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 [email protected] 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, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 82, Issue 28 To: [email protected] Date: Monday, April 26, 2010, 9:00 AM Send Friam mailing list submissions to [email protected] To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [email protected] You can reach the person managing the list at [email protected] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Fw: [NDhighlights] #3872, Saturday - April 24, 2010: single infinite unity sustains and is all in "my" awareness -- the finger that points at the Moon is not the Moon: Rich Murray 2010.04.25 (Rich Murray) 2. Re: Why are there theorems? (John Kennison) 3. Re: Why are there theorems? (glen e. p. ropella) 4. Why theorems work. (was Why are there theorems?) (glen e. p. ropella) 5. Re: Why are there theorems? (Owen Densmore) _______________________________________________ Steven E. Wallis, PhD 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
============================================================ 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
