Advertisement

Discovery on Purpose? Toward the Unification of Paradigm Theory and the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ)

  • Justus SchollmeyerEmail author
  • Viesturs TamuzsEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 541)

Abstract

This essay relates Thomas Kuhn’s Paradigm Theory with Genrich Altshuller’s Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ for short). Despite their clearly divergent cultural roots, both understand paradigm shifts as the result of problem-solving processes—Kuhn in science and Altshuller in technology. In contrast to Kuhn, Altshuller used paradigm shifts to study creative problem solving in technology in order to make invention on purpose possible. He summarized his finding in the Algorithm of Inventive Problems Solving (ARIZ), which, as we will show, can be made explicit in a more general system theoretical framework. This allows for its application outside of the technological domain without relying on crutches such as metaphorical analogies. In order to demonstrate the application of this generalized version of ARIZ, we reconstruct one of the most famous paradigm shifts in the history of science—the shift from the Ptolemaic geo-centric system to Copernicus’ helio-centric one.

Keywords

ARIZ Paradigm shift Science 

References

  1. 1.
    Altshuller, G.S.: Creativity as an Exact Science: The Theory of the Solution of Inventive Problems. Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, New York (1984)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fey, V., Rivin, E.I.: Innovation on Demand, pp. 82–111. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Altshuller, G., Shapiro, R.: About technical creativity. Quest. Psychol. 6, 37–49 (1956). (In Russian)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kuhn, T.S.: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2, Enlarged edn. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1970)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Altshuller, G.S.: How to discover? Thoughts on the methodology of scientific work (1960/1979). (in Russian). http://www.altshuller.ru/triz/investigations1.asp. Accessed 31 Jan
  6. 6.
    Bukhman, I.: TRIZ: Technology for Innovation. Cubic Creativity Company, pp. 240–259 (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hubka, V.: Theory of Technical Systems. Springer, Heidelberg (1984).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-52121-8. (in German)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cummins, R.: Functional analysis. J. Philos. 72, 741–765 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Machamer, P., Darden, L., Craver, C.F.: Thinking about mechanisms. Philos. Sci. 67, 1–25 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wright, L.: Functions. Philos. Rev. 82, 139–168 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Neander, K.: The teleological notion of ‘function’. Austr. J. Philos. 69, 454–468 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gayon, J.: Do biologist need the concept of function? Philosophical perspectives. Comptes Rendus Palevol 5, 479–487 (2006). (in French)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Whittaker, E.: A History of the Theories of Aether & Electricity: Two Volumes Bound as One. Dover Publications Inc., New York (1989)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rayleigh, L., Ramsay, W.: Argon, a new constituent of the atmosphere. In: Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, vol. 57, pp. 265–287 (1895)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    APS News: This month in physics history - January 1938: discovery of superfluidity. APS News 15(1), 90 (2006). Accessed 31 July 2018Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Collins, H.: Gravity’s Kiss: The Detection of Gravitational Waves. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2017)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dyson, F.W., Eddington, A.S., Davidson, C.: A determination of the deflection of light by the sun’s gravitational field, from observations made at the total eclipse of May 29, 1919. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 220, 291–333 (1920)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chang, H.: Beyond case-studies: history as philosophy. In: Mauskopf, S., Schmaltz, T. (eds.) Integrating History and Philosophy of Science, vol. 263, pp. 109–124. Springer, Dordrecht (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1745-9_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hoyningen-Huene, P.: Systematicity: the Nature of Science. Oxford University Press, New York (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Aristotle, B.J.: The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1984)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kuhn, T.S.: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2, Enlarged edn, p. 90. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1970)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Second NegationBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Altshuller InstituteWorcesterUSA

Personalised recommendations