{Theory and Verification [continued (8)]}[19th June 1988]

[Redbook5:177][19880619:1707f]{Theory and Verification [continued (8)]}[19^th June 1988]

19880619.1707

[continued]

The method of construction of such a theory* is likely to be a relatively irrational matter in some respects, as for any other field of inquiry; which is why testing is important.

There is a strong impression that both analysis (if it occurs) and synthesis may often occur partly at an unconscious level. If this is so, viewpoint may be important. Science tends to work 'from the bottom up', i.e. from the conceptual level of its experience; it is open to metaphysics** to work 'from the top down', i.e. from the conceptual level of a possible overall solution, a unifying principle which can then be differentiated 'downwards' to the experiential level of normal applications. (That is not to say that higher or more unified levels are not also open to experience; but this will tend to be 'irrational' experience, perhaps in the sense that even the phenomenal attributes themselves are not readily comprehensible by common perception in the way that, for example, Science's external events generally are.)

The 'downward' differentiation process may well help to 'fill out' the quality of the unifying principle, if such is possible (this depends how one looks at it). Such a process of theory-construction should proceed rationally, but need not proceed logically.*** Multiple perspectives are likely to be found to be essential; they must, of course, be correlated so as not to exclude each other.

----

*[See last seven previous entries, [Redbook5:173-178][19880618:2242d]{Theory and Verification}[18^th June 1988]ff]

**(& may even be essential for it)

***[See [Redbook5:175-176][19880619:1707]{Theory and Verification [continued (3)]}[18^th June 1988]]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger04for07072018]