There are certain things you cannot explain. At least so I think. No matter how you try, it’s not entirely possible to provide a good and ‘accurate’ explanation over them. Scientists have known this for years, which is why there have been many proposed ‘theories‘ that attempt to explain an occurrence, process or eventuality, which over the years end up being updated, superceded or changed. It doesn’t for a moment follow that there couldn’t be another model (we haven’t yet encountered) for explaining the phenomena itself.
Let me give you a common example:- Thinking. What is thinkinghat happens during thinking? Can you explain it, say with an equation, in a photosynthesis kind of way? Would such an explanation be accurate? Or is it intermediate? Or does the explanation of thinking depend partly on what the person is actually thinking?
How about the common scientific doubts over other physical phenomena, how do you explain them?
A different example, why do I like one type of music, and not another, or one artist over another. What factors are influencing my preference? Is it a conscious or subconscious action — the very ‘process’ (if we can call it that, for now) as to whether I will end up liking a song or not? Scientifically, how can you explain this process when I’m listening to a new and unfamiliar song…what exactly is happening, and what sequence in the music determines whether I will like it, and another person will end up not liking? What are the differences in our physiological (or pcychological) make up that causes this ‘preference’? Does it mean that if the process is found to be a ‘predictable’ process, then it can be determined, replicated, or externally influenced? Or is the whole thing a bit random and indecipherable? Unexplainable?
Another example, how come I can’t stand Marmite, whereas everyone in my household likes the stuff. What are the dynamics or science, or psychology behind this state of affairs? What ingredient, quality, predetermination or bias is present in the people in my household, that is absent in me, which enables them to appreciate and thoroughly enjoy (in this case culinarily), a product such as marmite, whereas I can’t as much as look at it?
Let’s go up a notch. Why should I be allergic to certain foodstuffs (Some of which I wished I was able to eat) when others are able to eat without a problem? I didn’t have a decisive choice in the matter, surely, I should be able to eat the food that grabs my interest (or at least my taste buds’ interest)? Who gets to bestow on another what they should be able to eat or should be allergic to? Or is it a genetic thing? Can you undo it? Why me, and not them 🙂 ?
There may be perfectly sensible theories or answers to these questions, some of which I’m yet to encounter, and my argument is not against conclusive evidence that has been used to verify such hypotheses. My contention is at what point does a theory become a wild guess?
- On the scientific dimension of the investigation of society. (interstellar6.wordpress.com)
- New principle may help explain why nature is quantum (nanowerk.com)
- Under the gaze of theory (rebekahrasmussen.wordpress.com)
- Theory of Semiology (chelseapadgett.wordpress.com)
- Dr. Sherrie Campbell’s New Book Explains DIY Psychology (prweb.com)
- PsychologySchoolGuide.net Infographic Highlights Career in Forensic Psychology (prweb.com)
- What’s Your Theory? (aretescholar.org)
- Challenging Objectivity and the Object-Concept Duality (multisenserealism.com)
- Morphogenetic Fields Theory Makes Genetics Obsolete and Unnecessary … and Cellular Memory Understandable: The Theories of Morphic Resonance and “Prior Conditions” (mladzema.wordpress.com)
- An Interview with Don McLeroy, Part I (theness.com)
- Disruptive Technologies (McKinsey.com)