Tuesday, July 29, 2014

How do we know the truer theory?


‘Into Me See’ series of essays
By Graham Little
These essays summarise and extend the conclusions from the intellectual position in the book The Origin of Consciousness. Excluding this work, there is no general theory of psychology, no general theory of knowledge integrated with a general theory of psychology, no general theory of cause. This means that all historical lines of thinking have failed. Our options are to seek to revise what has been previously offered, or find a new start point. Near forty years ago my research lead me to conclude that everything able to be said had been said, every wrinkle possible had been explored.  I judged further re-treading the historical lines of thinking would prove fruitless.
We need a new start point if we are to fully understand who we are, where we came from, what is religion, what moves us, is there a God, do we have a spirit, what is science, what is truth, do ideas exist, and the other ‘big’ questions. I began by building a new social science methodology, applied it to the system ‘person in their environment’ then interpreted the resulting theory.
I do not have opinions on intellectual issues, what is offered is not ‘opinion’ but conclusions. I believe that truth and verisimilitude are not found in opinion or belief, but in methodology and argument. Where I do apply a judgement unsupported by method or argument, making it an ‘opinion’ or a ‘belief’, I aim to make that clear.
After reading these essays I hope you will then read the book The Origin of Consciousness to fully understand yourself and others, why you are here, why you are as you are, and how to find spiritual fulfilment. Titles of the essays are listed in the menu to the right. The print copy of the book is here, print.

 “I would not give a fig for simplicity this side of complexity, but would give my right arm for simplicity the other side of complexity”. Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr.  

In his book on the Mbuti Pygmy, Wayward Servants: The world of the African Pygmy, Colin Townsend described standing on a hill top with a Pygmy taking in the view. The Pygmy asked what the insects were.  It took Colin some minutes to work out the Pygmy was referring to the cattle grazing in a paddock several miles away. The Pygmy had limited experience outside the rain forest where visibility was measured in feet, not miles, and in his mind anything that small had to be insects.

 I have previously discussed ‘buy and burgle’, where people saw very different aspects of a house depending on their intention of buying or burgling it. We can understand this process by imagining a box of power point slides just behind our forehead. When we think ‘buy’ up pops that filter and we ‘see’ according to the filter, and we do not see things not consistent with the filter. For the Pygmy, his filter was ‘small things’, and his experience was that anything that small had to be insects, distance as a factor in seeing small things did not feature in his understanding. Although he quickly worked it out.

The box of power point frames is the structure of our psychology.  What is on each frame is our reality, our point of view in regard to the object in Reality we are observing. We have no choice as to the structure of how we perceive.  We do have a choice as to what is on each frame. We can refer to what is on a frame as our personal theory. Unlike in science, frequently our personal theories are not well researched, nor chosen with any real precision. We accept our personal theories as they are presented to us by our culture – by peers, parents, our siblings, schooling, and what swirls about us in our social circumstance. Tielhard de Chardin referred to the thought swirling about us as the nousphere, the sphere of (global) thought. We then develop and live within our culture, a particular part of the nousphere. I have previously questioned the casual way we assume our personal theories. I will explore this more fully later in the essay. For now leave you to reflect that if we reshape our personal attitudes how will that impact the nousphere within which our children are immersed? Can we deliberately reshape our cultural nousphere? And if we do, will that redirect humanity’s destiny?  But for now, back to the search for truth.

Any scientific theory is merely thoughts we use to look at some objects. The theory is constructed by reasonably tight rules. It is intended to be socially shared among other scientists. When many scientists share some particular point of view, a particularly theory, then it is referred to as the current paradigm.  We can regard a paradigm as a specific part of the nousphere within which the scientists live and work. So we can understand scientists as immersed in two aspects of the nousphere, their personal culture, and their scientific work culture which includes the paradigms on how they think about various aspects of Reality (quantum physics, for example, orientating minds to sub-atomic phenomena). 

Personal theory is psychologically equivalent to scientific theory. Both are ideas on a frame. Both are part of the person’s reality. Both orientate the person to their Reality. Also, and this is very important, both can become associated with emotion. Scientific theory is prone to the same failings as personal theory. Science can become as dogmatic as the views of a suicide bomber.   

Which leads to the question addressed in this essay, how to decide which theory is the best, which is truer, which has greater verisimilitude.

The answer to the question is in three parts. First, how do we decide which scientific theory is truer? Second, why is the theory in Origin the best theory available on us?  Finally, I will draw some conclusions on how we, personally, can and perhaps should be more aware and take more care with the thoughts we allow to shape our spirit.

In Origin I offer the following summary factors for judging which theory is the verisimilar theory, the truer theory.

No one factor provides an unassailable guide to truth.

Verification, falsification, debate and argument all have their place in deciding.  But eventually we must decide.

One list of factors is as follows.

1.      Verification, does it fit the facts?

2.      Falsification, can any of it be disproved? Remembering the point by Karl Popper that we can never prove the hypothesis all swans are white, but can disprove it by sighting one black swan.

3.      Accuracy, does it get the right answer?

4.      Practicality, does it work? Is it useful?

5.      Method, is it built by tools known to build congruence?

6.      ‘First things first’, is the reality well-grounded with prior issues resolved?

7.      Rule of relations, has imagination been used to test reality and distinguish Reality?

8.      Multiple opinions, do others agree? But note, because it is a majority judgment does not mean it is ‘right’ it is possible for 50,000 even 50,000,000 people to be wrong.

9.      Instinct, does it feel right? Using all our brain, instinct more than the conscious thought in mind.

10.  Insightful, is there a sense of insightfulness? Does it go where others have not gone before?

11.  Conservatism, does it integrate prior thought. Are old ideas retained merely due prejudices arising from borrowed knowledge built from prior experience?

12.  Challenge, are any of the thoughts emotionally unsettling as to cause rejection?

I repeat the opening, it bears repeating: There is no one factor that provides an unassailable guide to truth.

The point to stress is these are not techniques we apply that will tell us which is true and which not. They are tools to aid judgment. Truth cannot be found in applying a technique, it is only found in sound psychological process that enables accurate judgment (see the essay The structure of truth). The list above is merely a list of points of view for us to consider. From the blending of our insights we make our call.   

Method as spelled out in Origin is crucial. First things first is striving to ensure any theory brings to account underlying issues that could influence the theory or decision about the theory. A simple example is a business plan on the launch of a new product. The plan considers opposition products, pricing and market acceptance. The plan considers first things first, and is said to be ethically constructed, hence has intellectual integrity, bearing the appropriate relationship with the underlying issues. Seems remarkable that any such plan would be offered without considering those things.

In academic/intellectual endeavour the lack of first things first ethics is endemic. Further discussion of this point moves us beyond the scope of this essay. I refer you to chapter 3 in particular in Origin. Applying first things first is a means of quality control of intellectual outputs that would radically reduce the volume of academic output. Ensure that produced was worthy of reading and reflection.

Applying first things first is a method of quality control intrinsic to knowledge hence is independent of peer review which is known to have flaws.  There is argument that peer review offers statistical control that is by having peer review, percentage wise we are better off than doing nothing. Peer review as inadequate quality control. It will result in the proliferation of journals. The emergence of what is little more than vanity publishing where academics pay to have their paper published in what is claimed as a peer reviewed journal is merely another example of the fundamentally corrupt structure of peer review driven by the philosophy of ‘publish or perish’ (see also the appendix in Origin ‘Toward a better standard of judgment than peer review’).

The second point is the quote from Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr. Taking complexity, resolving it, creating simplicity on the other side.

A good question: What is simplicity?

Simplicity of a theory is relative to the complexity it resolves.  But there is also a universal standard, not easy to define, rather like minimalism in décor. A quality, we know when it is there, and know when it is not. Also, most people know their intellectual boundaries, but can still ‘see’ simplicity in some intellectual field, even if they do not quite understand it.

Simplicity is not parsimony. We can have an extraordinarily complex theory then have bits pruned off it making it more parsimonious, applying Ockham’s razor, without making the theory simpler. By analogy, in a recent ‘nearly lost’ rugby game the All Black coach, Steve Hansen noted he got the build-up to the test a bit wrong. He made it too complex, the minds of the players too cluttered. He said he needed to make it clearer and simpler. Not just a matter of pruning a few moves by applying parsimony. He needed bring it back to the simple form, so the structure in mind was direct, simple. The All Blacks at their best play a very simple game of rugby with immense skill and at enormous pace. Currently, globally, at their best there is no-one close to the All Blacks. Simplicity personified.

Assume we have a ‘complexity’. What does this mean? I suggest it means that when we think about it we cannot quite get our mind around it. When we think about it there are bits of it we miss, and when we organise those bits, then we lose sight of other bits. And if we come up with an idea on dealing with some part of the complexity, the idea does not explain other parts. In short, it is untidy in our mind, it lacks order and structure.

What then is the opposite of this? What is it to have simplicity? It may not mean we find it ‘simple’. We have a coherent conceptual structure. All the pieces of the complexity are fully bought to account within the structure. We can ‘see’ the complexity in the structure, and see how the structure gives rise to the complexity we started with. The structure orientates us in our reality, it fits, and we can see how and where other parts of our overall world view relate to and are integrated with the structure. We can deduce action from the structure knowing that all the elements of the complexity have been bought to account. In short, while the structure may demand we learn new ways of thinking and reasoning, when we do, we find we do have a clearer and more effective theory that does ‘make sense’ of the complexity.

Consider quantum physics. It gets excellent numerical results. Does it resolve understanding of the complexity of sub-atomic phenomena? No. Because it is mathematical we have to ‘interpret’ what the mathematics mean in Reality, since the theory is reality. There was a Solvay conference of the world’s leading physicists in Copenhagen in 1927 at which the ‘Copenhagen interpretation’ was established and the world adopted probability. Not everyone agreed, notably Einstein. It was the result of his resistance to the interpretation that Einstein is afforded the quote ‘God does not play dice’. 

Probability is okay in reality, but to apply it to Reality...? It does not simplify things in Reality, it makes it more complex. It is harder than ever to get one’s mind about it. Newtonian ‘marbles’ are much easier to understand unfortunately while easier to conceptualize, they do not get a good answer.  

Where does this leave quantum mechanics? In Origin I propose two overriding factors in our search for congruence between reality and Reality. First, getting the right answer. Second, an apt conceptualisation of the mechanisms giving definite insight into what is happening. With quantum mechanics we have the first, but I question the second. In Origin I suggested a thought experiment to establish how probability formulations circumvent mechanistic understanding and enable correct answer but offer no insight into what is happening. By implication, to ‘interpret’ what is happening from the equations is stretching the mathematics too far.

Then what do we need to do to seek ‘truer’ theory?

The process of judging what is truer can only be psychological. Making best use of all we know on anything demands we look at it from many points of view. We marshal all we know by attentively working through the twelve factors above, carefully weighing the theory in regard each factor in turn.

When done, then go to the beach, or to whatever place makes you relaxed and peaceful. Forget it! Actively forget it. Then, a few days or weeks later review your analysis. Then forget it again! Then come back to it gently, take it in slowly and allow it to just rest in mind, and ask: Does it feel right? What overall is it telling me? By reflecting on it by different points of view you have ordered your knowledge, prepared your brain. Search for instinct, since instinct is your brain speaking to you about what you know that you did not know you knew. Insight only comes to the prepared brain.

The easy decisions are those where instincts, the sense of something, is aligned with intellect. If they are not aligned, if there remains that queasy feeling that something not quite right, then if you are experienced go with your gut. If you judge yourself not experienced, then work it through again. This time using an experienced sounding board, someone supportive but objective, friendly but detached, gentle but tough.   

In the end you must decide what you think is correct. Your judgment! Accepting the current viewpoint or paradigm is not your judgment, it is accepting the judgment of someone else.

What happens when the process above is applied to the theory in Origin? The worksheet is below, and I have scored each factor on a scale of 1-10, 10 high. I have also scored Freudian theory for a comparison. I do not imply Freudian theory be taken seriously, merely use it to illustrate the process.


Factor
Assessment of Origin theory
Rating
Freud
1.      Verification, does it fit the facts?
It accounts for all aspects of human psychology and output in sensible priority order.
7
1
2.      Is it falsifiable?
Fully. But there are as yet no issues that disprove the theory.
10
2
3.      Accuracy, does it get the right answer?
It fits the facts as best understood. It also resolves issues not addressed by any other theory.
7
4
4.      Practicality, does it work? Is it useful?
It is easy to understand and use, although different from all that has gone before.
7
4
5.      Method, is it built by tools known to build congruence?
Yes. It offers a conceptual diagram of the mechanism in the system person in their environment.
10
1
6.      ‘First things first’, is the reality well-grounded with prior issues resolved?
Yes, the theory is ethically constructed. Contains theories of knowledge and cause, and is fully reflexive.
10
1
7.      Rule of relations, has imagination been used to test reality and distinguish Reality?
Yes. It makes extensive, appropriate use of thought experiment.
10
1
8.      Multiple opinions, do others agree?
Minimal as yet... but people are beginning to pay regard.
3
8
9.      Instinct, does it feel right?
Yes, it is intuitive.
8
2
10.  Insightful, is there a sense of insightfulness? Does it go where others have not gone before?
Yes. Examples: A theory of mental health and the judgment of mental illness as an erosion of mental health. Accounts for the evolution of consciousness, development of the neurological capacity to create ideas, and the application of ideas in survival so accounting for human dominance in this eco-system. 
9
2
11.  Conservatism, does it integrate prior thought.
 
Yes. Historical theory has been built on valid insights it people, successfully accounts for historical insights and integrates them.
10
2
12.  Challenge, are any of the thoughts emotionally unsettling as to cause rejection?
 
No. In fact it extends psychology into areas not previously accessible to psychology theory, such as the nature of science, the validity of quantum physics, and the nature of time. It
7
7

The theory scores 98 out of 120, 82%. Freudian theory (33%) loses out in that it does not integrate prior thinking, it fails to account for knowledge or cause, or for its own existence, and it seriously loses out as regards the weak methodology used to create it.

Does this make the theory in Origin right? No, but it makes it the best we have right now! The theory in Origin is the verisimilar theory.

A great lack in the world is we do not have a balanced, reasoned theory of us, who we are, where we came from, how we work, etc. Too much and too often questions of reason ...such as have we evolved, and if so how... are confused with question of faith. We will never integrate reason, one of our primary qualities, with faith another of our primary qualities unless we separate the two. Both reason and faith are crucial qualities defining what it is to be human. We will not advance as humans without successfully separating the two, and then integrating the two into the fullness of our existence.

So much for science.

What of our personal theories? Do we need determine truth? Do we need invest effort in determining the ideas we allow to shape what we do and feel, that end up defining who we? If determining the verisimilar reality in science requires such effort should we invest similar effort determining our own Reality? If so where do we start?

This is where our values come into play. I will not assume values for you, so I will offer the questions in the first person, with the response on the right. I will not try and identify all possible questions, and my questions may not be the same as yours...I merely offer some of mine to illustrate the process.

 

How do I want to be perceived?
Assertive, intelligent, reflective, personable, self-contained.
How do I want to treat people?
With consideration and respect.
How do I want to see people treated?
With consideration and respect.
Do I seek my spiritual fulfilment?
Yes. I want my life to add up to something.
Will I allow everyone else to seek their spiritual fulfilment?
Yes, and in seeking my fulfilment I must not restrict others in their search for theirs.
Do I think the environment important?
Yes, but not at the expense of people.  We need find balance.
Do I think everyone is equal?
Yes, no-one socially above me no-one below.
Do I think we should all have the same amount of money?
No. I do not believe in forced financial equality, but do think modern inequality is too much to be sustainable. I believe effort should be rewarded.
Do I think people have a right to their own views?
Yes, but people need challenged when their position is unreasoned. If people unreasoned and unwilling to reflect, I will walk away and not bother with them. If not soulful for me, I decline to do it.

 

I think the above illustrates the nature and tenor of the analysis.

So what is the point?

In science there is a clear and definite target. Congruence of reality and Reality. Hence any process of judgment of the truthfulness of any theory, any reality or idea, has criteria against which we measure it. Reality. When it comes to our personal theories, personal ideas we will allow influence us, the measure of their success is our values.   

Every idea I select and allow to influence me is judged against the values I hold important to me. For every idea the question is: Does this idea enable thought and feeling consistent with my values? If not I discard it, if so, I consolidate it but also ensuring it is consistent with ideas I may hold on other topics. That is I seek balance and integration of my thinking across my whole world view. It would also be quite simple to add ratings to this approach that is rating how any idea enabled the values to which I aspire, then rate any actual behaviour as to the extent we live out the ideas. I define integrity as the congruence of what we say we believe, our values, with what we do. Thus rating what we do against our values is rating our integrity.

Having made my decision about some ideas, I then allow them to shape my responses. I manage my integrity by accepting feedback on how others see me and then reassessing the ideas that enabled that conduct. Occasionally, I will review my values that is the set of principles I accept as the foundation of my existence.

I and I alone have access to my mind. Only via my mind do I access my spirit. I can alter the ideas I use with self-discipline and by paying attention to my mind and what pops into it. I can also assess the ideas by how I feel when particular circumstances occur which in turn trigger responses and habits. If some habit is inconsistent with my values, I will think about it and aim to moderate it. But any habit will always remain as a potential response. I can depower the response by actively reducing the emotions associated with the idea, so reducing the force of the response. 

The theory in Origin states clearly that what we think, our world view, or thought, is a primary driver of both mood and conduct. Second, if we choose we can alter what we think, learn new ways of thinking and enable them to shape us.

The crucial issue is not what we are looking at, but the ideas we choose to ‘look’. The responsibility for what we use to look is ours and ours alone.

Humanity’s future lies in the choices we make today. We need begin by holding ourselves to account against the standard of our own values.

Not politics, nor religion, but personal commitment of people to the integrity between what we say we believe and what we do. All backed by polite, gracious, but determined intolerance for those who do not follow the lead.-§-

The explanation of everything human


‘Into Me See’ series of essays
By Graham Little
These essays summarise and extend the conclusions from the intellectual position in the book The Origin of Consciousness. Excluding this work, there is no general theory of psychology, no general theory of knowledge integrated with a general theory of psychology, no general theory of cause. This means that all historical lines of thinking have failed. Our options are to seek to revise what has been previously offered, or find a new start point. Near forty years ago my research lead me to conclude that everything able to be said had been said, every wrinkle possible had been explored.  I judged further re-treading the historical lines of thinking would prove fruitless.
We need a new start point if we are to fully understand who we are, where we came from, what is religion, what moves us, is there a God, do we have a spirit, what is science, what is truth, do ideas exist, and the other ‘big’ questions. I began by building a new social science methodology, applied it to the system ‘person in their environment’ then interpreted the resulting theory.
I do not have opinions on intellectual issues, what is offered is not ‘opinion’ but conclusions. I believe that truth and verisimilitude are not found in opinion or belief, but in methodology and argument. Where I do apply a judgement unsupported by method or argument, making it an ‘opinion’ or a ‘belief’, I aim to make that clear.
After reading these essays I hope you will then read the book The Origin of Consciousness to fully understand yourself and others, why you are here, why you are as you are, and how to find spiritual fulfilment. Titles of the essays are listed in the menu to the right. For the print version of the book, click Origin.

I recall as a lad in Runanga, my home town, I came home late afternoon with a nasty cut on my knee from a fall off my bike. I raced home after the crash over the bank forgetting about the apples in the saddle bag. We had stolen them off the tree in Jackson’s orchard. Old man Jackson came out and yelled at us, we took off like frightened rabbits and in the rush I crashed. I saw the old man look after me concerned, but turned away smiling when I jumped up and took off. I got lots of sympathy at home, until Dad unpacked the saddle bag to put the bike away. My hesitant story even sounded false to me. Dad stood one arm on hip, cynical but amused expression, one eyebrow cocked. The explanation did not match the circumstance, he did not believe a word I said.
Explanations are only any good if the explanans fits the explanandum. That is if the explanation fits with the circumstance it is to explain.
 

Definition of EXPLANANDUM and EXPLANANS, Merriam-Webster Dictionary on line.
Explanandum:  a word or an expression whose meaning is to be explained —used chiefly in philosophy —contrasted with explanans, which is the meaning of a word or expression.

In Origin we have a theory of psychology. It is the explanans. What is the explanandum? What exactly must it explain?

In a later essay I will explore the question of why should we believe the theory in Origin. How do we know when our theories are true, bearing in mind, as discussed in the essay The structure of truth, we can never know absolute truth, referred to as Truth, and can only ever have theory truer than the one we had yesterday. How do we judge the current best fit to Reality, the verisimilar reality? And yes, it is pronounced ‘very similar’, and means the ‘most similar’, the closest, best estimate we have. I leave for later why the theory in Origin is the verisimilar theory and why it is an advance on everything currently available, including modern neurophysiology. It is a major advance, if not a revolution compared to historical theories. For now, I wish to explore what it is that a verisimilar theory of psychology must explain.

Previously the term ‘mechanisms’ was defined as the processes within any system that acts on any input into the system to produce the output. In the first essay I used the analogy of a fishing trip with rod, reel, and location to illustrate the idea of mechanisms separate from the experience on the day which is the output of those mechanisms. We tend not to experience the mechanisms, merely the results of the mechanisms. Mechanisms processing input to produce the output. It follows that a general theory of psychology being a description of the ‘mechanisms’ within humanity must offer explanation of all outputs of humanity. Nothing is exempt. 

The system ‘person in their environment’ is analysed as a closed feedback system. So how does the idea of mechanisms processing input, work? The mechanisms are not processing input from ‘outside’ the system.  What we have is a dynamic feedback system. For example, the ‘environment’ is constantly changing, our thoughts are constantly changing, and this is occurring without any ‘outside’ influence. So when the environment changes, the mechanisms guide how that change flows through the system. Change in the environment flows into the person and then feeds back into the environment, which further changes, and again flows into the person, and the cycle continues. The system ‘person in their environment’ does not need any ‘external’ input to trigger it. Inputs can come from outside. For example, a stray bullet from a shooting incident just happened to ricochet from a concrete wall and passed through the brain of a bystander.  End of mechanisms within the system...

The theory in Origin is a conceptualisation of the solution to questions like: If the environment changes from A to B, how will the person respond? And once the response is made, how will that impact the environment, and how will that change impact the person... etc.?

In examining what the theory must explain let’s start with the obvious. First the theory must account for every aspect of what today is viewed as the psychology of the person. For example: Personality, consciousness, intelligence, sleep, psyche, spirit, mental health, mental illness, thought, ideas, emotions, attitude, habit, attention, etc. Explaining all this is the easy bit.

If the theory is to have teeth, as they say, it must be causal. What is the point of a theory if we have to say ‘well sometimes it works and sometimes not’. Now we begin to encounter problems, on the surface we think we know causality or ‘the cause’. Cause is the idea that something makes something else happen, that once began it is not stopped. Cause and necessity are head and tail of the same coin.

Whatever it is we know of cause is knowledge by definition. But our knowledge of cause is not cause? All we know of cause is in reality, and as already discussed we cannot assume what is in reality is in fact an aspect of Reality. Recall as well, that probability explanations do not let us off the casual hook. We cannot assume that a mathematical explanation, no matter how accurate the answer it provides, offers any congruence with the mechanisms of Reality, and all we can ever know in advance are the mechanisms whereby the empirical circumstances we experience come to be.  We have knowledge of cause in reality and mechanisms in Reality. The mechanism in Reality are the necessity within any system, cause is the conceptualization of those mechanisms and hence is our knowledge of necessity. 

All knowledge is created by people. All science is knowledge. All so called scientific laws are knowledge. Scientific laws is an historical term applied in the mistaken idea that somehow it was a true and proper aspect of Reality, where in fact it is an aspect of reality. A general theory of psychology as a matter of principle must include how knowledge is created. Now knowledge consists of ideas, I think it very difficult to sustain an argument that ideas are not part of knowledge. All of this means that any general theory of psychology must account for how ideas are created, and hence it must describe exactly the structure of the relationship between an idea and the object of that idea. If what we know of cause is knowledge, then what we know of cause is created by people. Is it possible to understand knowledge without having any idea of what it is or how it is created?  What exactly are the relationships here?

It gets worse.

The logic is as follows:

·         All science is knowledge, part of which is what we know of cause.

·         Knowledge is the foundation of our reality, and therefore must bear a relationship with Reality from which it is derived. We cannot assume reality is congruent with Reality, virtual reality and clear air white out prove that point.

·         It follows that knowledge will bear a relationship to Reality, and the relationship science makes to Reality can only be a detailed example of the relationship all knowledge makes to Reality.  Therefore to fully understand scientific knowledge we need a general theory of how all knowledge relates to Reality, science is then a detail within that.

·         We have established there is reality derived from Reality. The example of people seeing different aspects of the house depending on they use to buy or burgle as filters to ‘look’ establishes we often do not ‘see’ all Reality. Therefore it is appropriate to use the term ‘abstracted’. Any reality is an abstract of Reality. Any reality is an aspect of Reality.  

·         If we understood how exactly we ‘abstract’ our reality from Reality, this would shed light on the structure of the relationship between them. At very least we have the proposition that understanding of how we abstract our knowledge of Reality could influence our understanding of science. Therefore, it follows that in the absence of any in-depth understanding of how we abstract our knowledge, we need be cautious on our speculations on the nature and structure of science which could be changed by the emergence of a general theory of knowledge.

·         But knowledge is created by people, hence any general theory of knowledge must be from within a general theory of psychology. 

The conclusion follows: The interpretation of all science is potentially influenced by the development of a general theory of psychology.

Conversely, in the absence of a general theory of psychology we cannot be conclusive about any of our knowledge. It follows that all statements of science need be prefaced with the qualification "...in the absence of a general theory of psychology, knowledge or cause the solution to which could influence this conclusion, we speculate that..."   The term speculate is not too strong a term, it stresses that we need hold our conclusions as tentative until underlying intellectual issues are finally resolved. I personally summarise this position in the mantra: Knowledge lies in the answer, wisdom in the next question.

We now have cause, knowledge and a general theory of psychology all interrelated in what I call a ‘problem situation’.  All unknown, all awaiting solutions, and those solutions have the potential to impact all other knowledge. A further conclusion is that a general theory of psychology must account for itself, since it itself is knowledge.  I refer to this as the reflexive criteria any general theory of psychology must meet.

I quote below the summary of the circularity from the book, Origin in the section ‘Issues of method’.

“I summarise the circularity below. Begin at any point you are inevitably guided back to your start point.

1.   We need a general theory of psychology. 

2.   But for it to be causal we need to understand cause.

3.   We need a general theory of cause to enable a general theory of psychology.

4.   But what we know of cause is knowledge.

5.   We need a general theory of knowledge to guide us identify a general theory of cause. 

6.   But knowledge is created by people.

Therefore we need a general theory of psychology.  And the circle closes.

To deny this circularity is to deny for example that there is no link between a general theory of knowledge and a general theory of psychology. To deny this circularity is to deny first things need to be done first.

To resolve the circularity demanded an iterative method not a linear method. The iterative method is to create a solution then apply it around the circle until a theory was created that resolved all three issues of psychology, knowledge and cause, simultaneously.”

Western science has significantly followed Rene Descartes method established in the mid-seventeenth century. This was what I refer to as the ‘divide and rule’ process that is complex issues are broken into smaller parts and each solved one at a time. I use it, it works. Well, most of the time.

The divide and rule process does not work in the circularity above because the issues are interactive, which means all issues must be solved at the same time. The only method is iterative that is create a solution and then apply it to provide theories of psychology, cause and knowledge all at once, if it does not, then back to the drawing board.

None of the above means any particular bit of science would be changed by the development of a general theory of psychology. That is not the point.  The point is that in the absence of a general theory of psychology that necessarily contained a general theory of knowledge, which in turn necessarily contained a general theory of cause, we cannot be sure of the status of any our knowledge.  

Imagine proposing to your boss that the price should go up on your main product. The boss says we need research to see what competitors are doing. You strongly argue that is not needed, which is accepted, and the price is increased. Then it comes out the competitors put their price down and suddenly you lose major market share.

We can think of the actions of the competitor as the underlying theory. The thought experiment gives a sense of how what we think today is influenced by underlying theories. So our scientific views today are related to various underlying theories, and where we do not know those theories, then we best tread with caution.

Now our theories are also evolving, but that is not what is alluded to above.  Even our best effort today can be improved upon tomorrow. Even when we take to account all underlying factors. It is now clear that important underlying theoretical developments could profoundly influence many important issues. To promote points of view without acknowledging this is equivalent to continuing to promote the price increase knowing the competitors are reducing their price and the result will be devastating loss of market share. 

In discussing any theory on any intellectual issue we need bring to account underlying factors that if resolved could influence the theory. I refer to this as ensuring first things are done first. The rule states that discussion on any topic must be bounded by what is known of the factors underlying the topic (I call the ‘factors underlying the topic’ the ground of the topic). When theories are created by resolving first things first, then theory is said to be ethically constructed, and hence have intellectual integrity. All theory in Origin is ethically constructed.

What is the point of all this?

Take something which has been generally accepted, for example 'universal constants' in physics, such as Planks constant. In Origin I show how these can arise as a function of how we conceptualise the system and are not necessarily aspects of Reality at all. They may merely represent the communication links between the variables we are using to describe the systems under study, and as such reflect the underlying mechanisms whereby the variables interact. For example, in Plank’s equation E=hν, Planks constant quantifies the mechanism between energy (E) and frequency (ν).

Another example is time. When explored from within a general theory of psychology time emerges as the period between events. It is only present in reality and is not present in Reality. This analysis destroys the idea of space-time, and since we use space-time to account for gravity, for example, what then gravity?  

In Origin I discuss my deep disquiet with these propositions. For centuries, physical science has sort-of over shadowed social science. The fundamental position in Origin has it the reverse. Social science is directing that physics has got many key things wrong.  Can this be? It took me a decade to get used to this idea. To come to terms with the fundamental, that if we create a general theory of psychology that accurately conceptualises the mechanisms with the system ‘person in their environment’ then nothing can be exempt. That system must process every input and account for every output of humanity: NOTHING EXEMPT. The consequences as regards our understanding of the universe are profound.  

In summary, in the absence of a general theory of psychology, which must include theories of knowledge and cause, all science is speculation about the nature of the universe and we do not know if any aspect is truly part of Reality, or is only present in reality.

Where does all this leave us?

In order to understand science we need understand how exactly we interact with and relate to our environment. In the absence of in-depth understanding we need be very cautious of our assumptions and need deliberately hold them tentative, subject to resolution of some very fundamental issues such as general theory of psychology, knowledge and cause. This has not historically been the case, physics and time have been discussed and interpreted independent of any understanding of human psychology.

A general theory of psychology must account for all outputs by humanity, all that which is exhibited by humanity. There can be no exceptions. Further, we need have some sense of priority on what we must explain. In the list of priority factors I include knowledge, truth, culture, social development and politics and all aspects of psychology.   I have not ranked the factors needing explained, but note I have placed psychology as we understand it today at the bottom of the list. Humans were applying knowledge in survival, searching for truth, building cultures, shaping societies through politics long before there was any notion of psychology as we think of it today.  No theory of psychology is worthy of consideration if it does not account for all on the list in broad order of priority of the list. That rules out all historical theories.

There is no general theory of psychology, or cause or knowledge. If we think of all historical theory and lines of thinking, and assume the aim of those lines of thinking was to build theories of psychology, cause and knowledge, then again we can sensibly conclude all historical lines of thinking failed.  We have two choices, we re-tread the historical lines of thinking in the hope we can find a chink not previously exploited and so succeed where all before failed. Or we can start again.

In the early eighties, after near a decade of research looking for the chink, I decided all that could be said in historical lines of thinking had been said. All historical lines of thinking were dead ends, seams that had been worked out. I needed to start again.

Thirty years on I offer the theory in Origin. It is the only theory to date that meets the rigorous standards I set for both creation and explanation. It alters our understanding of ourselves and of the universe in which we exist. This in itself a measure of why it needs to be considered carefully and with due intent to understand, since the breadth of explanation is an important criteria in judging the verisimilitude of the theory.  

Further discussion on why the theory in Origin is correct must await the next essay. -§-