Problems with Peirce's concept of abduction

Title:  Problems with Peirce's concept of abduction
Authors: Michael Hoffmann
Link: http://apertum.110mb.com/library_csp/CSP_Problems%20with%20Peirces%20%20Abduction.pdf

Reference: Hoffmann, M. (1999). Problems with Peirce's concept of abduction. Foundations of Science, 4(3), 271-305.

Abstract: Abductive reasoning takes place in forming “hypotheses” in order to explain “facts.” Thus, the concept of abduction promises an understanding of creativity in science and learning. It raises, however, also a lot of problems. Some of them will be discussed in this paper. After analyzing the difference between induction and abduction (1), I shall discuss Peirce’s claim that there is a “logic” of abduction (2). The thesis is that this claim can be understood, if we make a clear distinction between inferential elements and perceptive elements of abductive reasoning. For Peirce, the creative act of forming explanatory hypotheses and the emergence of “new ideas” belongs exclusively to the perceptive side of abduction. Thus, it is necessary to study the role of perception in abductive reasoning (3). A further problem is the question whether there is a relationship between abduction and Peirce’s concept of “theorematic reasoning” in mathematics (4). Both forms of reasoning could be connected, because both are based on perception. The last problem concerns the role of instincts in explaining the success of abductive reasoning in science, and the question whether the concept of instinct might be replaced by methods of inquiry

Notes: I've found really hard to find clear and useful papers discussing Peirce's notion of abductive reasoning (probably more comprehensive term instead of logic of abduction). Anyway, Hoffmann writes very clearly and this paper is extremely useful for anyone interested in creativity and creative reasoning.

On creativity of slime mould

Title: On creativity of slime mould
Authors: Andrew Adamatzky, Rachel Armstrong, Jeff Jones & YukioPegio Gunji
Link: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03081079.2013.776206

Abstract: Slime mould Physarum polycephalum is large single cell with intriguingly smart behaviour. The slime mould shows outstanding abilities to adapt its protoplasmic network to varying environmental conditions. The slime mould can solve tasks of computational geometry, image processing, logics and arithmetics when data are represented by configurations of attractants and repellents. We attempt to map behavioural patterns of lime onto the cognitive control vs. schizotypy spectrum phase space and thus interpret slime mould’s activity in terms of creativity"

My notes: What can I say? The title says it all. Creativity is definitely on the eye of the researcher!

Neuroanatomy of Creativity

Title: Neuroanatomy of Creativity
Authors: Rex E. Jung,Judith M. Segall, H. Jeremy Bockholt, Ranee A. Flores, Shirley M. Smith, Robert S. Chavez, andRichard J. Haier
Abstract: Creativity has long been a construct of interest to philosophers, psychologists and, more recently, neuroscientists. Recent efforts have focused on cognitive processes likely to be important to the manifestation of novelty and usefulness within a given social context. One such cognitive process – divergent thinking – is the process by which one extrapolates many possible answers to an initial stimulus or target data set. We sought to link well established measures of divergent thinking and creative achievement (Creative Achievement Questionnaire – CAQ) to cortical thickness in a cohort of young (23.7 ± 4.2 years), healthy subjects. Three independent judges ranked the creative products of each subject using the consensual assessment technique (Amabile, 1982) from which a “composite creativity index” (CCI) was derived. Structural magnetic resonance imaging was obtained at 1.5 Tesla Siemens scanner. Cortical reconstruction and volumetric segmentation were performed with the FreeSurfer image analysis suite. A region within the lingual gyrus was negatively correlated with CCI; the right posterior cingulate correlated positively with the CCI. For the CAQ, lower left lateral orbitofrontal volume correlated with higher creative achievement; higher cortical thickness was related to higher scores on the CAQ in the right angular gyrus. This is the first study to link cortical thickness measures to psychometric measures of creativity. The distribution of brain regions, associated with both divergent thinking and creative achievement, suggests that cognitive control of information flow among brain areas may be critical to understanding creative cognition.

My notes: I'll be brief because I don't know anything about neuroscience, I respect experts that study our brain, the abstract is long enough, and this type of papers are SO easy to comment. Here is their key statement: "The distribution of significant areas throughout the brain, found in the current study, suggests that information flow among brain areas may be a key to creativity". If you know more about neuroscience you can read and understand it much better. But, still the question will be: "So what?". As Dieteich says in "Who is afraid of a cognitive neuroscience of creativity?", such brain mapping projects rest on the fundamental assumption that something identified as "creativity" can be localised in the human brain. I was expecting to read in this paper even a short explanation as to why locating a brain region that performs a specific mental function matters in order to understand creativity. Alas, the authors fail to explain this.

Learning from Architects: The Difference between Knowledge Visualization and Information Visualization

Title: Learning from Architects: The Difference between Knowledge Visualization and Information Visualization  

Author: Remo A Burkhard

Year: 2004

Abstract: This paper focuses on an aspect which has been neglected, but which is decisive: The transfer of knowledge to different stakeholders; especially the transfer of insights derived from information visualization tools. In knowledge management the transfer of knowledge is a core process, which can be improved by using our innate abilities to process visual representations. The potential of visualizations are manifold. But business managers miss a holistic framework on the use of visualization methods for information exploration and communication tasks. This paper analyzes how architects use visualizations to amplify cognition

and to transfer knowledge. It introduces a mediating framework that brings together isolated research directions and defines the new research focus knowledge visualization. Knowledge visualization examines the use of visualizations for the transfer of knowledge between at least two peoples. We found that the new focus is decisive and has implications for researchers in information visualization and knowledge management.

My notes: The writing quality of this paper is well above average, I would recommend it to every graduate student (not only information visualisation scholars) as an example of weel organised, original and clear academic writing. It is also a very neat example of a cross-disciplinary work: bridging ideas from one field onto another. After analysing sketches, models and computer representations, the author builds a framework for "knowledge representations": knowledge type, recipient and visualisation type. This framework is (consistently with the area) represented as a Cube where the researcher can select the target values along the three dimensions.

A Three-Dimensional View of Personality

Title: A Three-Dimensional View of Personality 

Authors: Mayer, John D. Lang, Jenny L. 

Source: Psychological Inquiry. January-March 2011, Vol. 22, Issue 1, p36-39, 4p.

Personal notes: This paper contains some key notions that represent (part of) model-building in the (social) sciences. First, here are some statements to consider:

1. "Consequently, it seems better to speak of the personality system as embedded in..."
2. "It would be elegant and consistent to extend the use of the levels approach..."
3. "We believe that discussing personality's inner function requires a different kind of conceptual tool..."
4. "To be valid, models must cover personality comprehensively, have clear distinctions among divisions, and be scientifically useful."
5. "Their application of multilevel modeling... makes possible clearer communication..."

I'm in no way criticising the scientific traditions of research in psychology, what drew my attention is that these five statements illustrate very clearly the assumptions of (part of) the field. Clearly, theoretical models whether 'validated' by empirical means or presented under argumentative bases, "seem better/worse" to authors, reviewers, editors and possibly readers of psychology studies. The field also has an aesthetic criterion by which these people qualify a model by its elegance and (internal) consistency. Beliefs based on experience and intuition do play an important role in the development of science. Finally, any model is judged by its ability to enable clear communication between researchers -and perhaps also practitioners? Perhaps this and other criteria of "scientific utility" next to the latent assumptions and implications of such ideas should be more clearly discussed in the literature. It is my impression that in psychology and in every other single scientific field that deals with humans, too many assumptions too often remain implicit.

Perhaps, just like "Introduction", "Background", etc sections, journals could require authors to have an "Assumptions" section where they made explicit their own and their field's unspoken beliefs, concepts and terms?

Do People Prefer Curved Objects?

This paper titled "Do People Prefer Curved Objects?" not only has an interesting title, it also provides an interesting point to discuss the aims and claims of design research. I do not have access to this paper at the moment, but will review it and comment as soon as I get a copy.

http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/P_Silvia_Do_2009.pdf

Update: Ok, so I got to read the paper. Not to disrespect the authors or anything, but this paper is like those movies in which the title is enough to get the idea and you really don't need to spend your time reading it all. Two experiments were conducted, the results are a) as expected and b) inconclusive. Yes, people do prefer curved objects but it's much more complicated than that.

Innovation through imitation

Title: Copycats: how smart companies use imitation to gain a strategic edge
Oded Shenkar, (2010) "Copycats: how smart companies use imitation to gain a strategic edge", Strategic Direction, Vol. 26 Iss: 10, pp.3 - 5

Findings – In the business world, imitation gets a bad rap. We see imitating firms as “me too” players, forced to play catchup because they have nothing original to offer. In Copycats, Oded Shenkar challenges this viewpoint. He reveals how imitation is as critical to prosperity as innovation and how savvy imitators generate huge profits. They save not only on R&D costs but also on marketing and advertising investments made by first movers, and avoid costly errors by observing and learning from others' trials.

My notes: This paper presents one of those ideas that are very unlikely to spread in certain worlds like business and design. People in these communities don't want to hear/see evidence that a great component of innovation is, in fact, imitation. Shenkar's ideas are unlikely to be acclaimed, but they are the kind of ideas that reveal a great deal about innovation and how we study it.

What (Design) Theory is not

Title: What Theory is not
RI Sutton, BM Staw - Administrative science quarterly, 1995

Abstract:
This essay describes differences between papers that contain some theory rather than no theory. There is little agreement about what constitutes strong versus weak theory in the social sciences, but there is more consensus that references, data, variables, diagrams, and hypotheses are not theory. Despite this consensus, however, authors routinely use these five elements in lieu of theory. We explain how each of these five elements can be confused with theory and how to avoid such confusion. By making this consensus explicit, we hope to help authors avoid some of the most common and easily averted problems that lead readers to view papers as having inadequate theory. We then discuss how journals might facilitate the publication of stronger theory. We suggest that if the field is serious about producing stronger theory, journals need to reconsider their empirical requirements. We argue that journals ought to be more receptive to papers that test part rather than all of a theory and use illustrative rather than definitive data.

My notes:
This is one of those papers that I keep mentioning over and over in discussions about design theory,l and design research. Probably a good time now to write a paper on What Design Theory is Not?

Metamorphosis: Transforming Non-designers into Designers

Title: Metamorphosis: Transforming Non-designers into Designers
Authors: SIEGEL, Martin A and STOLTERMAN, Erik

Abstract: In this paper we make the case that there is today a growing number of educational settings experiencing challenges when it comes to transforming non-designers into designers, and in particular, interaction designers. We see this development as a consequence of an increased awareness and recognition of what broadly could be labeled as a design perspective. We examine the transformational process, the metamorphosis, by which nondesigner students become interaction designers. We identify and describe the barriers that make it difficult for the students to move through this transformational process. We also propose some pedagogical approaches that can reduce the barriers and improve the possibility for the transformation to occur. The approach that we have developed and describe consists of three parts. Based on a fundamental understanding of the nature of design, we have developed (i) a tentative transformational model of how nondesigners become interaction designers; (ii) a special kind of conceptual framework used to support students in the transformational process; and (iii) design assignments based on real-world design problems. We end the paper with two conclusions. First we argue that there is a challenge in transforming non-designers into designers, but that it is possible if the educational effort is based on an understanding of design and on the transformational process with its barriers. Finally we argue that the experience of trying to turn nondesigners into interaction designers is in itself a valuable research approach. Dealing with non-designer students reveals deep insights about the nature of the design process and makes it possible to better formulate what constitutes a designerly approach.

My notes: One of the best papers that will help design educators to introduce "designerly" themes to other disciplines, design researchers and practitioners to better collaborate with colleagues from other disciplines. I first read this paper three years ago and is one of those papers that I'm constantly talking about.

A structural matrix model for design variety

Title: A structural matrix-based modelling for designing product variety
Authors: Ding-Bang Luha, Yao-Tsung Koa* & Chia-Hsiang Maaa

ABSTRACT: The design process is an important stage in new product development. An information model is a useful tool for analysing and improving a complex design process and product architecture because it allows the designer to visualise information flow. Based on graph theory and the weighting concept, this paper presents a quantified design structure matrix, which is a systematic planning method of optimising design priorities and product architecture for managing product variety from an informational structure perspective. Focusing on product variety and the design process in concurrent engineering, the planning model is divided into two phases: global planning and local planning. The proposed method helps designers optimise design planning and plan better design strategies for product variety. It can be applied in developing future generations of a product based on an existing product. A case study is used to illustrate this method. The results verify that designers can concurrently create variant design solutions in a product family that can meet different market needs without extra effort being spent on redundant design loops

My notes: This paper received the Best Paper Award in this journal. It is an exemplary type of research from this community. As such, the assumptions, the methods and the goals of this type of paper deserve a careful analysis. I'm not judging here the quality of this work (which I assume to be very high therefore the prize), what is much more relevant is the disciplinary traditions reflected by this paper. One can argue whether this research is transformative or incrementa, whether it seeks to evolve or improve practice, or whether it extends our understanding or refines our practice. The claims are equally interesting, worth discussing the real degree and scope of generalisation. No doubt a reference paper.