Critical Review: Analysis of James H. Austin's 'Four Kinds of Chance'

This report presents a critical review of James H. Austin's article, "Four Kinds of Chance." The review summarizes Austin's central argument that chance, though often seen as unintentional, requires human intervention for its occurrence. Austin categorizes chance into four types: pure blind luck, chance requiring human activity, chance favoring prepared minds, and chance generating discovery. The review highlights Austin's objective approach, emphasizing his detailed analysis and use of examples and quotations. The author agrees with Austin's viewpoints, emphasizing their importance for individuals and society, particularly in how human action can transform mere coincidences into concrete outcomes. The review also notes the article's peer-reviewed status and its basis in secondary sources.

CRITICAL REVIEW 1
Chance has been a subject of much discussion since the traditional times. In this
regard, James H. Austin’s article “Four kinds of chance” is an important one since it offers an
objective exploration of the concept of chance. The main viewpoint of the author in this
article is the fact that although chance is “unintentional and capricious” yet it requires
“human intervention” for its occurrence (Austin 140).
Austin defines four kinds of chances in his famous article, firstly, the “pure blind
luck” wherein no human intervention is required (Austin 140). Secondly, the type of chance,
where “energetic human intervention” or activity is required for its occurrence along with
luck(Austin 141). In this regard, the words of Charles Kettering are important to note “Keep
going, and the chances are you will stumble on something….I have never heard of” (Austin
142). The third kind of chance as per the author is the one where special discernment and
receptivity on the part of the individuals is required. For this kind of chance, the author says
“Chance favors only the prepared mind” (Austin 143). The fourth kind of chance is the one
which generates discovery and the author says in this regard “We make our fortunes, and we
call them fate” (Austin 143).
The author has treated the concept of chance in an objective manner rather than
dwelling on the notion of chance in a subjective. The net result of this is the fact that rather
than describing the notion of chance as a sheer luck factor he undertakes a detailed analysis
of the concept and comes up with different categories of the concept. More importantly, the
article rather than just offering a description of these different kinds of chances offers a
detailed analysis of the same through the use of different examples and quotations. The
article is a dated one and was published in the book “Chase, chance, and creativity: The lucky
art of novelty”. This becomes apparent from the fact that it is a peer-reviewed article and the

CRITICAL REVIEW 2
viewpoints propounded by the author in the work were derived after detailed analysis of
numerous secondary sources.
I personally agree with the viewpoints that Austin propounds in the article under
discussion here. The viewpoints are important from the perspective of the society and also the
individuals who inhabit the same. For example, most of the time it is seen that the individuals
rely on the luck factor rather than relying on the notion of human intervention. However, the
author by emphasizing on the notion of human intervention in the process chance shows the
manner in which the individuals can convert the mere coincidences into something much
more concrete.

CRITICAL REVIEW 3
References
Austin, James H. Chase, chance, and creativity: The lucky art of novelty. Mit Press, 2003,
pp.140-145