Theoretics: The
Future of Theory Development
Just as the scientific method helped to revolutionize
the way that we approached science over the past centuries, it is also quite
incomplete as a method for scientific advancement as I have described
previously in these pages.1 We have also had to clarify what is
meant by
Science.1 But how does
Theoretics (the field of study which utilizes creative thought,
disciplined logic, and the current knowledgebase to develop credible
scientific theory) play a role in Science.2
Theoretics can help us not only in the development of
new and better theories but it can also help us in determining the validity
of others’ research and much more. With this last issue of the
Journal of Theoretics, I would like to outline the key components of
Theoretics:
1. The application of logic to theory development
and validation. This includes the use of syllogisms which are
propositions that if agreed to will necessarily lead to a specific
conclusion. One example is in my proof that Space physically exists:
·
A photon physically exists.
·
If a photon physically exists, then it must have physical
dimensions.
·
Anything with physical dimensions must have mass.
·
If a photon has mass but it can travel infinitely through the
void/medium of 'space', then its density must be less than that of the
medium in which it travels.
·
Therefore space must have a density that is greater than that
of light.
·
Since something must have physical dimensions and mass in
order to have density, then Space must have physical dimensions and mass.
If you agree to the above propositions then you have to agree that Space
physically exists.
Another use of logic is in determining if a theory suffers from a
fallacy. There are dozens of different types of fallacies and they can
be sometimes hard to spot. Finding the fallacy often takes a bit of
detective work. For instance, many organizations (e.g. AFL-CIO, [2006:
previous link of
www.aflcio.org/yourjobeconomy/women/equalpay/FactSheetTimeForEqualPay.cfm
is no longer valid but similar info at http://www.aflcio.org/issues/jobseconomy/women/equalpay/ThePayGapByOccupation.cfm#p],
AMWA) have touted the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics studies as showing that there is a pay discrepancy between male
and female physicians but when you take into account the number of hours put
in (women worked less hours than men), seniority (older physicians are paid
more than younger ones), and specialty (women chose lower paying specialties
than men such as pediatrics, family practice, etc.), there was no pay
discrepancy.
2. The use of good science in theory development. This can be a
tough task. What can we use for the building blocks of our own theories?
You can use what are called facts (that which is known to a virtual
certainty) as well as that which has been demonstrated to probably be true
(that which has been found to be valid to date).
3. Look for better theories. Just because a theory is valid to
date, does not make it true. It was only a few centuries ago that it was
thought that the Earth was the center of the universe and for the most part
the evidence seemed to validate the theory. But as man looked at it from a
more detailed perspective and developed better tools, it was found to be
invalid.
Take gravity for a current example. Currently it is thought that gravity
waves “pull” objects together but a theory that makes more sense and
explains gravity better is that of Space density where Space physically
exists and is displaced by matter thus causing a pressure around the mass.3,4
Finally, remember Ockham’s Razor. It is the doctrine "Pluralitas non est
ponenda sine necessitate," which translates "Plurality should not be assumed
without necessity," or in today's lingo, "The simplest explanation is more
likely to be correct." A variation of this is “a theory without exceptions
is more likely to be true than one with exceptions”.
4. Effective communication is critical. If a person can not
communicate effectively then the best theory in the world could be rendered
useless. Scientists must agree on the definitions of the words that they are
using and use them correctly.5 I have seen scientists disagree
at length only to later find out that they were actually in full agreement,
they were just using different definitions for a single word. Just think of
the word “space”; is it nothingness, a vacuum, spacetime, an aether, a
physical entity with innate characteristics, or something else?
As editor of the Journal of Theoretics, I have received some articles
that were not arranged in a logical manner and therefore the reader could
not understand what the author was trying to communicate. I have also
received articles from around the world where the article suffered because
the author was not proficient in English. Where other journals would not
take the time to look at these articles in-depth, we took the time to work
with the authors in rebuilding and refining their articles so that they
could communicate their theories effectively.
5. Theory is just as important as experimentation (if not more so).
Science can not progress without theory. Hence
Theoretics.2 All too often the theories in today’s scientific
journals are usually single hypothesis studies and not broader theories
which can bring about a revolution of thought and understanding. Theory
development is not easy and is often quite complex and intricate, with
experimentalists rarely making good theoreticians and visa versa.
Theoreticians usually possess a more creative and unbound mind (e.g.
Einstein) while the experimentalist maintains a more meticulous and
practical mindset (e.g. Edison). Rarely are the creative theoretical mind
and the meticulous experimental mind contained within the same skull.
Dr. Siepmann,
Editor
Journal of Theoretics
References:
1.
What is Science?
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Vol-1/e1-3.htm
2.
Why Theoretics?
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Vol-3/e3-5.htm
3.
The Laws of Space and Observation: A Unified Theory,
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/2-2/siepmann.htm
4.
Proving that Space Density Theory is Different and More Complete than
Spacetime,
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/6-3/LSOproblem.pdf
5.
On Being a Thinker,
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Vol-2/e2-1.htm
Journal Home
Page