Theory, knowledge and vectors

[FrankM]

We are presented with many "theories" on why something works or doesn't work. There are theories on social issues, economic issues, religious issues, science issues, etc. Has anyone attempted to organize the basis for a theory by presenting knowledge (supporting and not supporting) by rational quantified vectors?

 

I tend to be better acquainted with science theories than those in the social arena, but it seems that a similar approach would be applicable to any "set of knowledge" that supports a theory. Once a "knowledge set" is quantified by vectors, it would include values that directly support a theory, those that partially support it, and those that are diametrically contrary to the theory.

 

In "theory" such a "theory, knowledge and vector" system would filter out emotional preferences for a theory, thus exposing it to a more rational evaluation.

[UncleAl]

Can any collection of observations on large numbers of humans result in their pertinent behavior being mathematically modeled with any useful predictive value? Social engineering, politics, religion, macroeconomics, psychology, diplomacy, penology, public education... are amplifying disasters when subjected to centralized analysis and legislated action therefrom. Project Headstart (babysitting slum bunnies), with a budget $billions/year larger than the National Science Foundation (funding all of US physical science research), is illustrative. After 35 years of unmitigated disaster and corruption, with no measurable achievements whatsoever, all we hear is calls for more intensive and more expensive application of... the loser, Project Headstart.

 

Intensive 24/7 observation of chimps by Jane Goodall, Koko the gorilla by Francine "Penny" Patterson, etc., result in one inescapable conclusion: More studies are needed. Buncha crap - then, now, forever.

[FrankM]

Can any collection of observations on large numbers of humans result in their pertinent behavior being mathematically modeled with any useful predictive value?.

 

Actually, after the observations are taken, it can model what happened in a given set of conditions, and if the same conditions exist in the future, one can expect a similar result. Pouring money into a project without changing the conditions that created undesired results is the usual bureaucratic method, a predictable response.

 

I do believe that a collection of observations on large numbers of humans can identify pertinent behavior, but one must take care in quantifying the conditions (variables) that influence the behavior (that is the hard part).

 

Consider the effect of an economic "theory" that prohibited one from being able to pay interest on money that was loaned to them, and at the same time the one that had the money to loan could not charge interest, but he could earn interest if he loaned the money to individuals outside of the group. If you put this economic theory into practice you could measure the effect this would have on the relative economic viability and growth of a given group. If you then decided to extend this economic "theory" to a larger group with similar demographics, could you expect the "pertinent human behavior" and economic viability observed in the smaller group to apply to the larger group?

 

When I mentioned creating a "theory, knowledge and vector" system, it was intended to provide a rational way to evaluate a theory.