Imagination is more important than knowledge

[StringJunky]

Pure imagination without the anchor of knowledge is just vapour.

[Roger Dynamic Motion]

Pure imagination without the anchor of knowledge is just vapour.

you've got that right ! String

[Itoero]

Imagination is the way knowledge is converted to understanding; yes it's wrong more often than it's right, but that's the price of wisdom.

That's imo a very good definition.

=Science without imagination (understanding) is lame.

Pure imagination without the anchor of knowledge is just vapour.

I agree completely. Imagination needs knowledge..knowledge feeds imagination.

 

People with a lot of imagination but no scientific curiosity are imo more likely to become artists..

Imagination is imo causal related with artistic creativity.

 

I think far too many people use imagination, which is as easy as storytelling, guessing, or lying, as a substitute for systematically eliminating their ignorance, which is hard but rewarding work. I also think those who know the inside of "the box" are the best qualified to think outside it.

 

I think imagination can't be more important than knowledge, so I disagree with Einstein. Imagination by itself is guesswork at it's worst. Knowledge alone would do much better, but when you have great knowledge your imagination is expanded, richer, and more nuanced. How can it not be?

Imagination is in a sense guesswork but it's backed up by knowledge/experience.

Your imagination decides how far your knowledge brings you.

Knowledge without imagination does not exist in humans.

It of course depends on how you define knowledge but when you learn knowledge, your imagination starts to work.

Your imagination forms logical connections. Citical thinking is the objective analysis of facts to form a judgment...you use imagination to form a judgement.

 

The use of imagination is what we call creativity.

Creativity is very important in science.(including math)It's basically about pattern recognition (imo this is the same as finding logical relationships between data) and finding new solutions to old problems.

 

Finding solutions to problems leans on creativity.

When you have to solve a complicated physics problem then you first have to imagine the correct path that leads to the solution.

Or when you play tennis for example, you first imagine how you are going to hit the ball, before you hit it.

 

Aristotle had a good description about such a process:

 

First, have a definite, clear, practical ideal; a goal, an objective. Second, have the necessary means to achieve your ends: wisdom, money, materials, and methods. Third, adjust all your means to that end.

Edited June 20, 2017 by Itoero

[Phi for All]

Imagination is in a sense guesswork but it's often backed up by knowledge/experience.

Your imagination decides how far your knowledge brings you.

Knowledge without imagination does not exist in humans.

 

I disagree with this completely. Since you could survive and even flourish on knowledge alone, and would fail horribly if imagination was all you had, clearly your knowledge decides how far your imagination can take you.

 

Of course knowledge without imagination exists in humans, if only briefly. It's possible to gain knowledge that requires other knowledge before imagination can put the two together.

[Area54]

knowledge + imagination + good judgment = wisdom

[Itoero]

I disagree with this completely. Since you could survive and even flourish on knowledge alone, and would fail horribly if imagination was all you had, clearly your knowledge decides how far your imagination can take you.

 

Of course knowledge without imagination exists in humans, if only briefly. It's possible to gain knowledge that requires other knowledge before imagination can put the two together.

Every human has knowledge and imagination...you need both to survive.

With imagination you create new knowledge.

Finding solutions to problems leans on creativity. This 'problem' can be to open a door, hit a ball or put food in your mouth...

With knowledge/experience you imagine how you have to do something. At the moment you're doing whatever you have to do, you don't know if you will succeed or not, you have to imagine it.

 

When the job is over you gained new knowledge.

Edited June 20, 2017 by Itoero

[swansont]

I think Einstein was thinking in terms of solving new problems, and unless they are incremental, linear extrapolations of existing knowledge, you aren't going to solve them without imagination. No paradigm shifts, no leaps.

 

He isn't saying knowledge is unimportant or unnecessary, just that having an abundance of it still won't bridge certain gaps.

[Bird11dog]

Swan, here you talk like you understand but in other threads you sometimes don't.

[dimreepr]

Swan, here you talk like you understand but in other threads you sometimes don't.

 

what is it you understand?

[Phi for All]

Swan, here you talk like you understand but in other threads you sometimes don't.

 

Are you talking about the potential contributions to science of someone who has lots of imagination and intuitive thinking skills but little actual mainstream knowledge? That would be my guess.

[beecee]

I think Einstein was thinking in terms of solving new problems, and unless they are incremental, linear extrapolations of existing knowledge, you aren't going to solve them without imagination. No paradigm shifts, no leaps.

 

He isn't saying knowledge is unimportant or unnecessary, just that having an abundance of it still won't bridge certain gaps.

Bingo! Obviously he was rightly reinforcing the importance of imagination along with knowledge:

Some though with agendas, like to interpret that as having what they see as a totally open mind, and accepting the nonsense of pseudoscience, paranormal/supernatural activity and other forms of crackpottery.

I found that attitude rife on another forum.

While imagination and an open mind is important along with knowledge, let it not be so open that ones brains fall out.

Edited June 20, 2017 by beecee

[Itoero]

What do you think about the role of creativity in problem solving?

 

There is a threshold hypothesis which states that high creativity requires high or at least above-average intelligence. At this, above-average intelligence is thought to form a necessary but not a sufficient condition for high creativity.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3682183/

This concerns mathematical creativity.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257715118_Mathematical_creativity_Some_definitions_and_characteristics

 

Interesting stuff.

[Phi for All]

What do you think about the role of creativity in problem solving?

 

Nobody is saying imagination and creativity aren't important. But I think they're more emergent properties of advanced intelligence.

 

What I object to is the common modern conception that one doesn't need to study mainstream knowledge if one is intuitive and creative enough. I think that mainly comes from people who thought science was too hard when they had the chance to study it, and now they want to pretend their imagination is just as good, and produces similar results.

[iNow]

I tend to agree with most here suggesting knowledge is foundational to the imagination which often helps expand it. What derails me is how/if this approach applies to human children and infants.

 

The boundary between imagination and knowledge among babies and younglings of various forms experiencing the world anew is porous, and sometimes IMO nonexistent.

 

Maybe Einstein was reminding us all of the importance of approaching the cosmos with a childs mind; a tabula rasa or empty cup ready to receive; exploring problems as shoshin.

[swansont]

I tend to agree with most here suggesting knowledge is foundational to the imagination which often helps expand it. What derails me is how/if this approach applies to human children and infants.

 

The boundary between imagination and knowledge among babies and younglings of various forms experiencing the world anew is porous, and sometimes IMO nonexistent.

 

Maybe Einstein was reminding us all of the importance of approaching the cosmos with a childs mind; a tabula rasa or empty cup ready to receive; exploring problems as shoshin.

 

 

I think that fits with my earlier post. You can't imagine a new paradigm if you are constrained by your knowledge.

[StringJunky]

 

 

I think that fits with my earlier post. You can't imagine a new paradigm if you are constrained by your knowledge.

The more 'pieces' of knowledge you have, the more permutations are possible in creating new combinations of those pieces.

[swansont]

The more 'pieces' of knowledge you have, the more permutations are possible in creating new combinations of those pieces.

 

 

But what of the new idea is not a permutation of those pieces? e.g. quantum mechanics

[StringJunky]

 

 

But what of the new idea is not a permutation of those pieces? e.g. quantum mechanics

You mean a paradigm change? If so, then the idea might be taken from a completely unrelated field and an association/inspiration made. That's the work of a genius mind.

Edited June 21, 2017 by StringJunky

[DrP]

I'm pretty certain that no one could have come up with quantum mechanics without a thorough understanding of classical science.

[StringJunky]

I'm pretty certain that no one could have come up with quantum mechanics without a thorough understanding of classical science.

Absolutely, you need a thorough understanding of the core knowledge but that 'germ' of the new idea probably came from some other unrelated knowledge. For example, Einstein was around at the dawn of cinematography, when time-lapse films were avant-garde, and, apparently, that inspired him to ask himself if time actually behaved like that. Thinking about it: we can throw serendipity in the mix as well.

[swansont]

I'm pretty certain that no one could have come up with quantum mechanics without a thorough understanding of classical science.

 

 

But that's not an issue here. Nobody has said that imagination, but no knowledge, is sufficient.

[Phi for All]

The use of imagination is what we call creativity.

Creativity is very important in science.(including math)It's basically about pattern recognition (imo this is the same as finding logical relationships between data) and finding new solutions to old problems.

 

Finding solutions to problems leans on creativity.

When you have to solve a complicated physics problem then you first have to imagine the correct path that leads to the solution.

Or when you play tennis for example, you first imagine how you are going to hit the ball, before you hit it.

 

I don't think we have the same concepts in mind here. To me, what you're describing, problem solving through pattern recognition and reasoned relationships (instead of logical) is what I would call using knowledge, not imagination. This is probably why I disagree with what you've been saying.

 

I don't imagine I'm going to hit the ball unless I've never done it before. Since I have, many many times, I'm going to fall back on all that practice and hit the ball the way I know will produce a desirous result. I'll use my knowledge, and my imagination can lurk in the background. I would venture to say that complex physics problems are like that as well. The more complex, the more you rely on solving the problem the way you know it's been solved before.

 

If the problem has never been solved before, that's when you need to be creative, as well as knowing what hasn't worked before. If you throw your racket at me after I beat you in tennis and that's never happened to me before, I'll need some quick imagination to figure out my best choices.

[Itoero]

I don't think we have the same concepts in mind here. To me, what you're describing, problem solving through pattern recognition and reasoned relationships (instead of logical) is what I would call using knowledge, not imagination. This is probably why I disagree with what you've been saying.

 

I don't imagine I'm going to hit the ball unless I've never done it before. Since I have, many many times, I'm going to fall back on all that practice and hit the ball the way I know will produce a desirous result. I'll use my knowledge, and my imagination can lurk in the background. I would venture to say that complex physics problems are like that as well. The more complex, the more you rely on solving the problem the way you know it's been solved before.

 

If the problem has never been solved before, that's when you need to be creative, as well as knowing what hasn't worked before. If you throw your racket at me after I beat you in tennis and that's never happened to me before, I'll need some quick imagination to figure out my best choices.

You are correct. Pattern recognition and finding relationship I think are only possible by using imagination.

When you see some data then you imo use your imagination which is builded by the knowledge of the properties of those data to find a relationship between the data.

 

If you have hit a ball before then you have to imagine(or visualize) that it will work again.

You have to visualize/imagine the process in your head before you do it. This is very important in sport.

And Every problem is different, you have to imagine you can hit the ball....You will gain new knowledge durng and after the process.

 

You need to be creative to solve any problem but when you solve an old problem then that means that problem needed your kind of creativity to be solved. Creativity is build by knowledge. Newton and other scientists provided a lot of the knowledge that builded Einstein's creativity.

[swansont]

You are correct. Pattern recognition and finding relationship I think are only possible by using imagination.

When you see some data then you imo use your imagination which is builded by the knowledge of the properties of those data to find a relationship between the data.

 

If you have hit a ball before then you have to imagine(or visualize) that it will work again.

You have to visualize/imagine the process in your head before you do it. This is very important in sport.

And Every problem is different, you have to imagine you can hit the ball....You will gain new knowledge durng and after the process.

 

You need to be creative to solve any problem but when you solve an old problem then that means that problem needed your kind of creativity to be solved. Creativity is build by knowledge. Newton and other scientists provided a lot of the knowledge that builded Einstein's creativity.

 

 

Phi's point was that imagination and visualization are being used differently by everyone else. You agree, and then equate the two, implying that you don't agree.

[Phi for All]

You are correct. Pattern recognition and finding relationship I think are only possible by using imagination.

When you see some data then you imo use your imagination which is builded by the knowledge of the properties of those data to find a relationship between the data.

 

If you have hit a ball before then you have to imagine(or visualize) that it will work again.

You have to visualize/imagine the process in your head before you do it. This is very important in sport.

And Every problem is different, you have to imagine you can hit the ball....You will gain new knowledge durng and after the process.

 

You need to be creative to solve any problem but when you solve an old problem then that means that problem needed your kind of creativity to be solved. Creativity is build by knowledge. Newton and other scientists provided a lot of the knowledge that builded Einstein's creativity.

 

When you phrase it in these ways, I can safely say you're wrong, or at least you aren't using the standard definitions. If you've done something before, your experience takes the place of imagination. Put it this way, if you want to serve the tennis ball to a certain spot on the court you've been successful with before and have done many times, you're going to serve it the same way this time, right? Right? Why would you need to be imaginative about that?

 

You seem to be using imagine as "visualize", like you have to visualize yourself doing something before actually doing it. I don't think anyone else is using this definition, and that's why I think you're wrong about this.