Thursday, September 22, 2016

Why invention is different from discovery? [duplicate]

This question already has an answer here:
You say that discovery discovers something pre-existing (in the world) whereas inventor comes up with a new idea. But, don't you discover the ideas?
As I understand, there is an abstract world of ideas, where all abstract notions, i.e. ideas, live in. You just discover one or another. They usually tell you how to get from A to B in an optimal way. One way is bad, another is good. And what you do when solve a problem, you find those ways. Mathematicians know very well that solutions are not arbitrary. They exist before you discover them (nobody needs arbitrary solutions as nobody needs garbage). Is desired solution a discovery or an invention? Why do people, particularly academists, insist that there is a distinction between invention and discovery, once you realize that inventors just discover the ideas from the ideal world of ideas/solutions?

marked as duplicate by Camil StapsDaveJohn AmcommandoEliran H Aug 4 at 14:16

This question was marked as an exact duplicate of an existing question. If this question is different, please edit itto explain how it is different or ask a new question.

deleted by Community Sep 10 at 0:51 (RemoveDeadQuestions)

This question was automatically deleted. Please see the help center for more information.
Welcome to Philosophy.SE. "As I understand, there is an abstract world of ideas..." - from what do you understand this? Plato? Please make your starting point clear. Also, could you articulate what exactly is your philosophical problem? (see also help/on-topic) – Camil Staps Aug 4 at 9:33
@CamilStaps it's a view also held by more 'recent' philosophers, such as Frege. It is very controversial though, so maybe the question would be better without presupposing it. – Eliran H Aug 4 at 9:41
@EliranH in any case, the question needs elaboration. – Camil Staps Aug 4 at 9:55
I am not considering somebody's doctrine. I consider the common sense. This means that the view is also shared by me, in addition to the whole math community. I gave you example where math (ideal world) assumes that there is a solution before it is found. It also holds for real world problems. There is no need to attribute such obvious thing to anybody, especially if you can find the historical names holding it yourself. You can explain why this view is wrong (and, thus, how invention can be different from the discovery) in your answer. – Little Alien Aug 4 at 10:01   
What needs elaboration? Everybody needs to know what is invention, what is discovery and how are they different. I have gave you the obvious reason why the separation is artificial. What needs to be elaborated? Probably, I am wrong that philosophy is about common sense. I have heard that philosophy is a collection of ancient delirium that failed to be true and, thus, failed to be developed by branches of science. – Little Alien Aug 4 at 10:05   
"The whole math community"? Platonism is a popular but not universal position in math. Moreover, mathematicians are generally ill-equipped to make claims of ontology. Third, common sense is often the prejudice of inexperience, and we prefer proofs and arguments to "it's obviously true" (I, for example, think it's common sense that ideas don't exist in any abstract way - and I've studied math). Fourth, what you have heard about philosophy is wrong. You're speaking with an unusual degree of hostility to what we do here, given you're asking for our thoughts. – commando Aug 4 at 13:42 
@commando It's funny that that question was highly upvoted while this gets such negative responses. It may be correct to close this as duplicate, but not for other reasons. I think some users here are being too harsh. – Eliran H Aug 4 at 14:13
@EliranH I agree that this shouldn't be closed for non-duplicate reasons. I think the votes are fair, though, because this question is phrased quite poorly and with the presupposition of being correct, while the other question is more open. – commando Aug 4 at 14:15
'As I understand' is the 'presupposition of being correct' Mine question must be closed because it is stronger -- it is not limited to math. I do not understand why it should be confined to math. But, I understand that it would be fine if it only concerned a narrow subbranch of math, like algebra. At the same time, the humen say that stating the problem explicitly limits your freedom and, therefore, is a bad thing. – Little Alien Aug 4 at 14:56   

No comments: