Knowledge is generated through the interaction of critical and creative thinking. Evaluate this statement in two areas of knowledge.

In natural sciences, there seems to be a common presupposition that thinking critically is more desirable in generating knowledge than thinking creatively. Teachers, especially encourage me to think critically when examining the outcomes of an experiment and assessing the validity of the results, though, not once have they induced me into thinking creatively. However, is this the case? Do we not need creative thinking when generating knowledge in the natural sciences? It is inevitable to think critically when evaluating the results of an experiment, to assess the validity of the results, to determine the extraneous variables that may be present that could have had an influence on the outcome, and to analyze the data and designate a reasonable explanation for the results. Critical thinkers process the information at hand, leading to an understanding of the problem.  Though, critical thinking is a basis for generating knowledge in the natural sciences, isn’t creative thinking also in line with this process of obtaining knowledge, pertaining to natural sciences? Einstein once quoted, “imagination is more important than knowledge”, is seeing that imagination, as creativity is necessary for creating new hypotheses or new possibilities. Throughout the development of science, the great discoveries and advances that have been made by the most influential scientists: they could not have happened without lateral thinking and creative solutions towards phenomena’s. For instance, Isaac Newton explained the force that acted on the apple for it to fall on the ground as “gravity”. Though Isaac Newton did not “create” gravity, however, the development of the concept of gravity was created through creative thinking since (pertaining to the prior definition of creative thinking) a new idea that has not yet been thought of has been formed.

Through my personal life experiences as a student, it seems that we are often more biased towards critical thinking when dealing with an area of knowledge such as the natural sciences. I have never been asked by a teacher to work creatively, unless it was in the context of creating an artwork or an interesting presentation. Nevertheless, through the support of distinguished scientists such as Newton, creative thinking is definitely necessary in the context of natural sciences in generating new knowledge. While the creation of knowledge is seen as an advantage, we must consider creative thinking and the knowledge it generates alone. Likewise, if knowledge is always being “created”, who can to say that it is always true? Since creative thinking involves the creation of new ideas, it does not necessarily require any accurate proof towards the validity of this idea. This contextual relationship definitely cannot set the foundation for generating knowledge in the natural sciences; a “creation” of an idea cannot simply be accepted for a scientific theory. Referring back to the basis of a scientific theory, they encompass scientific laws, are interrelated in such a way that they explain not only a particular law or phenomenon but also whole ranges of each, and they are established on the basis of evidence and tested sufficiently extensively that it is considered reliable. Above all, creative thinking alone cannot be applied in generating knowledge under the conditions of natural sciences, but critical thinking must also be considered. “Knowledge in the natural sciences is necessary to be generated through the process of convergent and divergent thinking.” Creative thinking is used for inductive reasoning and critical thinking can be used through the operation of deductive reasoning. The induction of creative thinking converges towards a rule, while the process of deduction through critical thinking expands or minimizes the scope of the rule. In particular, when an induction of new idea is created, the idea would then go through an operation of deductive reasoning to analyze, evaluate, assess, and clarify the validity of this statement. In spite of the fact that Newton “created” the theory of gravitation, critical thinking was also performed to support the theory for it to be acceptable. Consequently, an interaction between creative and critical thinking is inexorable in our search of generating knowledge, regarding natural sciences.

When looking at the arts, through my cultural perspective, creative thinking is mostly used throughout this process of generating artworks. Is creativity much more favorable in generating knowledge when pertaining to the arts? When we think of the arts, we generally think of music, theatre, dance, or paintings, on the other hand, abstract ways in conveying knowledge. These arts, can be considered to use creative thinking because the artist or performer is continuously conveying new meaning, their own individual meaning. Though, is critical thinking also used in the arts? If a performer is working to improvise a work a art, then there could be critical thinking involved because they need to read the notes or lines written on the page to present them the same way. Rarely, we think of art as propaganda, however, when evaluating propaganda, it is evident that a high degree of critical thinking is incorporated in artworks of propaganda. Critical thinking is incorporated through propaganda because the artist must consider….to be continued…