Q&A: Invention and Discovery
Invention and Discovery
Question
Hello Rabbi,
Thinking about invention versus discovery, it occurs to me that the main difference between the two is this:
A discovery has ontological priority before epistemological priority. That is, the object of discovery already existed (it exists in the world independently of us), and at some stage the fact of its existence was simply brought to our knowledge. First it exists, and then we become aware of it. In that sense, all potential discoveries already exist as entities in our world, and all that remains for us is to lift the veil.
An invention, by contrast, has epistemological priority before ontological priority. That is, the object of invention was necessarily the product of a person’s conscious thought before it became a real entity in the world (being the product of conscious thought, at least in part of the process by which the invention comes into being, is a necessary condition in my understanding), and only afterward did it pass from potentiality into actuality. In other words, first thought, afterward reality.
Do you agree with this?
I’d be glad if you could further sharpen how you see the distinction between the two, and where, if at all, there is a gray area.
Thank you for an enlightening and interesting site.
Raviv
Answer
An invention can be a work of art that is entirely the product of the creator’s spirit, or some kind of device about which one could argue that it is a discovery. The technique exists in a certain sense even before it was invented.
Discussion on Answer
1. No. This is a philosophical and perhaps semantic question, since every invention contains discovery. An invention is based on principles that exist in nature, and the idea of using them to achieve some result can also be considered a discovery (certainly if you are a Platonist).
2. Mathematics is entirely discovery. See columns 434-5.
1. If so, then the gray area between discovery and invention could be something that a person invented out of his own creativity, but on the other hand is still very close to its natural, raw state (that is, with minimal human intervention—say, a tree branch without any processing), and so it falls somewhere between discovery and invention.
Do you think so too?
2. What about mathematics? On the one hand, it always exists as a law of nature by which the entire universe operates, and so for us it is only a discovery. But on the other hand—isn’t it like a game in which we invent some of the rules (for example, that division by zero is undefined)?