Critical and creative thinking are two distinct types of thought. In this article I evaluate both in terms of their ability to generate knowledge in the natural sciences and the arts. Several questions emerge from this consideration. Are critical and/or creative thinking both always required to generate knowledge? Is critical or creative thinking more important in certain situations? Is the interaction of critical and creative thinking alone enough to generate knowledge?
Addressing these questions require some terms to be defined. Critical thinking refers to applying logic and reasoning to information to reach conclusions while creative thinking refers to coming up with original ideas or new ways of interpreting existing information. The generation of knowledge refers to any process which results in a knower or a discipline acquiring new knowledge.
Addressing these questions require some terms to be defined. Critical thinking refers to applying logic and reasoning to information to reach conclusions while creative thinking refers to coming up with original ideas or new ways of interpreting existing information. The generation of knowledge refers to any process which results in a knower or a discipline acquiring new knowledge.
Knowledge generation in the natural sciences
The natural sciences are often associated with critical thinking rather than creative thinking. Despite this, the production of knowledge in this domain often requires a mix of both types of thinking. Scientific knowledge is generated through the scientific method. A scientist begins by asking a question about the natural world. They propose a hypothesis, then design and conduct experiments to test it. The data from these can be analyzed to support or discredit theories. In this process both creative and critical thinking are necessary. The analysis of experimental data is done through logic and reasoning, hence this process uses critical thinking. Creative thinking also plays a central role in the scientific method. In this process the scientist must design a new experiment which will test their hypothesis. This involves coming up with new ideas and hence creative thought. Creative thinking may also be used to formulate a research question, as the scientist must think of a topic of merit which has not yet been explored.
The interaction of creative and critical thinking which occurs in science can be seen in the Davisson-Germer experiment. In this experiment Davisson and Germer showed the wave nature of the electron, providing evidence for the de Broglie hypothesis, the idea that particles have wave-like properties [1]. Creative thinking was used to design the experiment, as they had to create a new apparatus which would allow them to observe the diffraction of electrons. They used critical thinking to analyze the results. By applying reasoning to their observations, they were able to conclude that the electrons show a scattering pattern consistent with wave behavior. However, their data analysis also reflected creative thought. Their analysis utilized the Bragg formula, an equation which had previously only been used to predict the diffraction angle of X-rays. They were applying an existing equation in a new way, revealing how intertwined creative and critical thinking are in the natural sciences.
However, there are other cases in science where critical thinking is more important than creative thought. An example of this is Alexander Fleming’s discovery of penicillin. This accidental discovery occurred as he was sorting through a number of petri dishes containing staphylococcus bacteria [2]. He observed that one of them which had mold growing on it no longer contained bacteria. He therefore used reasoning to deduce that it was likely the mold that had inhibited the growth of the bacteria. This realization led to the discovery of penicillin. Fleming came to this conclusion by making observations with his sensory perception and using reasoning to explain them. This is therefore an example of how scientific knowledge can be generated through critical thinking without the involvement of creative thinking.
There are also cases where scientific knowledge is generated in the absence of both critical and creative thought. Many great scientific discoveries were merely observations. For instance, consider Hooke’s discovery of the cell. He first noticed cells in a thin slice of cork which he viewed under a microscope [3]. His discovery did not require the use of reasoning or creativity, only sense perception.
The interaction of creative and critical thinking which occurs in science can be seen in the Davisson-Germer experiment. In this experiment Davisson and Germer showed the wave nature of the electron, providing evidence for the de Broglie hypothesis, the idea that particles have wave-like properties [1]. Creative thinking was used to design the experiment, as they had to create a new apparatus which would allow them to observe the diffraction of electrons. They used critical thinking to analyze the results. By applying reasoning to their observations, they were able to conclude that the electrons show a scattering pattern consistent with wave behavior. However, their data analysis also reflected creative thought. Their analysis utilized the Bragg formula, an equation which had previously only been used to predict the diffraction angle of X-rays. They were applying an existing equation in a new way, revealing how intertwined creative and critical thinking are in the natural sciences.
However, there are other cases in science where critical thinking is more important than creative thought. An example of this is Alexander Fleming’s discovery of penicillin. This accidental discovery occurred as he was sorting through a number of petri dishes containing staphylococcus bacteria [2]. He observed that one of them which had mold growing on it no longer contained bacteria. He therefore used reasoning to deduce that it was likely the mold that had inhibited the growth of the bacteria. This realization led to the discovery of penicillin. Fleming came to this conclusion by making observations with his sensory perception and using reasoning to explain them. This is therefore an example of how scientific knowledge can be generated through critical thinking without the involvement of creative thinking.
There are also cases where scientific knowledge is generated in the absence of both critical and creative thought. Many great scientific discoveries were merely observations. For instance, consider Hooke’s discovery of the cell. He first noticed cells in a thin slice of cork which he viewed under a microscope [3]. His discovery did not require the use of reasoning or creativity, only sense perception.
Knowledge generation in the arts
Art, contrary to the natural sciences, is commonly associated with creative thinking and not critical thinking. Nevertheless, art utilizes both creative and critical thought processes to generate knowledge. Creative thinking plays a central role in the production of any art piece, such as poems, plays, and visual art. This is clearly quite necessary, since the artist is creating something new. Creative thinking is needed for conceiving both the concept of an art piece and the style in which it is expressed. Artists also utilizes critical thinking in the creation of art - they must use logic and reasoning to consider the effect that every aspect of the work will have on the overall impression.
The reliance of the arts on critical and creative thinking is illustrated by Claude Monnet’s painting, Impression, soleil levant. In this work Monnet portrayed a harbour at dawn. He accurately represented the experience he was trying to capture through his unique impressionist style. He used creative thinking to invent this style, as it was a new approach to painting. Monnet also used creative thinking to come up with the concept of the painting. In addition, he used critical thinking to decide what type of colour, lighting, and brush strokes would create the effect he desired. Therefore, a combination of critical and creative thinking is often used to generate knowledge in the arts.
However, some forms of art rely only on creative thinking. Interpretive dance is an example of this. The dancer does not use critical thinking. Instead they rely on their emotions and creativity to guide them through their performance. As the interpretive dancer, Nadia Hava-Robbins, said, “Interpretive dance translates particular feelings and emotions, human conditions, situations, or fantasies into movement and dramatic expression combined. Interpretive dance relies on creative movement and improvisation” [4].
In addition, it is sometimes possible to appreciate art without critical or creative thought. For instance, I am able to feel the terror that is depicted in Edvard Munch’s The Scream by simply seeing the painting. Similarly, I can be moved by the beauty of Dmitri Shostakovich’s seventh symphony by merely listening to it. In both cases neither critical nor creative thinking is required to generate knowledge.
The reliance of the arts on critical and creative thinking is illustrated by Claude Monnet’s painting, Impression, soleil levant. In this work Monnet portrayed a harbour at dawn. He accurately represented the experience he was trying to capture through his unique impressionist style. He used creative thinking to invent this style, as it was a new approach to painting. Monnet also used creative thinking to come up with the concept of the painting. In addition, he used critical thinking to decide what type of colour, lighting, and brush strokes would create the effect he desired. Therefore, a combination of critical and creative thinking is often used to generate knowledge in the arts.
However, some forms of art rely only on creative thinking. Interpretive dance is an example of this. The dancer does not use critical thinking. Instead they rely on their emotions and creativity to guide them through their performance. As the interpretive dancer, Nadia Hava-Robbins, said, “Interpretive dance translates particular feelings and emotions, human conditions, situations, or fantasies into movement and dramatic expression combined. Interpretive dance relies on creative movement and improvisation” [4].
In addition, it is sometimes possible to appreciate art without critical or creative thought. For instance, I am able to feel the terror that is depicted in Edvard Munch’s The Scream by simply seeing the painting. Similarly, I can be moved by the beauty of Dmitri Shostakovich’s seventh symphony by merely listening to it. In both cases neither critical nor creative thinking is required to generate knowledge.
Creative and critical thinking alone are not enough
There are significant limitations on knowledge generation from critical and creative thinking alone, other ways of knowing are usually required. In the natural sciences, sensory perception is particularly important, since it is how we interact with and make observations about the natural world. Most great scientific discoveries are based on observations, such as Ørsted’s discovery of electromagnetism [5]. He discovered the connection between electricity and magnetism by observing that a compass needle was moved from magnetic north when a nearby electric current was turned on. He observed this phenomenon using his sense perception.
In the arts, like the natural sciences, creative and critical thinking alone are not usually enough to generate knowledge. Emotions are often required in the creation of art. Many works of art are motivated expressions of the artist’s emotions. For example, consider Vincent van Gogh’s Old Man in Sorrow (On the Threshold of Eternity). In this work he vividly portrays the emotions which he himself was feeling, sorrow and suffering. Furthermore, viewing any form of art requires the use of our sensory perception. Reading a novel requires sight, just as listening to music requires hearing. In summary, critical and creative thinking alone are not enough to produce knowledge in the natural sciences and the arts.
In the arts, like the natural sciences, creative and critical thinking alone are not usually enough to generate knowledge. Emotions are often required in the creation of art. Many works of art are motivated expressions of the artist’s emotions. For example, consider Vincent van Gogh’s Old Man in Sorrow (On the Threshold of Eternity). In this work he vividly portrays the emotions which he himself was feeling, sorrow and suffering. Furthermore, viewing any form of art requires the use of our sensory perception. Reading a novel requires sight, just as listening to music requires hearing. In summary, critical and creative thinking alone are not enough to produce knowledge in the natural sciences and the arts.
Conclusion
Most commonly, the natural sciences and the arts require the interaction of critical and creative thinking to generate knowledge. It is not feasible to compare the relative significance of each since they are both an integral part of the process. On the other hand, their interaction is not always necessary; sometimes only one is required. In these cases, critical thinking proved more essential for the natural sciences while creative thinking was more important in the arts. However, knowledge can sometimes be generated without the use of either, relying purely on sensory perception and/or emotions. In fact, these ways of knowing are usually required, critical/creative thinking alone is insufficient.
RSS Feed