Scientific discovery is a broad and complex phenomenon that has long been an important area of philosophical study. In recent years, however, it has been eclipsed by newer, more empirically informed studies of creative thought processes and knowledge generation (section 6). In addition to integrating insights from cognitive science and other disciplines, these new theories of scientific creativity and discovery often acknowledge that the different elements that make up the process of scientific discovery can not be fully separated or analysed. Thus, they typically combine the analysis of observations and experiments, the articulation and development of novel insights and the ensuing knowledge-building processes with the examination of how new ideas are shared and vetted within science and other scientific communities.
Until the late 20th century, most philosophers tended to focus their discussion of discovery on just two of these elements: the eureka moment, narrowly construed as an unanalyzable leap of insight, and the process of articulating, developing, and testing a novel insight. Some scholars have argued that these two processes constitute the whole of scientific discovery, while others have interpreted the notion of a happy thought as a more general conception or hunch than a particular idea.
Still, others have emphasized that scientific discoveries usually occur in pre-paradigmatic periods or times of paradigm crisis. Then, the emergence of a new theory may be triggered by the fact that a set of experimental results violates some expectations induced by an existing paradigm. This is sometimes referred to as a “defective paradigm” or an anomaly. The new hypothesis may then be generated to explain the anomaly and subsequently tested for its robustness.