<p><strong>Introduction:</strong></p>
<p>I'm somehow fascinated by the <a href="https://www.thoughtco.com/the-invention-of-velcro-4066111" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Velcro invention story</a> because, as far as I can guess, Velcro would hardly have been invented if someone was looking for an elegant solution of this kind in per-meditated, logical manner.</p>
<p>Let's assume we had the explicit task of discovering a method for connecting two fabric surfaces in a way that they would hold tight while fastened and would be extremely easy to unfasten:</p>
<p>a) sticking by the &quot;theoretical&quot; approach, my personal starting points of thinking would be glue, magnets, vacuum, knobs, etc;</p>
<p>b) the approach of exploring existing solutions in the fabric field or analogical fields - the &quot;innovation transfer&quot; approach, so to say - would lead us to the Velcro solution sooner or later, just the way it has actually happened - the inventor had loaned an idea seen in nature. But we must note he had not been explicitly looking for this solution then.</p>
<p>What bothers me, is that the first approach, while looking quite exhaustive, scientific and reliable, would hardly bring up such abstract, non-evident solution as the Velcro. Pure logic and reasoning usually stem from more or less familiar concepts.</p>
<p>If we are to base our reasoning on some &quot;synthetic&quot; concepts (or so called &quot;constructs&quot;) - that is, concepts which have not been observed in reality, but are supposed to possibly exist - we would spend a huge amount of time and energy describing those constructs, that we would hardly be able to actually proceed to thinking how they would be applied to our problem. It might be something like trying to do a series of very complex mathematical calculations in your mind alone.</p>
<p><strong>Question:</strong></p>
<p>Therefore, I'm wondering, is there any special theoretical problem-solving approach with the potential to bring solution of the &quot;Velcro type&quot;, as described above?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-05T10:45:52.350Z
Combining divergent and convergent thinking comes to mind. A common practice in design.
Steven Jeuris
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-26T19:17:45.697Z
You should pay attention to the research papers about discoveries related to using  neural networks. Some of the connections they find are not intuitive.
Guy Coder
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-05T01:18:05.297Z
I don't understand the "theoretical" vs "innovative transfer" distinction.  Creative problem-solving is a very large field of research, and the number of different approaches under investigation is too large to summarize here.  It would be better if this question referred to a distinction that is in actual use in the field (eg, one of [these](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity#Process_theories)).
Arnon Weinberg
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-07T06:50:13.300Z
@ Arnon Weinberg - I have illustrated the distinction with the velcro example. I have not discovered formal names for the two approaches described, therefore I cannot point them by some familiar terms. In all cases I am not discussing the large set of different creative problem solving approached, but only two of them.
drabsv
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-15T18:04:20.493Z
Your question is: "is there is any special theoretical problem-solving approach has the potential to bring solution of the Velcro type?"  If you are restricting the potential set of problem-solving approaches to the two that you discuss, where "innovative transfer" is described by you as "would lead us to the Velcro solution sooner" then I choose that one, and the question can be closed?
Arnon Weinberg
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-17T16:45:48.510Z
@Arnon Weinberg - what is your rationale for choosing that one? What relevant examples could you provide to support your choice?
drabsv
<problem-solving>
Reaching biomimicry solutions through pure reasoning alone
drabsv
# Reaching biomimicry solutions through pure reasoning alone

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-03-04)

**Introduction:**

I'm somehow fascinated by the [Velcro invention story](https://www.thoughtco.com/the-invention-of-velcro-4066111) because, as far as I can guess, Velcro would hardly have been invented if someone was looking for an elegant solution of this kind in per-meditated, logical manner.

Let's assume we had the explicit task of discovering a method for connecting two fabric surfaces in a way that they would hold tight while fastened and would be extremely easy to unfasten:

a) sticking by the "theoretical" approach, my personal starting points of thinking would be glue, magnets, vacuum, knobs, etc;

b) the approach of exploring existing solutions in the fabric field or analogical fields - the "innovation transfer" approach, so to say - would lead us to the Velcro solution sooner or later, just the way it has actually happened - the inventor had loaned an idea seen in nature. But we must note he had not been explicitly looking for this solution then.

What bothers me, is that the first approach, while looking quite exhaustive, scientific and reliable, would hardly bring up such abstract, non-evident solution as the Velcro. Pure logic and reasoning usually stem from more or less familiar concepts.

If we are to base our reasoning on some "synthetic" concepts (or so called "constructs") - that is, concepts which have not been observed in reality, but are supposed to possibly exist - we would spend a huge amount of time and energy describing those constructs, that we would hardly be able to actually proceed to thinking how they would be applied to our problem. It might be something like trying to do a series of very complex mathematical calculations in your mind alone.

**Question:**

Therefore, I'm wondering, is there any special theoretical problem-solving approach with the potential to bring solution of the "Velcro type", as described above?

**Tags:** problem-solving

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Combining divergent and convergent thinking comes to mind. A common practice in design.  
> **username_2**: You should pay attention to the research papers about discoveries related to using  neural networks. Some of the connections they find are not intuitive.  
> **username_3**: I don't understand the "theoretical" vs "innovative transfer" distinction.  Creative problem-solving is a very large field of research, and the number of different approaches under investigation is too large to summarize here.  It would be better if this question referred to a distinction that is in actual use in the field (eg, one of [these](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity#Process_theories)).  
> **username_0**: @ username_3 - I have illustrated the distinction with the velcro example. I have not discovered formal names for the two approaches described, therefore I cannot point them by some familiar terms. In all cases I am not discussing the large set of different creative problem solving approached, but only two of them.  
> **username_3**: Your question is: "is there is any special theoretical problem-solving approach has the potential to bring solution of the Velcro type?"  If you are restricting the potential set of problem-solving approaches to the two that you discuss, where "innovative transfer" is described by you as "would lead us to the Velcro solution sooner" then I choose that one, and the question can be closed?  
> **username_0**: @username_3 - what is your rationale for choosing that one? What relevant examples could you provide to support your choice?  

---

## 0 answers

