Academic

More on "It takes a theory . . . "

By Lawrence Solum

Paul Gowder reacts to yesterday's Legal Theory Lexicon post on "It takes a theory to beat a theory."  Here is a taste:

Now let?s talk about what it means to ?beat? a theory. There seem to be four possible things that one could mean by ?beating? a theory, that arguably apply to all these classes of theory (which is what someone who utters TBT must want, as it?s uttered in all three of the classes of theory I?ve identified, and those who utter it show no recognition of the differences between them).

1. One could show that some other theory dominates that theory, in that it accounts for everything the first theory accounts for, and additional things besides. Paradigm case: the relationship between Einsteinian and Newtonian physics.

2. One could show that a theory fails to accurately account for something ? that is, that there is an inconsistency between the set of sentences we take to be true and the theory. Paradigm case: voting and rational choice theory.

3. One could show that the theory is deficient on some other ground by which we judge theories, i.e., that it is insufficiently simple, has no real predictive power, etc. Paradigm case: garbage can theory in organizational sociology.

4.  One could show that a theory fails to accurately account for anything ? that the theory is strongly false, there is an inconsistency between all (or most, or extraordinarily many) of the sentences we take to be true and the theory. Paradigm cases: lamarckian evolution, phlogiston theory, divine command theory.

Full post as published by Legal Theory Blog on December 08, 2008 (boomark / email).