Curiosity and Networks of Possibility

Curiosity, we argue, is a capacity to connect—to build knowledge networks. Curiosity builds relationships between pieces of knowledge as much as between the people who want to know them. For this reason, we characterize curiosity as “edgework”—constantly laying down relationships between ideas, experiences, concepts, and objects in the world. Impor

The possibilities of what we might now think, and know, and become are not necessarily novel in the sense of never having been witnessed before. Many artists work in and with historical tropes and beckon, through them, beyond the present horizon. It is that bidirectionality that allows them to crack open the network of thought.

If knowledge is a network and curiosity is its growth principle, and if the adjacent possible is indeed hovering over the edges of knowledge systems as they currently exist, then curiosity is at least one of, if not the primary, epistemic access point to that field of adjacent epistemic possibilities. Crucially, that field of adjacent epistemic pos

Potentialities for growth, then, are available in all directions—toward what has never been thought and back to what must be rethought.

Most germane for our purposes, knowledge, too, can be analyzed as a network. In this case, nodes can be pieces of information, or experiences, or words, or knowers themselves, while the edges can be the relationships between those pieces of information, those experiences, words, or knowers.

Sometimes, however, possibilities are quite old—longstanding and patient. And likewise, some curiosities are ancient—questions that have been either long-touted or long-buried. How might we dispel, then, the novelty bias to which curiosity and possibility are so regularly subject? How might we better appreciate curiosity and possibility wherever th

Curiosity and possibility are typically subject to a novelty bias. People commonly conceptualize possibility as a harbinger of the new. What is old is already actualized; what is new is merely possible. Similarly, curiosity is thought, among scholars and lay people alike, to be piqued by and to produce the new. Repeatedly, across multiple fields an

“experience is never limited and it is never complete; it is an immense sensibility, a kind of huge spider-web, of the finest silken threads” (p. 12). Those silken lines are threaded and rethreaded, knotted and reknotted, to make and remake webs of sense.

While scientific progress, then, proceeds by curiously exploring adjacent possibilities, preference is given to work closely tied to existing science and conducted by a privileged subset of scientists.