Theory Formulation

PSI Blog 20090521 Theory Formulation

The question has been asked: In what way is theory formulated?

1. Theory formulation begins with fundamental presuppositions (unconscious) or assumptions (conscious). According to Collingwood (1940), fundamental assumptions are not completely provable and always have opposites. The fundamental scientific assumptions and their opposites were described by Borchardt (2004, 2007). Fundamental assumptions normally are taken for granted unless the theories they support run into serious difficulty.

2. All theories are derived from our experience with the external world. Because the external world is so vast, secondary theories tend to cover only small portions of it. Nevertheless, like the fundamental assumptions, theories ultimately are derived through observation.

3. Theory and observation is iterative. That is, they depend on each other. Animals formulate theories all the time. Herbivores observe predators eating lunch, eventually getting the idea or “theory” that the approach of a predator requires some evasive maneuver to avoid the same fate. Simple theories depend on simple observations; complex theories depend on complex observations. Complex theories are modifications of previous theories. That is why scientists must publish to advance their specialties.

4. A new theory or idea is the combination of at least two other ideas or observations. Thus, a theory, like an idea, cannot pop up out of nowhere. It always derives from other things. The incorporation of experimentation accelerated the evolution of theory formulation. With experiments, scientists were able to manipulate portions of the external world, making observations that previously were impossible.

5. Theory is instrumentally driven. The development of each new instrument multiplies the potential for observation and, correspondingly, for theory. In other words, if you want a sure topic for a thesis, get the latest instrument.

6. Theory is experientially driven. This is why students need teachers and why teachers are more likely than students to come up with the next theory. It is why half of all Nobelists studied under a Nobelist. It is why the Ph.D. program is so intensive. One needs to know what previous workers have done in the field before one can produce some new combination worthy of announcing to the world.

7. Theory partly determines what can be observed. Because the universe contains infinite detail, we must pick and choose between what is important and what is not. Thus, if we are looking south, we can know much about the south, but little, if anything, about the north. Every theory is therefore subject to errors of commission and errors of omission. The way we check for those errors is through further observation and experiment. One caution: this caveat does not mean that an unobserved portion of the universe does not exist!

8. Theories that fail a test seldom are discarded entirely. This follows from the above. The long evolution of a formerly successful theory assures that it has roots embedded in the literature and in the minds of its followers. Theories “fail” tests all the time, often simply because the observations and experiments were faulty. A theory can yield satisfactory explanations and predictions even though it may be incorrect. For example, we can use pre-Copernican theory to predict that the sun will rise in the morning. The sun will rise whether we think the sun goes around the earth or whether we think the earth is rotating as it goes around the sun. That particular test, by itself, cannot disprove the pre-Copernican theory.

9. As we expand our observations, theories tend to break down. Space travel would have been impossible without discarding the pre-Copernican theory. This is why science is progressive instead of cyclic (Kuhn (1970) and the post-modernists not withstanding). Because the universe is infinite, both microscopically and macroscopically (my assumption), no theory can be complete. No theory is perfect and no theory can explain and predict anything in infinite detail and with perfect precision. On the other hand, few theories are not of some use to somebody.

10. Finally, theory formulation is relatively simple. To come up with a new idea, combine two or more old ideas. As Prof. M.L. Jackson once told me: “I simply read the literature and let my brain do the connections when I am sleeping.” Among scientists, much theorizing can be considered “seat of the pants” or “restaurant napkin activity.” Mostly, we collect a large group of disparate observations that we think may be at least vaguely related and try to make some kind of sense of them. We do it because we are curious about what the next observation will be. If the prediction is at all successful, we may have the beginnings of a successful theory. Happy theorizing!

Borchardt, G., 2004, The ten assumptions of science: Toward a new scientific worldview: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p.
Borchardt, G., 2007, The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 411 p.
Collingwood, R.G., 1940, An essay on metaphysics: Oxford, Clarendon Press, 354 p.
Kuhn, T.S., 1970, The structure of scientific revolutions (2 ed.): Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 210 p.

For more no-nonsense physics and cosmology, see:

Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 327 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].

INFINITIES

Further comment on INFINITY from Frederic Frees:

Dear Dr. Borchardt:

Faced with our apparent limitations, I continue to read (in dismay) the arguments by indeterminists of how finite we humans are. This is somehow intended to demonstrate that only God is infinite and that the universe must also be finite as well. But, thanks to TSW and IUT, more examples of infinity become equally apparent. The main argument against an infinite universe always comes back to the illogic of "infinite regress." A secondary argument is our inability to fathom infinity or its implications. But, these same people can sleep and dream as the rest of us do, in and so doing, have the potential to dream anything. As infinite causation influences our dreams, so our capacity to dream (consciously and unconsciously) is also infinite. There are no limitations. The very idea of infinity cannot be such a foreign concept as these indeterminists try to convince us it is. I found this to be true in the opening lines of a poem by William Blake:

To see a world in a grain of sand
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
And eternity in an hour.

Frederic Frees


Excellent comment on the subject. One thing that struck me about infinity is the assumption that there are an infinite number of infinities. One might think that there could be only one infinity, but this is akin to its opposite: finity. One only needs to realize that if there are an infinite number of even numbers, then there are an infinite number of odd numbers as well. As I show in TSW, infinity is necessary for existence. Whether we look to the sky or through a microscope, there is no end to the infinite variety we can see there.

The Physical Meaning of E=mc2

Here is the abstract that I just wrote for the 2009, 16th Natural Philosophy Alliance Conference, Storrs, CT, United States

Although Einstein’s popularization of E=mc² made it the most famous equation in history, few people understand what it actually means in physical terms. Many popular accounts maintain that it describes the conversion of matter into “pure energy,” often construed as a kind of matterless motion. Today, “dark energy” and “dark matter” are spoken of as if they were two different “things.” Some even hypothesize that the universe was filled with pure energy before it became filled with matter. This estrangement between matter and motion (separability) is common in popular culture and underlies the regression in modern physics led by Einstein. There will be no fundamental change in modern physics until we adhere to the opposing assumption, INSEPARABILITY (Just as there can be no motion without matter, so there can be no matter without motion). Without it, it is impossible to explain the physical meaning of the equation. Like all equations involving aspects of reality, E=mc² simply refers to the transformation of one kind of matter in motion into another kind of matter in motion and/or the transformation of one kind of the motion of matter into another kind of the motion of matter. The experimental success of the equivalence principal led to the further objectification of energy and that other infamous matter-motion term, spacetime. It was precisely at this point that Einstein left the realm of reality. Energy actually does not exist and does not move. It is simply a mathematical description of the motion of matter. Matter does not “contain” energy, for matter only can “contain” other things in motion. Energy is simply a mathematical term necessary for describing and relating the various forms of the motion of matter. Similarly, Einstein’s objectification of spacetime led to the strange belief that the universe actually had four dimensions instead of three. Spacetime may be useful in some descriptions, but it is no more “real” than energy. It is time to return to the two fundamental phenomena presented by the universe: matter and the motion of matter.

Scientisms

From Rick Dutkiewicz:

Dr. Glenn,

I couldn't help but think of you when I read this quote.

It made me smile a bit, and I thought that I should share it with you.

Thanks so much for your great insights and down-to-earth revelations.


"These scientisms, as I shall call them, are clusters of scientific ideas which come together and almost surprise themselves into creeds of belief, scientific mythologies…. And they share with religions many of their most obvious characteristics: a rational splendor that explains everything, a charismatic leader or succession of leaders who are highly visible and beyond criticism, certain gestures of idea and rituals of interpretation, and a requirement of total commitment. In return the adherent receives what the religions had once given him more universally: a world view, a hierarchy of importances, and an auguring place where he may find out what to do and think, in short, a total explanation of man. And this totality is obtained not by actually explaining everything, but by an encasement of its activity, a severe and absolute restriction of attention, such that everything that is not explained is not in view."
—Jaynes, J., The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, Mariner Books




Rick:

Thanks for the mention of Jaynes, who pretty well explains the philosophical game. It gives me yet another chance to expound. The quote reminds me of Thomas Kuhn’s “paradigms,” which could be substituted for “scientisms.” It has much of the same approach that Kuhn used. As I explained in the Ten Assumptions of Science, we need to articulate assumptions (i.e., “beliefs”) in science in order to propose theories that can be tested. The Big Bang Theory has its methodologies, its charismatic leader (Hawking), and its loyalty tests for publication in mainstream journals. A scientism, paradigm, or worldview helps us to determine what is deserving of our attention. It tells us what to think so we won’t have to do the impossible—think of everything at once. It is necessary that “everything that is not explained is not in view.” This is because the universe is infinite. We never will be able to explain everything, although we always can do a better job of it. Of course, like Kuhn, one of the first post-modernists, Jaynes proposes no evolutionary progress. It is as if scientific theories, like religions, come into favor and go out of favor in an endless cycle. The truth is that we can never prevent others from examining the ground where the bodies lie. The new students that were not adequately indoctrinated have a tendency to be curious about “everything that is not explained.” We progress because we learn more and more about the infinite universe over time. So scientific progress, like history itself, is not a cycle, but a spiral. When in the depths of a regression like the one experienced in modern physics since Einstein and the development of the Big Bang Theory, prospects may seem bleak indeed. Nonetheless, the great project begun by Copernicus will reach its eventual conclusion in acceptance of the Infinite Universe Theory. Not that such a theory will explain everything, which it could not, by definition, but that it will put us in our place. At least we will be free of a universe that explodes out of nothing, just as we are free of an earth circumnavigated by the sun.

Jaynes, J., 1976 [2000], The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, Mariner Books, 512 p.

Kuhn, T.S., 1970, The structure of scientific revolutions (2 ed.): Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 210 p.