More on “It takes a theory . . . “
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.
Source: Lawrence Solum
