What is theory?
Theory is a body of ideas principles and techniques that applies to a particular subject or in more abstract way its speculation or propositions based on a set of facts or principles analyzed in their relation to one another to explain any phenomenon. 1
I believe that theory is a mental construct to explain any physical/meta-physical phenomenon. Theories try to decode basics of any complex phenomenon based on functions which results in that particular phenomenon. These theories are outcome of observation and patterns study and lie in repetition of events. I believe this relation is origin of certain framework and point of view that is why we have various theories explaining the same phenomenon. Existence of various theories for same phenomenon explains importance of various parallel forces and processes which result in that event.
There are various existing propositions on theories but I am trying to propose a ‘theory of theories’ based on my observation and understanding (subjected to change with time).
Need of theory?
Since the evolution of mankind till today man is surrounded by big and monstrous ‘Why’. Think of first day of man on earth, he would have felt like an alien in this world where everything was unknown and strange including ‘he’ himself. He might have tried to understand ‘why’s’ in terms of evident patterns of seasons and crops or day and night (may be understanding of day and night may be one of first theories of mankind). Here came need to categorize various patterns or phenomenon in sets. One can relate to various why’s, only when there is a categorization possible of these otherwise very complex phenomenon of life and world. So this desire of simplification is process of theorizing. In this process one tries to understand the sequences of relation between various functions and develops a common thread according to which the processes operate, this provides a general understanding of complete set. This generalization helps us understand complex world in simple sets. This categorization can be done on various grounds to achieve various understanding of same phenomenon.
The understanding which one derives from theory helps us to conceive the relations and functions necessary to repeat same event in future. Art and architectural theoretical construct works majorly on this process of inquiry.
Types of theories:
I am proposing a construct for understanding various theories according to time scale. I think there are three kind of major theoretical constructs which are:
-Theory of timeless processes
-Theory of past to present
-Theory of future
Theory of timeless processes:I believe this is first construct which was developed by man and basically covers realm of philosophy and science. These theories try to deal with ‘why’s’ which are unaffected by the time like beauty, truth, gravity, light etc. This process of theorizing tries to understand the world in both physical and meta-physical formats. Experimentation and observation are basic tools for this kind of theoretical construct. Here one tries to explore reason based on experimented facts and explains these timeless process based on this knowledge. One of the most popular examples is ‘shape of earth’ which was flat before Galileo’s theory. The basic queries of this category are more or less timeless in nature but tools of exploration and experimentation change with time which results in different outcomes for same queries. So in this category we can trace the development of our knowledge and change of the views with time.
Theory of past to present : This can be seen as a act of Historiography and desire to set up a construct which links all selected facts which are channelized through a certain framework concentrating on certain aspect (like social, economic, architecture or so on) to achieve certain end result. Now, this according to me is a structuralist approach to past and here we like to stitch facts to fit in certain structure to produce a result which is our present or known to us. This is similar kind of situation which one faces in proving mathematical equations, where one knows what is given and what is to be proved. In this methods one starts to think a method by which we can attain certain result. This decides the course of his selection of formulas which will be used proving certain equation. This process of theorizing seems promising but missies some parallel line of enquiries and concentrate on only those events, facts and situations which resulted in happening of certain event in history. This format of theorizing tries to explain ‘why’ of certain act in history and linking its reason to result.
Theory of Future: I consider this as a visionary’s speculation of present or parallels (here, by parallels I mean, weaving of situation to stage event in a parallel time frame). In this process one takes the ground of the existing or known situations and projects a relation on any mathematical or hypothetical construct of reasoning to set stage for new desired situation. Some theories on based on real ground situations which are tested by time for their authenticity. These grounds can be same as existing or in some relation to theses known situation. Theories of utopia, dystopia, philosophical & critical thinking for future and parallel visions lie in this category. For example George Orwell’s famous novel Nineteen Eighty Four (1984).
Crisis of Theory:
Theory studies the common aspects to weave all subjects in single string. This provides a generalization through exclusive study and one gets rid of all the articulation and complexity. This gives us an idea about the relation between elements but all the beauty of individuality is washed off. By theorizing one relates to common aspect but at the same time miss out the exception and differences. As per my understanding every theory should be studies with ‘anti-theory’ which can deconstruct the focus framed by theory and provides one a real understanding of the facts rather than a mental construct of understanding.
References:
1 as per Encarta dictionary.
image used above is from following link
Strangely the analogy of theory of theories is congruent to the Dialectic. (also called dialectics or the dialectical method) is a method of argument, Dialectics is based around three (or four) basic concepts:
ReplyDelete1.Everything is transient and finite, existing in the medium of time (timeless process)
2. Everything is made out of opposing forces/opposing sides/contradictions (anti theory).
3. Gradual changes lead to turning points, where one force overcomes the other (quantitative change leads to qualitative change).(theory of past and present)
4. Change moves in spirals (or helices), not circles. (Sometimes referred to as "negation of the negation")
Above mentioned methodology somewhat overlapped with the authors viewpoint.
But i would like to mention a very interesting exception of CHAOS THEORY. It talks about relationships between dynamic elements which are highly sensitive to initial conditions. This initial sensitivity is what we call as 'butterfly effect'
Now in this case when i test the author's proposal of an anti thesis, it gives amazing conclusions! what would be the anti theory for chaos theory?
A stable system of constants with no variables ! A perfect world !
It becomes an interesting Hypothesis, but it automatically disproves itself.
Because the emergence of theories is to classify and organize the dynamics of information, and a perfect world would demand one and only one theory.... :)
on types of theory
ReplyDeletei see a contradiction here, when mentioned above that the there three kinds of theories, which revolve in time, then i think there 's only one aspect of theory ... theory which is suspended in time, no matter, what that time is, past, present or future. i strongly believe that a theory should be such that it has the ability to suspend itself in time, and adapts a self flexibility to change and to drive back and forth in "time"....
@shoonya...
ReplyDeleteThis essay is an attempt to categorize innumerable theories of all fields on the basis of their response to time. According to me the argument on a theory which is suspended in time is corollary of theory of timeless processes. As there are prominent theories which deal in specific eras of history, futuristic or timeless visions that are why they are categorize in this format.
This brings us to an interesting point of view to the whole debate of ‘time’. May be I and you follow different theories of ‘time’. I am quite aware of anti-theory of ‘linear time’ where time is not a just linear process but still for simplicity of this theory I have considered time as linear process. May be this is one of the reasons for different opinion on ‘time’ and categorization of ‘theories’
@ Amit(bas yoon hi fursat mein..............)
ReplyDeleteThe dialect is a process of argumentation which concentrates on debate where one tries to prove or disprove the presented hypothesis to extract maximum understanding (here I will distance myself from ‘classic’ statement ‘to achieve truth’). Mentioned four points are tools for proving or disproving hypothesis. Amit’s observation is an interesting congruency but it is for the process of converting any hypothesis to theory. While in this essay my focus is to deal with is the process of formulation of hypothesis or theory and its concerns with ‘time’.
So broadly dialectic process is next step of this essay for formulation of hypothesis to theory.
I think the basic thread of the chaos theory can be “studying the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for chaotic systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.”1
I am not an expert on chaos theory but with my limited understanding I differ on the ‘anti theory’ of chaos theory as ‘a stable system of constants with no variables’ but chaos theory in itself is anti theory of the existing theory of defining the systems stable(of rounding off or etc.). So challenging the stability of all seemingly stable systems is the one of the basics of the chaos theory. It also implies in contradiction to the definition of ‘systems’. Where chaos was never considered as a system, because of its instability. Chaos theory challenged the stability & instability of systems.
Reference
1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
.....:)
ReplyDeletei know this debate can go on and on. Here the only difference is between our stands. In your reply you are taking sides, you are stating Chaos theory as an anti thesis. As i look at it, an anti theory is a non obvious one, moreover a hypothesis.
Here the apparent chaos is not imagined or assumed, it is based on facts. It says that a very minute variable which can significantly be ignored in the considered time frame; might become a hugely deterministic factor in the longer run and might change the outcome of events drastically.
Which implies no system is absolute stable (unless you round off).... I always link it with Heisenberg's principal of uncertainty, maybe the inability to to derive the exact four coordinates of an object in the space-frame does not imply that the very existence of the object is questionable. It is nothing but a systematic Chaos, which we can see but is beyond the paradigm of representation.
So it is not an anti thesis.
A theory demands a perfect system of variables and constants; thereby the rounding off. It is an irony that chaos theory is THE reality but since it is not defined in our system of absoluteness, we call it an anti thesis/theory.
What I see here is again a portrayal of " THE WORLD IS A REPETITION IN ITSELF " .Man uses "theories" to understand the world. Here is an attempt to " understand"(verb) the "understand"(noun) / "our understanding methods ". This reminds me of a story which explains about theories. Five men were blind. They were asked to feel an elephant and describe what an elephant is for the first time. All the five go and exploring the elephant from different sides of its massive body, some from the trunk, some from the feet, and some from the tail. Each of them, finally came up with a description of their own, which where similar yet different. But from now on, each of their minds identify the object "Elephant" from the knowledge processed in their brain based on the knowledge gathered by their FOUR other senses. (As they are blind). Based on their leadership skills , quantity of knowledge they have, the no. of people in their "Circle of influence" , each has equal potential to propagate their "understanding" as "theory".
ReplyDeleteAs Shoonya said, Theories should stand the test of time, otherwise they are not "theories". Which means that may be "time" should not be the basis for categorization of Theories.
I believe that the three categories seem right , just that the labels given are misnomers . Rather we could call it as:
a) Eternal Truths (Timeless processes)
b) Constructed Theories.
c) Predicting Theories.
The funniest thing to me is that, what could be a Constructed theory in one era could become the eternal truth in the next era of the human generation and can eventually become a Prediction theory in the next following era. Out of these, only when a theory born as a "constructed theory" reaches the "Eternal Truth" status,it can be called as a real theory. And only Eternal truth theories are capable of supporting and creating "Prediction theory". one interesting fact is, Eternal truths are sometimes born/realised by man in the way a constructed theory is made. Just that, Eternal truths are non-contextual, whereas constructed theories can be contextual.
The chaos theory, to me , is the mother of all theories. Every theory made by man can be verified by putting it as an "input" to get analyzed and verified with the chaos theory and if it proves to be right, then IT IS A THEORY.
To cut a long story short,"Theories to Human race" is what "Formulas are to mathematics".Let me make it clear that what "Maths formulas are to humans" is not the same as what "Theories are to humans".
Ultimately what is , is . The elephant is an elephant. The description given by the five people only matters to the "people" and not to the ELEPHANT!