It seems that every week and sometimes even everyday on the news there is a story about advances in medical science. Hempel, C.G., 1985, Thoughts in the Limitations of Discovery by Computer”, in K. Schaffner (ed.), Logic of Discovery and Diagnosis in Medicine, Berkeley: University of California Press, 115-22. Langley, P., H.A. Simon, G.L. Bradshaw, and J.M. Zytkow, 1987, Scientific Discovery: Computational Explorations of the Creative Processes, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
This dataset contains the 253,558 publications from the Web of Science database with types ‘article’ and ‘letter’ that were published between 1990 and 1994 and that belong to the 10% publications that are most cited in the first 24 months after publication.
William Whewell’s work, especially the two volumes of Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences of 1840, is an important contribution to the philosophical debates about scientific discovery precisely because he clearly separated the creative moment or happy thought” as he called it from other elements of scientific inquiry.
A human liver chip” — liver cells grown on a membrane along with several types of supporting cells — formed structures reminiscent of bile ducts and reacted to drugs similarly to intact livers, researchers report November 6 in Science Translational Medicine.
Philosophical issues related to scientific discovery arise about the nature of human creativity, specifically about whether the eureka moment” can be analyzed and about whether there are rules (algorithms, guidelines, or heuristics) according to which such a novel insight can be brought about.