If guessing is the true process in learning, what implication does it have? The most fundamental implication is this - it can go "wrong". I have described how coherence and consensus deal with this. However, there is something more fundamental here, and it is related to evolution.

The basic idea about evolution is that things can go wrong - genetic material can mutate and form something altogether different, or genetic recombinations (in sexual reproduction) always produce genetic uniqueness. For example, while all eggs and sperms of a couple are genetically identical, they are always recombined to form siblings that have tremendous genomic differences.

There are actually some species of animals that can reproduce asexually. Basically an asexual species consists entirely of females. The process by which the eggs of these species grow and develop without fertilization by a male is called Parthenogenesis. Asexual reproduction is very efficient in a stable environment as all members of the species are female, each capable of producing eggs which can grow into offspring without fertilization. So suppose a species has 100 members. If the species is asexual, all 100 of these are able to produce offspring. However, if the species is sexual, then the number of offspring is dependent only on the females (say 50) in the species, assuming that the males are able to fertilize the eggs of all the females.

The asexual whiptail species Cnemidophorus neomexicanus (center) with the sexual species that hybridized to form it.

So why do we need males? Why is it that in nature asexual species are so rare, and the dominant mode of reproduction is sexual? The reason is simple, asexual reproduction are genetically stable - due to the lack of interaction of genes between sperm and egg. Therefore, in a stable environment in which the genetic structure of an asexual species is particularly suited to that environment, the species is able to survive very well. However, when the environment changes, the whole species will be entirely wiped out. Sexual reproduction on the other hand produces genetically diverse offspring which, in an unstable environment, has a higher chance of survival as there is a higher probability that one of these diverse genetic makeup will survive. Note that strictly speaking, there is no such thing as a "better" genetic makeup - it all depends on the environment! In fact the crucial idea here is not which genetic makeup is better - rather, it is that genetic diversity and dynamism is better for survival!

In the same way, guessing produces variations that result in creative ideas. These creative ideas may not all survive, but the diversity of ideas ensures survival. Indeed, constructivism is the only learning theory that can explain creativity - the very act of constructing meaning by itself is a creative process!

It is now a good time to look at what is commonly meant by creativity. Watch the video below on Dewitt Jones, a famous photographer with National Geographic, talking about his interpretation of creativity in the context of his art.

Dewitt made an important point in this clip. To him, creativity is a matter of perspective. If he has the right perspective, then he will be able to find the extraordinary view. In the video, he proclaimed that "if we can't learn to change lenses, we're trapped." This echoes the view of Charles Peirce, the great american semiotician who described a third form of logic called abduction, apart from inductive and deductive logic. According to Peirce, "abduction merely suggests that something may be". A classical example to illustrate abduction logic is in medical diagnosis. A doctor, when diagnosing a patient, can never conclusively proclaim an absolute diagnosis that is "true". He can only, based on symptoms and his medical knowledge, decide upon possible causes and administer treatment from there. Thus, abduction is a form of guessing which works within the framework of inductive and deductive logics. Thus when Dewitt talks about changing lenses and perspective in search of the extraordinary view, he is actually describing an active process of guessing and exploring various possibilities. But what does "extraordinary view" means?

At the end of the clip, Dewitt talks about the one most important thing he has learnt about creativity from photography - that there is always more than one right answer. So what makes one view ordinary, and another extraordinary? John Dewey, the american philosopher and educationist, said that "what is perceived are meanings that resonate personally rather than just events or circumstances". Clearly, the idea of "extraordinary" is based on our Verstehen, and the larger Lebenswelt. While Dewitt claims that his second photo in the video clip is "extraordinary" compared to the first, this is largely a subjective view that may not be true for other people. I am not sure how many agrees with his view (personally I too find the second photo more "extraordinary"), but if a majority of people agrees with Dewitt, then it is because the human condition has shaped our Verstehen and therefore created a shared meaning in our Lebenswelt.