What is the knowledge object of creativity science and how can this knowledge object and methods to study it best be conceptualized? Concepts are crucial for scientific forms of creativity, but concepts cannot be taken for granted. This is the approach of the professional teacher confronting novices. In real life, core concepts are discovered by overcoming a number of constraints. But scientists are not the only ones doing creative work. This is the reason why the concept creativity regime is crucial for creativity science. But all creativity regimes (patterns of creativity) are ultimately modeled upon nature as prototype (n-creativity) but in different ways (problem situations/types of constraints). Clarifying the nature of these constraints helps us overcome the nature-culture divide, clarify core concepts such as knowledge constraints, physical constraints, intra- and inter species co-evolution, critique the current state of the art and identify unsolved problems for future research.

This chapter summarizes the four previous dimensions by combining Darwin and Aristotle. Darwin alone cannot explain Darwin mainly because his theory ultimately rested upon Aristotle’s much more fundamental theory of the structure of creative processes which is basically a theory of what makes knowledge-driven change possible. The model operates with three types of knowledge: theoretical (science), productive ( art and rhetoric) and practical (technology and moral order/ethics). These three types of knowledge constitute distinct creativity regimes, constantly confused in the literature. Technology is a practical, adaptive form of knowledge and creates new facts. Art aims at evoking emotions and transforms facts into fiction. Science aims at falsifying previous theories and separates facts from fiction. Only scientists use methodologies such as basic problem-solving strategies. Artists and orators use techniques and engineers use trial and error. Popper got the aim of science right but its core problem-solving strategy wrong.