Modern science excels at pattern recognition but frequently confuses statistical significance with truth. The precision-scope trade-off forces researchers into a dilemma: precise but impractical studies or broad but causally weak ones. As data scales exponentially, spurious correlations proliferate, exacerbating the reproducibility crisis. To restore credibility, science must move beyond statistical detection and adopt frameworks that prioritize coherence and causal structure.

Creativity has become an oft-used word in UK public policy, but perhaps it is also under-imagined. This paper contends that there is an instrumental tendency to narrowly frame creativity as innovation, implying a reproducible product, instead of more openly as improvisation, a situational, embodied and temporal process. This is not a simple dichotomy (innovation and improvisation, product and process, can be mutually informing concepts), nor is it specifically a question of definition; rather, it relates to an ontological orientation, and related (...) to that are issues of epistemological implications. In particular the paper is concerned with the value of the arts in public policy, as situated in the social, and therefore human, spaces of health and care; and more generally the arts in society. The paper brings together a broad discussion from across disciplines, not in an interdisciplinary attempt to solve a problem, or to be reductive in the analysis, but to begin to approach a reorienting of understandings of creativity and the human value and foundation of the arts in society. (shrink)