During our research we stumbled upon the concept of uniqueness. Since a key is something which mostly fits on one lock, we can regard a key as something as unique to the lock. Moreover, we might regard a solution as something as unique to a problem. We analyse a problem and we on these findings we base and construct an proper solution for the problem. One might say that each problem and solution have a unique relationship between them which distinguishes it from other problems and solutions. This assumption holds especially true for so called 'wicked problems'.
What does this mean for our problem solving capabillities? If there is a unique relationship between an problem and its solution, this might mean that you have to come up with a new solution for every problem. But the ambition of most sciences is that it can give a framework with general rules and methods to solve problems or questions in that given field. The problem might become clear when considering the problem of induction. The problem of induction consists of getting from individual instances of knowledge to general statements of knowledge. Consider this example: If I see one white swan in nature, can I conclude that every swan is white? Probably not, since there might be a chance that there is a swan in the world which is black (I cannot know for sure, at least). So if , in my lifetime, I saw about a thousands white swans, can I conclude that all swans are by definition whtie? No I can't, since there still might be a chance that there exist a swan which is not whtie.
Although it is a bit of a different problem, one could ask if the the same holds for problems? Is every problem unique and can we therefore never devise general methods to solve problems? If every problem is unique, what value do our problem-solving tools have?
Wikipedia page on the problem of induction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
No comments:
Post a Comment