There is a saying, I guess you might even call it a theory that says that a theory is not a theory if it cannot be proven to be erroneous. Think about that a bit. Also, think about how we generally use the word "Theory." For instance, I, and you, have heard the saying, "No one who can read has ever been successful in cleaning out the attic." Now, you and I both know that this is not scientifically true. We will both say, "Yeah, I know that." But when asked if we know why it is not scientifically true, we will be hard pressed to be able to answer, except in mere generalities. We will be able to confess that in at least three tries to clean out the "attic" so to speak, we got so tangled up in the books and letters and old essays from high school that before we came back to the "real world," it was time to retire for the day. The "attic" was still a mess, but we were happy with our total lack of productivity because we had so much fun. So we hear the saying and we concur with the kernel of truth that it contains, but we're not ready to declare it a bona fide theory. Why? Because we know very well that it is a humorous, common sense kind of observation that has no basis in scientifically proven truth. However, and this is the point, we sometimes use the word theory in the meaning of, "I have an opinion." This is a very common practice among athletes, or more properly, those who compete in team sports. Like I used to do. I have come to the observation of how many "theories" the losers spout forth. The winners, for the most part, don't need "theories." All they need is a nice cool beer. In all the case of the athletes, there is always the promise of the "next time." That too, is not a theory.
The reason why I have this thought is because today I heard a great one. I am going to call it a
"paraprosdokian." It sure sounded like a theory to me because it was given in a very serious conference. It came at the end of a talk on cultural differences, not to call them idiosyncrasies. After extolling the virtue of punctuality among her people, the speaker, with a very straight face and pleasantly accented voice closed her presentation with the assurance, "... are convinced that punctuality is very important,
but be ready to wait." Now I
know the culture about which she was speaking. I can assure you that this is not a
theory. It is an
axiom. I say this, tongue in cheek, because it cannot be proven to be erroneous. There is too much historical and factual evidence to back it up. So, while we speak confidently of the theory of relativity and the theory of evolution, we speak even more confidently about the fact that certain cultures have a deep respect for punctuality, just as long as they are not expected to be on time.
Finally, let me tell you that, in this article, I am playing footloose and fancy-free with a true concept of scientific value. It is the concept of
falsifiability. That is the true measure of any true scientific statement that is not an axiom. It is the engine that makes scientific progress work. Every non axiomatic truth is open to discussion and to challenge, both in its entirety or in its singular parts. True scientists leave themselves open to correction and/or revision 100% of the time. Imagine what the world would be like if everyone operated under that kind of pressure. There wouldn't be any politicians. There wouldn't be a lot of things. Sadly, there would also not be any poets, painters, musicians and bloggers.
If you want to get serious about this reflection, I suggest that you discipline yourself to read the book <
How to Think Straight About Psychology> by Keith E. Stanovich, of the University of Toronto, published by Longman, copyright, 1998, fifth edition. [234 pages]
My personal story with this book is this. When I was in my third year of college, I started my upper level classes in philosophy. The professor stressed that philosophy is a science. He also stressed that Theology is a science. I was given many explanations for these statements along the way. Some 40 years later my elder son was in college. When he started his upper level classes in psychology, he heard the same assertions about psychology. The assertions that he got were accompanied by this book. It was his responsibility to digest it during the first month of the semester. I saw him reading it. When he finished, I devoured it. I still have it and I still go back to it. It helps me straighten out my frazzled mind. I had some fun with some of the ideas tonight. To be fair, I have to give Mr. Stanovich credit for a book that has helped me keep my head screwed on right when I needed it the most. Still do!
