The aim of this paper is to explore whether the process of innovation can be captured in terms of rule-following instructions? To this end the views of Paul Thagard will be critically assessed. Thagard has developed a research methodology for innovation within the framework of naturalized epistemology (qua Quine) and by making extensive use of history of ideas (qua Kuhn). The upshot of the arguments of the paper is the position upheld by Thagard and others fellow-travelers who maintain that algorithms and rules can be developed for promoting/achieving innovation is untenable. Given the fact that innovation is an emergent property which only emerges when social-epistemological systems pass certain threshold of complexity, such an objective can only be attained if ‘proper and optimal Eco niche’ for innovation is in place.
)
