dinoiii
December 20th, 2005, 02:43 PM
Dinoiii’s Rant I:
On Theories
It is the nature of science to take things apart to study them and then bring the parts together using theories. The priority jobs of theories are to bring order to our understanding of nature, to allow us to predict outcomes, to open doors of insight that lead us to manipulations of our situations and, last but by no means least, to be modified and restricted, even sometimes supplanted.
The basic features of scientific theory building are first, that observations are made, hypotheses are offered and tested, and theories are built. Second, theories are modified or replaced by new theories. Third, theories guide observations. Fourth, theories are human inventions albeit based in observations. Fifth, “I do believe we’re getting better. / “We’re getting better all the time.” (“Can’t get much worse...”)
Some theories are little, covering only a few aspects of the universe, and interacting minimally with other views. The trichromatic theory of color vision is one of these. It is quite elegant in its own right, giving order to a small set of the universe’s observations quite nicely and enabling management of a significant portion of our visual world. However, it does little to explain color vision once one delves into the nervous system. Other theories must be invoked. Neither is an all-encompassing view as regards the generation of colored stimuli in the external world. It finds useful application in the Technicolor Process, but Polaroid’s Edward Land applied a different theory and produced color from its ways of managing the universe.
Some theories are very large. The cover observations throughout many aspects of the universe and interact with other theories. Newton’s formulation of gravity’s force is one such example. It pervades many aspects of the universe from the very tiny (but not the very, very tiny) to the unfathomably large (but not the ultimately huge). Its explanations play their roles alongside those that proceed from other theories about forces operating on bodies of motion in space to give us insights into why planets stay in orbit and why flies can walk on the ceiling although we cannot.
But even Newton’s mechanics cannot handle all the observations of matter and energy in space and time. Some that are inconsistent with it forced the alternative view of Relativity Theory, for example the nature of matter as it approaches the speed of light. And then, in turn, Relativity Theory could not deal adequately with the sometimes particle, sometimes wave behavior of physical phenomena. This was among the factors that forced the development of Quantum theory. This is pretty much where we pedestrians are now. It is not where the leading edge of physics is, nor is it where it will be tomorrow.
Sometimes when parts are brought together by a theory, a whole can be seen, but that usually takes a very special theory. Physics has achieved several such theories, for example, those embodied in Newton’s Laws of Thermodynamics. Biology has Evolution and the markings of something quite comprehensive in genetics. Many don’t know about chemistry. Who does? There may be something grand in current understandings of the “chemical” bond, but that would seem more physics than chemistry. Astronomy (which is really Cosmology) has a Big Bang.
Psychology has what? Maybe a few substantial theories toward the understandings of large parts of the mind, mini-wholes as it were, theories like Freud, Piaget’s, and Skinner’s. But although everyone understands that all those parts and more will have to be brought together to form a comprehensive theory of the mind, no one has been thoughtful fool enough to be successful at it. The best tat has been done are some metatheoretical notions about the relationship of mind to brain.
A metatheory is what one resorts to when one can’t pull together a decent theory. It skips over some of the hard work of data generation and accounting. Its rather like what my father announced one day when he came home from work: “I started earning my second million today. The first one was too hard, so I’ve decided to skip it.” Some people find matatheories to be grand. Others find them to be insubstantial. Actually, they are both. Popular metatheories concern topics like the relations of brain to mind and the creation of life.
Theories can be laid on a scale from Bad through Poor and Good to Great. Bad theories are inconsistent with a preponderance of the facts and are often based as much in prejudiced hope as in observation. The notion of a six-day creation is an example of a bad theory.
Poor theories give us nothing save perhaps the cold comfort of being able to organize our observations better. They are more aptly viewed as tools, like alphabetical arrangements that are useful in filing systems but explain nothing. Reductionism from “molar” to “fundamental” sciences, as for example from psychology to physiology, is a poor theory. The shift is merely from one arena to another, and any so-called “new” explanations are illusory.
Good theories re-order our observations, spur us on to new ones, and assert some of the mechanisms behind the new order. Darwin’s Theory of Evolution does this very nicely.
Great theories go still further and change the observations; the “old facts” are simply not good enough and new ones must be found. This has been the casein the progression from Newtonian Mechanics to Relativity Theory to Quantum Theory.
The difference between bad and great theories is often very difficult to discern – especially if one stands close to the bad one. Anyway, that’s my theory.
I’ll live to rant another day…
D_
On Theories
It is the nature of science to take things apart to study them and then bring the parts together using theories. The priority jobs of theories are to bring order to our understanding of nature, to allow us to predict outcomes, to open doors of insight that lead us to manipulations of our situations and, last but by no means least, to be modified and restricted, even sometimes supplanted.
The basic features of scientific theory building are first, that observations are made, hypotheses are offered and tested, and theories are built. Second, theories are modified or replaced by new theories. Third, theories guide observations. Fourth, theories are human inventions albeit based in observations. Fifth, “I do believe we’re getting better. / “We’re getting better all the time.” (“Can’t get much worse...”)
Some theories are little, covering only a few aspects of the universe, and interacting minimally with other views. The trichromatic theory of color vision is one of these. It is quite elegant in its own right, giving order to a small set of the universe’s observations quite nicely and enabling management of a significant portion of our visual world. However, it does little to explain color vision once one delves into the nervous system. Other theories must be invoked. Neither is an all-encompassing view as regards the generation of colored stimuli in the external world. It finds useful application in the Technicolor Process, but Polaroid’s Edward Land applied a different theory and produced color from its ways of managing the universe.
Some theories are very large. The cover observations throughout many aspects of the universe and interact with other theories. Newton’s formulation of gravity’s force is one such example. It pervades many aspects of the universe from the very tiny (but not the very, very tiny) to the unfathomably large (but not the ultimately huge). Its explanations play their roles alongside those that proceed from other theories about forces operating on bodies of motion in space to give us insights into why planets stay in orbit and why flies can walk on the ceiling although we cannot.
But even Newton’s mechanics cannot handle all the observations of matter and energy in space and time. Some that are inconsistent with it forced the alternative view of Relativity Theory, for example the nature of matter as it approaches the speed of light. And then, in turn, Relativity Theory could not deal adequately with the sometimes particle, sometimes wave behavior of physical phenomena. This was among the factors that forced the development of Quantum theory. This is pretty much where we pedestrians are now. It is not where the leading edge of physics is, nor is it where it will be tomorrow.
Sometimes when parts are brought together by a theory, a whole can be seen, but that usually takes a very special theory. Physics has achieved several such theories, for example, those embodied in Newton’s Laws of Thermodynamics. Biology has Evolution and the markings of something quite comprehensive in genetics. Many don’t know about chemistry. Who does? There may be something grand in current understandings of the “chemical” bond, but that would seem more physics than chemistry. Astronomy (which is really Cosmology) has a Big Bang.
Psychology has what? Maybe a few substantial theories toward the understandings of large parts of the mind, mini-wholes as it were, theories like Freud, Piaget’s, and Skinner’s. But although everyone understands that all those parts and more will have to be brought together to form a comprehensive theory of the mind, no one has been thoughtful fool enough to be successful at it. The best tat has been done are some metatheoretical notions about the relationship of mind to brain.
A metatheory is what one resorts to when one can’t pull together a decent theory. It skips over some of the hard work of data generation and accounting. Its rather like what my father announced one day when he came home from work: “I started earning my second million today. The first one was too hard, so I’ve decided to skip it.” Some people find matatheories to be grand. Others find them to be insubstantial. Actually, they are both. Popular metatheories concern topics like the relations of brain to mind and the creation of life.
Theories can be laid on a scale from Bad through Poor and Good to Great. Bad theories are inconsistent with a preponderance of the facts and are often based as much in prejudiced hope as in observation. The notion of a six-day creation is an example of a bad theory.
Poor theories give us nothing save perhaps the cold comfort of being able to organize our observations better. They are more aptly viewed as tools, like alphabetical arrangements that are useful in filing systems but explain nothing. Reductionism from “molar” to “fundamental” sciences, as for example from psychology to physiology, is a poor theory. The shift is merely from one arena to another, and any so-called “new” explanations are illusory.
Good theories re-order our observations, spur us on to new ones, and assert some of the mechanisms behind the new order. Darwin’s Theory of Evolution does this very nicely.
Great theories go still further and change the observations; the “old facts” are simply not good enough and new ones must be found. This has been the casein the progression from Newtonian Mechanics to Relativity Theory to Quantum Theory.
The difference between bad and great theories is often very difficult to discern – especially if one stands close to the bad one. Anyway, that’s my theory.
I’ll live to rant another day…
D_