Setting up Theories

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by StanyBecker, Dec 26, 2019.

  1. StanyBecker Registered Member

    Messages:
    21
    Be welcome on my article about "setting up theories".
    Beneath, you will find the article itself ("SettingUpTheories - article:").
    After that, wou can find some informaton about myself ("About me:").
    There, you will also find information about the why of these articles.
    You can contact me by sending a reply or via "becker-vidal@skynet.be" ...



    SettingUpTheories - article:

    TITLE
    An alternative way to build scientific theories



    AUTHORS
    Stany Becker



    ABSTRACT
    In this article, we have a look at the way scientific theories are built.
    These theories describe scientifically a `part of reality´.
    This `part of reality´ expresses itself by results from observations and measurements.

    At this time, the usual way is to start from observations and measurements giving some results.
    These results describe the `part of reality´ looked at.
    Then we build a theory explaining these results.
    Using that theory, we should be able to predict future results of other observations and measurements concerning the `part of reality´.

    If the theory doesn’t predict the results (anymore), we have to adjust it (ad–hoc) or build a new one (that does).


    The way proposed in this article is to start from a theory (the other way around).
    As base for this theory, we use some `founding proposition´ as theoretical foundation.
    From that `founding proposition´, we then build the theory.

    The results of the observations and measurements should then automatically fit that theory.

    If results don’t fit the theory (anymore), we first consider the way the theory was built from the `founding proposition´.
    Only as a (very) last resort, we should to take a look at our `founding proposition´.
    Maybe it is not fundamental enough or it is badly formed.


    Based on the described way of building (using a `founding proposition´), we already built three theories:
    1. “Mathematical description of reality”, based on “every description is built using codes” as `founding proposition´.

    2. “Process management”, based on “all informatics–routines can be resumed in a (logical) proposition” as `founding proposition´.

    3. “Data management”, based on “all data–management is done via assignments” as `founding proposition´.

    These articles will be made available soon.
    (Both “Data management” and “Process management” have lead to a tested and working application.)

    On all three mentioned articles, there is a possibility for further research.



    INTRODUCTION
    How can we build scientific theories independently from a `part of reality´ (results from observations and measurements) that describes that `part of reality´?


    The branch of this article is mathematics (“theory study”: foundation theory).


    When starting from a `part of reality´ (results from observations and measurements), we may get into problems when the results from observations and measurements don’t fit the theory anymore.
    This can be so because the theory was built ‘ad–hoc’ to explain the results known till then.

    When on the other hand, we start from some `founding proposition´, we can build a theory to explain the found results from observations and measurements till then.
    Now, if we find results that don’t fit the theory, we may have to adjust the way the theory was built, but not the `founding proposition´.

    Only as a (very) last resort, we should to take a look at the `founding proposition´.
    Maybe it is not fundamental enough or it is badly formed.
    If the `founding proposition´ should have to be changed, we would have to rebuild everything based on it.
    So, this better should never happen …


    To summarize, in this article, we look at a way to build a theory independently from a `part of reality´ (results from observations and measurements) but that does describe the aimed `part of reality´.



    MATERIALS AND METHODS
    The question is “How can we build scientific theories independently from a `part of reality´ (results from observations and measurements) that describes that `part of reality´?”.


    If we cannot use `the results from observations and measurements´ as a base, what should we use?
    Some study and deduction provided the answer to that question.



    RESULTS
    After this study and deduction, we came to the conclusion that we can use a so–called `founding proposition´ as base of our theories.
    A `founding proposition´ is a logical proposition that must be valid in the field of the research.

    From that `founding proposition´, the theory is developped, keeping the results from observations and measurements in mind.



    TABLES AND GRAPHS
    void



    DISCUSSION
    Having found out that a `founding proposition´ is a good base, we look at some examples: “Mathematical description of reality_article”, “Data management_article” and “Process management_article”.
    In this, examples “Data management_article” and “Process management_article” have lead to an application: `AssSet´ and `ReqLan´ respectively.
    (These will not be further discussed here …)

    Of course, there are other examples.
    Point is, you should find a good `founding proposition´ applying this way of working.


    Let’s continue with our examples “Mathematical description of reality”, “Data management” and “Process management”:
    For “Mathematical description of reality”, we take as `founding proposition´: “all descriptions are built using codes”.
    elaboration: `Mathematical description of reality´ (coming soon).

    For “Process management”, we take as `founding proposition´: “all informatics–routines can be resumed in a (logical) proposition”.
    elaboration: `Process management´ (coming soon).

    For “Data management”, we take as `founding proposition´: “all data–management is done via assignments”.
    elaboration: `Data management´ (coming soon).

    Notice that the `founding proposition´ of “Mathematical description of reality” is more fundamental then the ones for “Data management” and “Process management”.
    The two latter can be deduced from the former in the way that we can say that assignments and propositions are built using codes.

    Some suggestions for further research:
    • How can a `founding proposition´ that is fundamental enough and also well formed be found?
    What should be the input and how should we proceed from there to find a `founding proposition´ that is fundamental enough and also well formed?
    (Describe scientifically the way the `founding proposition´ was found for “Description of `part of reality´”, “Data management” and “Process management”, making sure that it is also applicable to other `part of reality´s.)

    Other fields or further research include
    • The elaboration of Mathematical description of reality can lead to further (mathematical) research as “Multiplication of vectors” and based on that: “inverting polynomials” and “solving polynomials equations”.
    The result of such a kind of research could then be used for the Mathematical description of reality.

    • The elaboration of Process management already has lead to an application `ReqLan´.
    Further research can be done on the way how a so-called `founding proposition´ (base for a `ReqLan´–routine) could be built.

    • The elaboration of Data management already has lead to an application `AssSet´.
    Further research can be done in the field of so–called metadata.
    More specific, research could be done in the field of a “value determining routine” as general and unique specification using its `founding proposition´ (from “Process management” – available soon).



    As already said, in this article we propose another way to build scientific theories.
    We use a so–called `founding proposition´ as base instead of results from observations and measurements.

    This is a different point of view!
    It is like introducing a new so–called paradigm.
    It doesn’t add anything “new”, it only changes the point of view: here from `start from observations´ to `start from a founding proposition´.

    You can compare this with what happened describing the orbit of planets across the sky:
    At first, those orbits were described using circles.
    But soon, it was found that circles don’t allow an accurate description, so observers started adding so–called epicycles, epicycles of epicycles etc.
    That went on untill somebody changed the point of view from `only use circles´ to `also allow ellipses´, and suddenly the descriptions became easy.
    Notice that no new knowledge was added!

    What is proposed here is something similar: we just change the point of view from `start from observations´ to `start from a founding proposition´.
    Here, we also don’t add any new knowledge.


    To resume, we can say that we also can start from some `founding proposition´ and then built from there a theory that describes the aimed part of `part of reality´ (the results from observations and measurements).
    Working that way, we will always have a sound foundation for our theories.



    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    void



    REFERENCES (LITERATURE CITED)
    void



    About me:

    My name is Stany Becker.

    I have a degree in mathematics and as such, I am interested in study of space and in "theoretical studies of knowledge".

    Because I am new in the subject of publishing articles however, my first article is about a methematical construction to uniformly compute sums. ("Sum via Integral")

    After that, I will publish my view on the way theories could be set up. ("SettingUpTheories")

    That way is then used in the next articles to point out an alternative way to contemplate reality and to manage data and processes.

    Remark:
    The articles having equations (like "Mathematical description of reality" and "Description of reality") will be postponed until I have found a way to properly publish equations (like in “pdf”-format).
    I will test this on the articles in thread “Sum via Integral”.

    If you have any ideas about this, please let me know …
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. StanyBecker Registered Member

    Messages:
    21
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. StanyBecker Registered Member

    Messages:
    21
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,071
    That doesn't make any sense. How do you start with the result?
     
  8. StanyBecker Registered Member

    Messages:
    21
    The whole point is to build a theory from some "founding proposition" as base!
    So, I don't see a theory as a result of observations and measurements.
    You could rather say that I see a theory as a result of the elaboration of some "founding proposition" (as explained in the article).

    The strength of this way of working lies in the fact that we always have a consistent theory.

    If some observations and measurements don'f fit the theory, we should look at the way the theory was constructed, as explained in the article.

    Maybe you can read the article with the above in mind ...


    As stated in the article, you can also read the examples about "Process Management" and "Data Management" as an example.
    They are available now.
    The example about "Mathematical description of reality" isn't yet, because I still need to find a way to publish "pdf"-equations coming from LaTeX readably.


    Can you let me know what you think about this way of working? (starting from some "founding proposition" instead of starting from observations and measurements)

    Is the article itself clear enough written or do I have editing-issues?


    Thanks in advance for letting me know those things ...
     
  9. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,071
    So make random guesses and then see if they match observation?
    I think it is completely illogical.
     
  10. StanyBecker Registered Member

    Messages:
    21
    One shouldn't make "random guesses" when establishing a "foundation proposition", but one should find a proposition that is really basic enough.
    This is the hard part of the proposed way of working!


    As an example, I'll explain it with the founding proposition of "Data management": "all data–management is done via assignments".
    This is so because one can only initiate or change the value of a field using an assignment.
    There doesn't seem to be anything more basic than that ...
    { This is the hard part I was talking about }

    So, from that point, we develop a theory to find a uniform and generally usueable way to perform data–management.

    You can find out the details in the article about "data management".


    Another example is the founding proposition of "process management": "all informatics-routines can be resumed in a (logical) proposition".
    This is a good "foundation proposition" because it can be proven that all routines can be resumed in such a (logical) proposition.
    Because that (logical) proposition is the most basic you can get, it also can serve as "foundation proposition".
    { Again, this is the hard part }

    The way the theory to simplify and uniformize routine-creation is built from there is exp
    lained in the article "process management".


    I hope this helps you to get an insight of what I want to explain ...

    Any remarks are welcome ...
     
  11. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,071
    No doesn't help at all. Data management has nothing to do with scientific theories.
     
  12. StanyBecker Registered Member

    Messages:
    21
    Data management is mainly about storing and retrieving data to get problems solved.
    For Instance, what do you all need to know to get your employees paid and how do you store thay information in an efficient, maintainable and secure way? (Database theory)

    At this time, people try to understand the object involved and what information is needed from them.
    This leads to a so-called Datamodel.

    That Datamodel usually has redundant information (e.g. he name of an employee is registered on his function description, but also on the payroll and propably many other places).

    To solve that issue, the datamodel needs to be transformed to one (ideally) without redundancy.

    These are difficult, time-consuming and expensive steps and more-over, they limit severely the easy of use and flexibility.

    Now, my idea is not to try model the data, but to simply store the assignments!

    This works because every change involves an assignment somewhere.

    It is that idea that I wanted to publish.



    Also, data management is about "knowing what you know", in other words: what is the meaning of the data? (the so-called metadata)

    On this point, I also would like to suggest an idea:

    Up until now (for as far that I know), metadata are given by specifying by the use of the data.
    This is not a unique specification (people can use the same data for different purposes).
    It also makes comparing the metadata quite hard. (When can you use the same data?)

    My idea to solve that problem is: specify the meaning of data by the (unique) creation-routine instead of by its use!

    Now, routines can always be uniquely specified by their so-called validity-proposition, this is a (logical) proposition that must be kept valid.
    So you don't need to specify a routine by its scheme, code or something else, giving the validity-propsition is sufficient.

    More on that in the thread "Process Management" ...



    What do you think about my ideas? ("storing assignment instead of making datamodels" and "specify data by their creation-routine instead of by their use")

    Any remarks are welcome ...
     
  13. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,071
    Ah, the problem is that I mistakenly thought this was about setting up theories! You want to discuss data management. In the future I would suggest that the title and the OP should have some relation to each other.

    I will bow out now since discussing data management is not interesting to me.

    Have a happy New Year.
     
  14. StanyBecker Registered Member

    Messages:
    21
    it IS about setting up theories!

    I used "data management" (and "process management") merely as an example to show the use of the `founding proposition´ and what you can do with it.

    I thought that the articles about "data management" and "process management" could serve well as an example to illustrate how to build a theory starting from a `founding proposition´.

    Of couse, it also involves some knowledge of the subjects at hand ("data management" and "process management"), but they are not the main issue here.

    Soon, I will deliver a thirth example: "description of reality", also as an example of how theories could be set up starting from a `founding proposition´.


    Maybe you have some examples of a theory for which I could come up with some `founding proposition´ and (re)build that theory from there ...


    I'm sorry about the misunderstanding, but you should know I have had a diagnose of autism.

    As such, I may have some problems with assessing the way other people might interprete my interventions, like the fact that you should think this is about "Data Management".


    Anyway, I am looking forward to your response, maybe with some theories that I could rebuild from a `founding proposition´ (with your help of course) ...
     

Share This Page