Multi-theory approach.

[dust1n]

Some of our data fit one of the[...] theories better
than another; some fit equally well into two or three theories;
some don't fit any theory yet. The multi-theory approach (or,
as it is called in physics, the multi-model approach) is the
only way to deal adequately with all the facts. Any single theory
approach is premature and causes a truncation of our
intelligence; it forces us to ignore or belittle parts of the data
that might be crucial.

The multi-model approach began in sub-atomic physics
and is chiefly due to Nobel laureate Niels Bohr. In dealing
with certain mysterious entities on that quasi-astral plane,
physicists had found hard evidence that these entities were
particles. Good. Unfortunately, other evidence, equally persistent,
showed that the entities were really waves. Not so
good. Some physicists held to the particle theory, and insisted
that all evidence supporting the wave theory would
eventually be explained away. Others, however, accepted the
waves and rejected the particles. Still others, somewhat facetiously,
began talking of "wavicles." Bohr suggested that the
search for one correct model was medieval, pre-scientific and
obsolete. We can best understand sub-atomic events, he said,
if we accept the necessity of allowing for more than one model.
As Marshall McLuhan has pointed out, in The Mechanical
Bride and other works, the multi-model approach has now influenced
all the sciences and even appears in modern art (e.g.,
cubist paintings show several views at once; Joyce's Ulysses
describes the same day in various styles—epic, dramatic, journalistic,
subjective, naturalistic, etc.). McLuhan has even proclaimed,
in his usual apocalyptic style, that the multi-model
approach is the most important, and most original, intellectual
discovery of the 20th century. Count Alfred Korzybski
said that it marked the transition from Aristotelian civilization
(dogmatic, monistic, authoritarian) to non-Aristotelian
civilization (relativistic, pluralistic, libertarian)...

What do you think? Is the multi-theory approach legit?

 

[Eyedeology]

It looks like its a productive way of mutually researching a topic, it allows more efficient development in data. Although also stated, it confuses and divides any suitable conclusion...So i guess a multi-model approach is the best at establishing facts/information even though it has a small chance that information will conflict.

 

[Peacewise]

The multi model approach is pretty intuitive for me.
Newtonian model for large objects moving slowly. Einstein model for near light speed moving objects. Quantum physics for very small.
Perhaps I miss the point, but these seem to be multiple models of the universe.
Same goes in psychology, it's called multi-modal I believe, applying whichever model helps the patient, say cognitive or behavioural or the various other models.

 

[wmjbyatt]

The data are the data, and we can interpret freely around that. So long as the models fit the relevant data, they are useful for organizing our thoughts. Switching between models is acceptable, then, since certain phenomena are more comprehensible under some models than they are under others.

 

[ATAT]

My honors thesis was a refutation of global consistency.



Your position in topic A need not be consistent with your position in topic B.



It suggests further examination, but if your best position in topic A contradicts your best position in topic B, that's fine, you can keep both positions.



Just because both are 'logically' impossible does not mean that you should drop either, even if it is true that one must be false. Of course, often it's just a contrary state, not a true contradiction; hence, a resolution may be hiding.



Zeno's paradoxes of motion were not solved for 1900 years.



A politician should not be pressured and should not give up either of his positions just because they seem to contradict each other.



If we demand consistency, then we demand less than our best.



Imagine another world, a horrible world, where only tall politicians could become President. That would exclude a huge talent pool from the field of choice, statistically reducing the quality of our leadership, and by extension, ourselves. Of course, that's our real world. But we should try to improve it.

Nothing moved for 1900 years?

Of course there was motion for 1900 years, we just had a contrary condition which we thought was a contradiction.