  After doing away with the evolutionary scaffold for BVSR, what remains is a
notion of "blindness" that does not distinguish BVSR from other theories of
creativity, and an assumption that creativity can be understood by treating
ideas as discrete, countable entities, as opposed to different external
manifestations of a singular gradually solidifying internal conception.
Uprooted from Darwinian theory, BVSR lacks a scientific framework that can be
called upon to generate hypotheses and test them. In lieu of such a framework,
hypotheses appear to be generated on the basis of previous data--they are not
theory-driven. The paper does not explain how the hypothesis that creativity is
enhanced by engagement in a "network of enterprises" is derived from BVSR; this
hypothesis is more compatible with competing conceptions of creativity. The
notion that creativity involves backtracking conflates evidence for
backtracking with respect to the external output with evidence for backtracking
of the conception of the invention. The first does not imply the second; a
creator can set aside a creative output but cannot go back to the conception of
the task he/she had prior to generating that output. The notion that creativity
entails superfluity (i.e., many ideas have "zero usefulness") is misguided;
usefulness is context-dependent, moreover, the usefulness of an idea may reside
in its being a critical stepping-stone to a subsequent idea.
