Abstract
Although scientific creativity has often been described as combinatorial, the description is usually insufficiently formulated to count as a precise scientific explanation. Therefore, the current article is devoted to elaborating a formalization defined by three combinatorial parameters: the initial probability p, the final utility u, and the scientist’s prior knowledge of that utility v. These parameters then lead logically to an 8-fold typology involving two forms of expertise, two irrational combinations, and four “blind” combinations. One of the latter provides the basis for the definition of personal creativity as c=(1−p)u(1−v), that is, the multiplicative product of originality, utility, and surprise. This three-criterion definition then has six critical implications. Those implications lead to a discussion of various combinatorial processes and procedures that include a treatment of the No Free Lunch Theorems regarding optimization algorithms as well as the creativity-maximizing phenomena of mind wandering and serendipity. The article closes with a discussion of how scientific creativity differs from artistic creativity. Besides the obvious contrasts in the ideas entering the combinatorial processes and procedures, scientific combinations, products, and communities strikingly differ from those typical of the arts. These differences also imply contrasts in developmental experiences and personality characteristics. In sum, the formal combinatorial analysis enhances our understanding of scientific creativity.
Highlights
Eminent figures in the sciences have often reported that their creativity, whether entailing discovery or invention, entails a combinatorial process or procedure
Combinatorial processes and procedures are important not just in the mathematical, physical, biological, and behavioral sciences, and have a major part in the creativity exhibited in the visual arts, literature, and music
To express the difference in the simplest terms, scientific creativity is more constrained than artistic creativity, and intrinsically less creative in an absolute sense (Simonton, 2003)
Summary
The current article is devoted to elaborating a formalization defined by three combinatorial parameters: the initial probability p, the final utility u, and the scientist’s prior knowledge of that utility v These parameters lead logically to an 8-fold typology involving two forms of expertise, two irrational combinations, and four “blind” combinations. One of the latter provides the basis for the definition of personal creativity as c = (1 − p)u(1 − v), that is, the multiplicative product of originality, utility, and surprise. Besides the obvious contrasts in the ideas entering the combinatorial processes and procedures, scientific combinations, products, and communities strikingly differ from those typical of the arts.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
