Abstract
AbstractThis paper examines whether Sherlock Holmes’ “Science of Deduction and Analysis,” as reconstructed by Hintikka and Hintikka (in: Eco U, Sebeok TA (eds) The sign of three: Peirce, Dupin, Holmes, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1983), exemplifies a logic of discovery. While the Hintikkas claimed it does, their approach remained largely programmatic, and ultimately unsuccessful. Their reconstruction must thus be expanded, in particular to account for the role of memory in inquiry. Pending this expansion, the Hintikkas’ claim is vindicated. However, a tension between the naturalistic aspirations of their model and the formal apparatus they built it on is identified. The paper concludes on suggestions for easing this tension without losing the normative component of the Hintikkas’ epistemological model.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Social Sciences,Philosophy
Reference31 articles.
1. Barber, E., & Merton, R. K. (2004). The travels and adventures of serendipity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
2. Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. In E. Bach & R. T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1–68). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
3. Fillmore, C. J. (1976). Frame semantics and the nature of language. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Conference on the Origin and Development of Language and Speech, 280, 20–32.
4. Gabora, L. (2010). Revenge of the “Neurds”: Characterizing creative thought in terms of the structure and dynamics of memory. Creativity Research Journal, 22(1), 1–13.
5. Gabora, L. (2011). An analysis of the blind variation and selective retention theory of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 23(2), 155–165.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献