Once we abandon truth as correspondence to an independent reality, a sharper question emerges:
If theories are not judged by how well they match the world, what makes one theory better than another?
This is the point where many expect the framework to weaken.
It does not.
It becomes stricter.
1. The Classical Standard
Traditionally, theories are evaluated by:
how accurately they represent reality
how well their claims correspond to what is “really there”
Other criteria—simplicity, elegance, usefulness—are often treated as secondary.
The primary standard is:
correspondence.
But once correspondence is no longer available, this hierarchy collapses.
2. The Need for New Criteria
If we cannot ask:
does this theory match reality?
we must ask:
how does this theory behave under constraint?
This shifts evaluation from:
representation
to:
performance under structured conditions.
3. Stability Under Variation
The first and most basic criterion is:
stability.
A theory is better if:
its articulations hold under variation
its distinctions do not collapse when conditions shift
its claims remain coherent across transformations
A weak theory:
works only under narrow conditions
breaks when extended
requires constant adjustment
A strong theory:
continues to stabilise as conditions change.
4. Range of Admissible Application
The second criterion is:
scope.
A theory is better if:
it applies across a wider range of constraint conditions
it can be extended without loss of coherence
it captures multiple domains within a unified articulation
This is not mere generality.
It is:
sustained stability across variation.
5. Integration with Other Structures
The third criterion is:
integration.
A theory does not stand alone.
It exists within a network of other articulations.
A better theory:
aligns with other stable structures
supports mutual reinforcement
avoids generating incompatibilities
A weaker theory:
isolates itself
conflicts unnecessarily
fails to connect
Integration is:
stability across relational networks.
6. Invariance Tracking
The fourth criterion is:
invariance.
A theory is better if it captures:
what remains stable across admissible construals
what does not depend on particular articulations
what persists under transformation
This is where objectivity resides.
Not in independence.
But in:
what cannot be otherwise within the constraint structure.
7. Economy Without Reduction
A further refinement:
economy.
A theory is better if it:
achieves stability with fewer assumptions
avoids unnecessary distinctions
compresses structure without loss
But economy alone is not sufficient.
A simple theory that fails to stabilise is not better.
So economy must be understood as:
efficient articulation of stable structure.
8. Failure as a Diagnostic
These criteria also explain failure.
A theory fails when it:
loses stability under variation
collapses outside narrow conditions
cannot integrate with other structures
fails to track invariance
Failure is not:
disagreement
rejection by others
It is:
inability to stabilise under constraint.
9. No External Arbiter Required
Notice what is absent.
There is no appeal to:
an independent reality
a final ground
an external standard
Evaluation is internal to the system.
But not subjective.
Because it is governed by:
constraint and stabilisation.
10. The Reframed Standard
We can now state the criteria clearly.
A better theory is one that:
stabilises under wider variation
applies across broader domains
integrates with other stable structures
tracks deeper invariances
does so with minimal but sufficient articulation
This is not weaker than correspondence.
It is more demanding.
11. The Short Answer
What makes one theory better than another?
Its ability to:
stabilise, extend, integrate, and track invariance under constraint.
Next
The next question turns this into a sharper edge:
Why do some ideas fail?
That will be the focus of Post 4.
No comments:
Post a Comment