The World ◽  
The Future ◽  
Primary Reference

There is no question that contemporary western civilization has beendominant in the field of science since the Renaissance. Western scientificsuperiority is not limited to specific scientific disciplines, but is rather anovetall scientific domination covering both the so-called exact and thehuman-social sciences. Western science is the primary reference for specialistsin such ateas as physics, chemistry, biology, medicine, economics,psychology, and sociology. It is in this sense that Third World underdevelopmentis not only economic, social, and industrial; it also suffersfrom scientific-cultutal underdevelopment, or what we call "The OtherUnderdevelopment" (Dhaouadi 1988).The imptessive progress of western science since Newton and Descartesdoes not meari, however, that it has everything tight or perfect. Infact, its flaws ate becoming mote visible. In the last few decades, westernscience has begun to experience a shift from what is called classical scienceto new science. Classical science was associated with the celestialmechanics of Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, the new physics of Galileo,and the philosophy of Descartes. Descartes introduced a radical divisionbetween mind and matter, while Newton and his fellows presented a newscience that looked at the world as a kind of giant clock The laws of thisworld were time-reversible, for it was held that there was no differencebetween past and future. As the laws were deterministic, both the pastand the future could be predicted once the present was known.The vision of the emerging new science tends to heal the division betweenmatter and spirit and to do away with the mechanical dimension ...

Environmental engineering education in conjunction with or as Part of social sciences curricula

2000 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 47-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
H.H. Hahn
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Engineering Education ◽  
Business Administration ◽  
Natural Sciences ◽  
Environmental Engineering ◽  
Basic Question ◽  
Basic Training ◽  
The University ◽  
Engineering Programme ◽  
Environmental Infrastructure

Traditionally in Germany environmental engineering education took place within the context of a civil engineering programme. There were reasons for this: the beginning of much of what we understand today to be environmental works fell within the parameters of city engineering. There were and are advantages mostly in view of the necessary planning, construction and operation of environmental infrastructure. There are also disadvantages which become more and more pronounced as the field of environmental protection expands: the civil engineer frequently lacks basic training in disciplines such as biology and chemistry and carries a large and sometimes burdensome knowledge of other less relevant subjects. Thus, educators begin to look for alternatives. This paper deals with an alternative that was developed some ten years ago and therefore has proven viable and successful: at the University of Karlsruhe students may choose to major in environmental engineering within the context or on the basis of an economics and business administration curriculum. The basic question here is as to what extent the student masters the field of environmental engineering if he or she has predominantly a solid background in social sciences and very little in natural sciences. The paper will describe the curriculum in structure and intensity and evaluate the accumulated knowledge and suitability of these students in terms of actual environmental problems. This will be done in terms of examination performance parallel and/or relative to traditionally trained civil environmental engineers as well as in terms of topics successfully treated in Masters' theses. In conclusion, it is argued that such combination of curricula should not be confined to economic sciences and environmental engineering but also be planned for legal sciences and environmental engineering.

Defending the Difference

2017 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Natural Sciences ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
True Nature ◽  
Natural Entities ◽  
The Social ◽  
The World ◽  
Methodological Difference ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The One

Dreyfus argues that there is a basic methodological difference between the natural sciences and the social sciences, a difference that derives from the different goals and practices of each. He goes on to argue that being a realist about natural entities is compatible with pluralism or, as he calls it, “plural realism.” If intelligibility is always grounded in our practices, Dreyfus points out, then there is no point of view from which one can ask about or provide an answer to the one true nature of ultimate reality. But that is consistent with believing that the natural sciences can still reveal the way the world is independent of our theories and practices.

Guide to Africa Bibliography

2020 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. xxix-xxx
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Natural Sciences ◽  
Development Studies ◽  
Environmental Sciences ◽  
African Government ◽  
The Social ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Cover Material

This bibliography records publications on Africa of interest to students of Africa, principally in the social and environmental sciences, development studies, humanities and arts. Some items from the medical, biological and natural sciences are included. The criterion used is potential relevance to a reader from a social sciences/arts background. The whole continent and associated islands are covered, with selective coverage of the diaspora. This volume aims to cover material published in 2019 together with items from earlier years not previously listed. The editor is always very glad to hear of any items omitted so that they may be included in future volumes. He would be particularly pleased to receive notification of new periodicals, print or online. African government publications and works of creative literature are not normally listed.

Heuristische Textpraktiken in den Wissenschaften

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-46
Author(s):  
Michael Bender ◽  
Marcus Müller
Keyword(s):  
Science Research ◽  
Annotation Scheme ◽  
Scientific Debate ◽  
Domain Specific ◽  
Current State ◽  
Scientific Disciplines ◽  
Textual Practices ◽  
Collaborative Annotation ◽  
The Subject ◽  
State Of Research

AbstractThis article contains a comparative study of heuristic textual practices in various scientific disciplines. By this we mean formulation practices with which new knowledge is generated in institutionally influenced routines and connected to existing knowledge, e. g. ‚highlighting the relevance of a research topic‘, ‚defining a concept‘ or ‚supporting a statement argumentatively‘.The aim is to find out to what extent such textual practices occur in different scientific disciplines, how they are distributed and combined. Furthermore, we study the effects domain-specific contexts have on heuristic textual practices. The data basis of our study is a corpus of 65 dissertations from the 13 different faculties of the TU Darmstadt. In the pilot study we report here, we examined the introductory chapters of the dissertations. Methodologically, it is an annotation study: Based on the current state of research on the subject, we have derived a basic annotation scheme, which we have developed and refined in a collaborative process of guideline creation. Our study affiliates on socio-pragmatic research on text production and formulation routines in the sciences. It is theoretically informed by the philosophy of science research on heuristics, methodically we make a contribution to the scientific debate on collaborative annotation procedures.

The role of a single lingua franca in scientific inquiry

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-46
Author(s):  
Ekkehard König
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Inquiry ◽  
Scientific Communication ◽  
External World ◽  
Natural Sciences ◽  
International Exchange ◽  
Conceptual System ◽  
Lingua Franca ◽  
Domain Specific ◽  
Multilingual Approach

This paper discusses the role of English as the current lingua franca academica in contrast to a multilingual approach to scientific inquiry on the basis of four perspectives: a cognitive, a typological, a contrastive and a domain-specific one. It is argued that a distinction must be drawn between the natural sciences and the humanities in order to properly assess the potential of either linguistic solution to the problem of scientific communication. To the extent that the results of scientific research are expressed in formal languages and international standardised terminology, the exclusive use of one lingua franca is unproblematic, especially if phenomena of our external world are under consideration. In the humanities, by contrast, especially in the analysis of our non-visible, mental world, a single lingua franca cannot be regarded as a neutral instrument, but may more often than not become a conceptual prison. For the humanities the analysis of the conceptual system of a language provides the most reliable access to its culture. For international exchange of results, however, the humanities too have to rely on a suitable lingua franca as language of description as opposed to the language under description.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document