of theorums, theories, and survival
Locked
of theorums, theories, and survival
 
|
Hi - new to the board - but this is an area where I have been doing some
related work...
Although each "language" appears to be domain specific (math for exact
applications and English for fuzzy and emotional applications) I am finding
that there is an underlying logic to the structure of theory.
Briefly, a theory may be understood as a set of propositions. The more
interconnected those propositions are, the more useful the theory is as a tool
(which may, indeed, promote survival). For example, Ohm's law has three aspects
(ohms, volts and amps) each of which may be "explained" by a proposition
involving the other two. (e.g. more ohms and more amps will result in more
volts). Ohm's law is fully interconnected (perfectly robust) and is very
useful.
This stands in contrast to less useful theories where the propositions are
only loosely connected. I have recently published an analysis of theories of
electrostatic attraction. I found that theories of ancient times have a
very low robustness. Theories during the scientific revolution had a higher
robustness while Coulomb's law has a very high robustness (and is a lot more
useful in practical application). http://www.igi-pub.com/Bookstore/TitleDetails.aspx?TitleId=37241
Those diminutive forms (theorems, ideas, etc.) don't seem to work as well
because they are more easily "disconnected" from a larger conceptual framework.
For example, it is apparently rather easy to look at a list of ten commandments
and choose to apply one or two of them instead of all ten (yes, I'm looking at a
system of ethics as a theory - it works... but that is another story). In
contrast, one cannot disconnect the aspect of volts from the remainder of Ohm's
law and expect it to do any good.
We see this kind of disconnect all the time in the social sciences. For
example, if one has a list of 20 unrelated propositions, one might call it a
theory. However, the next author might use only ten of them (and refer to it by
the same name). Or, a researcher might grab one of the propositions as the focus
of a study.
Most theories in the social sciences are rather loosely connected. They can
be applied anywhere to "explain" anything. However, it is like using toothpaste
to open a padlock. The toothpaste will fill the void and make the shape of the
key... Indeed, it will fit every lock! Sadly, it will open none of them.
Theories of physics are very rigid. Like a metal key, each theory fits a
limited set of specific situations. Luckily, within that situation, it works
rather well to open the lock.
To summarize, this complexity-based approach to understanding the structure
of theories quantifies the interrelatedness between the propositional components
of the theory and appears to be correlated to the effectiveness of the theory in
practical application. And, if the theory is more useful in application, it
would seem to stand to reason that the theory will be a more effective tool and
so support survival.
Thanks,
Steve
Steven E. Wallis, Ph.D. Director, Foundation for the Advancement of Social Theory Fellow, Institute for Social Innovation, Fielding Graduate University http://projectfast.org/ New Book! http://www.igi-global.com/reference/details.asp?ID=35221 --- On Mon, 4/26/10, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:
Steven E. Wallis, PhD Director, Foundation for the Advancement of Social Theory
Fellow, Institute for Social Innovation, Fielding Graduate University New Book!
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |