This is a 4 point basic framework that you could find helpful if your mind likes to think philosophically sometimes. I have adapted it quite a bit out of a book called “On Human Nature” (Wall, 2005)
For any philosophy (about any aspect of reality) to have credibility it must consist of:
1. Reasoned Judgments
In a philosophical world there are not too many facts, and thus speculation is necessary. There is a danger, however, in the absence of clear facts, to see people’s point of view on reality (philosophy I dare say) as being a personal taste issue. Philosophy cannot be seen to be a mere collection of opinion as they provide evidence to support their various claims, evidence that is factual, certain inferences that are based on these facts, and interpretations that must be reasonable. It is possible to have an unreasonable collection of opinion, but not a philosophy.
2. Universality
If a theory is going to hold then it needs to account for all the facts involved. In other words, one theory is better than another if it better explains MORE of the facts. So quantity of the coverage is the key element here. If one theory is able to explain ALL the facts then philosophers will call this theory ‘universal’. The is no recourse from a universal theory. There can be no rebuttal, only another angle (if the other angle is able to equally cover all the same facts as the former theory).
3. Consistency
Consistency implies that the content of the theory contains no contradictions or internal flaws. It also implies that the theory, as a whole, should be consistent with the known facts of the universe and with generally accepted theories. Quite simply, one theory can be said to be better than another if it is more consistent. This is where I find the conflict of interest between spirituality and science most prevalent. Quite simply, Christians (I will write about them because I am one), look to God as the source, and thus a theory is consistent if it logically explains the nature and role of God at work in the world, and in a way that Christians would find both internally and externally consistent. However, science, as a faculty, does not accept the use of spiritual explanations to explain the unknown. It is not measurable, it is not testable, it is not experiment-able. It is not consistent to science. Which makes me wonder the question: “How can you find something that you are looking for if you refuse to look in all the places that it could be?” But that is a deep question... Let’s move on...
4. Simplicity
This is often used as the last benchmark to decide on preference of theories: If two theories are equally Universal and equally Reasonable, and equally Consistent, then preference is usually given to the simpler of the two. Science has a beautiful word for this. It is called “Elegance”. (here’s a cool article on it if you are interested... ) Makes you think of modeling doesn’t it? No? Just me? OK... This point is not complex. It is simply that if one theory can explain the same phenomenon making use of fewer explanations then it is to be held as the better one. I like this point on a personal level... I like it because of what I believe in: The Gospel of Christ is simple. Man needed redemption and God made a plan.
So, I really didn’t mean this blog to be a gospel presentation (if I did, it would have been a poor show anyway), but I wanted to provide some sort of qualitative framework which any person could use to evaluate and extrapolate life theories. Hope you find it useful...
For any philosophy (about any aspect of reality) to have credibility it must consist of:
1. Reasoned Judgments
In a philosophical world there are not too many facts, and thus speculation is necessary. There is a danger, however, in the absence of clear facts, to see people’s point of view on reality (philosophy I dare say) as being a personal taste issue. Philosophy cannot be seen to be a mere collection of opinion as they provide evidence to support their various claims, evidence that is factual, certain inferences that are based on these facts, and interpretations that must be reasonable. It is possible to have an unreasonable collection of opinion, but not a philosophy.
2. Universality
If a theory is going to hold then it needs to account for all the facts involved. In other words, one theory is better than another if it better explains MORE of the facts. So quantity of the coverage is the key element here. If one theory is able to explain ALL the facts then philosophers will call this theory ‘universal’. The is no recourse from a universal theory. There can be no rebuttal, only another angle (if the other angle is able to equally cover all the same facts as the former theory).
3. Consistency
Consistency implies that the content of the theory contains no contradictions or internal flaws. It also implies that the theory, as a whole, should be consistent with the known facts of the universe and with generally accepted theories. Quite simply, one theory can be said to be better than another if it is more consistent. This is where I find the conflict of interest between spirituality and science most prevalent. Quite simply, Christians (I will write about them because I am one), look to God as the source, and thus a theory is consistent if it logically explains the nature and role of God at work in the world, and in a way that Christians would find both internally and externally consistent. However, science, as a faculty, does not accept the use of spiritual explanations to explain the unknown. It is not measurable, it is not testable, it is not experiment-able. It is not consistent to science. Which makes me wonder the question: “How can you find something that you are looking for if you refuse to look in all the places that it could be?” But that is a deep question... Let’s move on...
4. Simplicity
This is often used as the last benchmark to decide on preference of theories: If two theories are equally Universal and equally Reasonable, and equally Consistent, then preference is usually given to the simpler of the two. Science has a beautiful word for this. It is called “Elegance”. (here’s a cool article on it if you are interested... ) Makes you think of modeling doesn’t it? No? Just me? OK... This point is not complex. It is simply that if one theory can explain the same phenomenon making use of fewer explanations then it is to be held as the better one. I like this point on a personal level... I like it because of what I believe in: The Gospel of Christ is simple. Man needed redemption and God made a plan.
So, I really didn’t mean this blog to be a gospel presentation (if I did, it would have been a poor show anyway), but I wanted to provide some sort of qualitative framework which any person could use to evaluate and extrapolate life theories. Hope you find it useful...
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment