Once disagreement is no longer framed as “who matches reality,” the next question sharpens:
When two theories conflict, can they both be right?
The classical answer is straightforward:
no, because reality is one way rather than another
conflicting claims cannot both correspond to it
But once correspondence to an independent reality is no longer available, the issue must be reworked.
1. What Counts as Conflict?
Not all differences between theories amount to conflict.
Two theories may:
use different concepts
operate at different levels
focus on different relations
without contradicting each other.
Conflict arises only when:
two articulations cannot both stabilise under the same constraint conditions.
So we must distinguish:
divergence (difference without incompatibility)
conflict (mutual instability under shared constraints)
2. Compatibility and Constraint
Within the framework:
constraint delimits what can cohere
construal articulates possible structures
Two theories are compatible if:
their articulations can co-stabilise within the same constraint structure.
They are in conflict if:
the stabilisation of one excludes the stabilisation of the other.
This is not a matter of opinion.
It is a matter of:
structural compatibility.
3. When Both Can Be Right
It is possible—often common—for two theories to both “hold” if:
they stabilise under different construal conditions
they operate at different scales or domains
they articulate different invariant structures
In such cases:
there is no direct competition
no shared constraint conditions forcing exclusion
So both can be right because:
they are not actually in conflict.
4. Apparent Conflict
Many apparent conflicts arise from:
treating domain-specific articulations as universal
forcing incompatible distinctions into the same space
ignoring differences in constraint conditions
When this happens, theories seem to contradict each other.
But the contradiction is often:
an artefact of misapplied construal.
5. Genuine Conflict
A genuine conflict occurs when:
two theories address the same constraint conditions
make incompatible distinctions
cannot both stabilise under variation
In this case:
they cannot both be right.
Not because reality “chooses” one.
But because:
constraint structure does not permit both to hold.
6. Resolution Without Correspondence
How, then, is conflict resolved?
Not by checking which theory matches an independent world.
But by examining:
which articulation remains stable under broader variation
which maintains coherence across contexts
which integrates with other stable structures
which preserves invariance
The theory that prevails is the one that:
cannot be displaced without loss of stability.
7. No Guarantee of a Single Winner
Importantly, not all conflicts resolve into a single dominant theory.
In some cases:
each theory stabilises within a limited domain
neither extends without breakdown
no unified articulation is available
Here:
conflict persists
without collapse into arbitrariness
This reflects:
limits of stabilisation, not failure of truth.
8. Plurality Without Relativism
The framework allows:
multiple stable articulations
domain-specific validity
partial overlap
But it does not allow:
unrestricted equivalence
arbitrary coexistence
contradiction without consequence
Plurality is constrained by:
what can cohere.
9. The Reframed Answer
We can now answer precisely:
some theories can both be right
but only if they are compatible under constraint
genuinely conflicting theories cannot both stabilise
So the question:
“Can both be right?”
becomes:
“Can both stabilise within the same constraint conditions?”
10. The Short Answer
When two theories conflict, can they both be right?
Only if:
they are not truly in conflict.
If they are:
constraint decides—not by choosing, but by permitting only what can hold.
Next
The next question raises the stakes:
What makes one theory better than another?
That will be the focus of Post 3.
No comments:
Post a Comment