Inspiration often makes all the difference. One can be inspired from within as well as without. A problem presents itself through private investigation, or perhaps someone comes to ask for help. Popper taught that one needed to “fall in love” with a problem. That’s what it means to be inspired: to fall in love with problems.
“I think there is only one way to do science” Popper wrote, “– or to do philosophy for that matter; to meet a problem, to see its beauty and fall in love with it; to get married to it, and to live with it happily, till death do ye part - unless you should meet another and even more fascinating problem, or unless indeed you should obtain a solution. But even if you do obtain a solution you may then discover to your delight, the existence of a whole family of enchanting though perhaps difficult problem children for whose welfare you may work, with a purpose to the end of your days.”
That is what drives the innovators. Treating problems as wonderful things. That is how inspiration works: finding a problem or problems so motivating that they cannot be let go so easily. To be frustrated at not working upon them. To feel at a loss in the supposed comfort of having “no problems”.
Inspiration in the form of leaders willing to merely make positive noises about the real world effects of knowledge creation can lay the ground for innovative thinking. We all knew, didn’t we, that science, mathematics, the arts, philosophy - knowledge creation broadly - is what makes societies, and our own lives, better? Sometimes some of us need reminding. Progress is hard won and sometimes people are slow to notice. Problems that cause us harm may seem to have been with us forever and we can forget what used to aile us.
Progress is a special case of innovation. Innovation - the new - can sometimes lead to progress. Innovation is a more neutral term - for innovation can - and does - fail (think of the many internet start-ups that never really took off think Betamaxing more generally). Think the first iteration of Google Glasses. Sometimes people use the word “innovation” to mean “progress” and I think that is fine and that is now how larger organisations all the way up to governments are treating the word “innovation”. Perhaps because “progress” sounds too close to “progressive” and there is much political baggage now associated with that word in some circles. So highlighting this new meaning of the word “innovation” has been itself an innovation. But we cannot do away with the word “progress” - it really does capture the idea of improvement in a more pure sense. Progress is simply an admission that one state of affairs has lead to an objectively better state of affairs. And optimism is simply the principle that progress is possible: the idea that things can get better. That problems are soluble, as David Deutsch has taught us. And problems are soluble because knowledge is possible.
Only pessimistic philosophies which are at core a denial of this truth stand in the way of innovation. There are two kinds (1) those that enforce dogmas and (2) those that deny the possibility of knowledge. The former kind includes authoritarian practises and cultures that permit no criticism. The latter includes relativism, postmodernism and what goes under the banner of “constructivism”. Sadly that latter kind is taught too frequently to students of education and in some of the humanities. I must immediately say: the humanities are just as much a domain of truth and knowledge creation as science and mathematics is. It is just that some of the philosophies of the humanities are not. Both type (1) and (2) anti-innnovation philosophies have the ear of government and some organisations. They are sometimes synonymous with in the case of (1) the far right of politics and in the case of (2) the far left. The opposition between “we already have the ultimate final truth” and “there exists no final ultimate truth”. Both are mistaken. While there is indeed a final ultimate truth, it is impossible to know if you have obtained it. Instead knowledge creation is about ever better approximations to ultimate, ontological truth and beauty. This lays the ground for the possibility of perpetual progress - unending innovation. “The Beginning of Infinity” as David Deutsch’s book is titled.
Modern critical rationalism is an epistemology that links inspiration and motivation to creativity. What more positive language could we begin to conjure? It is the positivity inherent in critical rationalism that explains the conditions under which creativity can flourish and progress is stable. It is critical rationalism: the idea that ideas are generated through bold conjectures (guesses) coupled with refutations (criticisms) that fuels innovation. What a wonderfully positive vision! It is only this philosophy - and no other - that can produce individuals, organisations and societies that not only love learning but are desperate to learn. To learn about how to improve their personal situation and the lives of others and the world around them. For a learner who learns critical rationalism learns the means by which knowledge is created and the new can improve upon the old. This optimistic view of what is a critical method is what I call “Positive Philosophy”.
Part 3: Positive Philosophy fosters Innovation
“I think there is only one way to do science” Popper wrote, “– or to do philosophy for that matter; to meet a problem, to see its beauty and fall in love with it; to get married to it, and to live with it happily, till death do ye part - unless you should meet another and even more fascinating problem, or unless indeed you should obtain a solution. But even if you do obtain a solution you may then discover to your delight, the existence of a whole family of enchanting though perhaps difficult problem children for whose welfare you may work, with a purpose to the end of your days.”
That is what drives the innovators. Treating problems as wonderful things. That is how inspiration works: finding a problem or problems so motivating that they cannot be let go so easily. To be frustrated at not working upon them. To feel at a loss in the supposed comfort of having “no problems”.
Inspiration in the form of leaders willing to merely make positive noises about the real world effects of knowledge creation can lay the ground for innovative thinking. We all knew, didn’t we, that science, mathematics, the arts, philosophy - knowledge creation broadly - is what makes societies, and our own lives, better? Sometimes some of us need reminding. Progress is hard won and sometimes people are slow to notice. Problems that cause us harm may seem to have been with us forever and we can forget what used to aile us.
Progress is a special case of innovation. Innovation - the new - can sometimes lead to progress. Innovation is a more neutral term - for innovation can - and does - fail (think of the many internet start-ups that never really took off think Betamaxing more generally). Think the first iteration of Google Glasses. Sometimes people use the word “innovation” to mean “progress” and I think that is fine and that is now how larger organisations all the way up to governments are treating the word “innovation”. Perhaps because “progress” sounds too close to “progressive” and there is much political baggage now associated with that word in some circles. So highlighting this new meaning of the word “innovation” has been itself an innovation. But we cannot do away with the word “progress” - it really does capture the idea of improvement in a more pure sense. Progress is simply an admission that one state of affairs has lead to an objectively better state of affairs. And optimism is simply the principle that progress is possible: the idea that things can get better. That problems are soluble, as David Deutsch has taught us. And problems are soluble because knowledge is possible.
Only pessimistic philosophies which are at core a denial of this truth stand in the way of innovation. There are two kinds (1) those that enforce dogmas and (2) those that deny the possibility of knowledge. The former kind includes authoritarian practises and cultures that permit no criticism. The latter includes relativism, postmodernism and what goes under the banner of “constructivism”. Sadly that latter kind is taught too frequently to students of education and in some of the humanities. I must immediately say: the humanities are just as much a domain of truth and knowledge creation as science and mathematics is. It is just that some of the philosophies of the humanities are not. Both type (1) and (2) anti-innnovation philosophies have the ear of government and some organisations. They are sometimes synonymous with in the case of (1) the far right of politics and in the case of (2) the far left. The opposition between “we already have the ultimate final truth” and “there exists no final ultimate truth”. Both are mistaken. While there is indeed a final ultimate truth, it is impossible to know if you have obtained it. Instead knowledge creation is about ever better approximations to ultimate, ontological truth and beauty. This lays the ground for the possibility of perpetual progress - unending innovation. “The Beginning of Infinity” as David Deutsch’s book is titled.
Modern critical rationalism is an epistemology that links inspiration and motivation to creativity. What more positive language could we begin to conjure? It is the positivity inherent in critical rationalism that explains the conditions under which creativity can flourish and progress is stable. It is critical rationalism: the idea that ideas are generated through bold conjectures (guesses) coupled with refutations (criticisms) that fuels innovation. What a wonderfully positive vision! It is only this philosophy - and no other - that can produce individuals, organisations and societies that not only love learning but are desperate to learn. To learn about how to improve their personal situation and the lives of others and the world around them. For a learner who learns critical rationalism learns the means by which knowledge is created and the new can improve upon the old. This optimistic view of what is a critical method is what I call “Positive Philosophy”.
Part 3: Positive Philosophy fosters Innovation