A Theory of Theoretical Pathology: 5 Interpretative Proliferation

When a theory has lost its anchoring in phenomena, yet continues to generate rich mathematical structure and aesthetic satisfaction, a peculiar outcome follows. Meaning no longer converges. It multiplies.

This is the mechanism of interpretative proliferation.

Interpretative proliferation occurs when a single formal framework supports an expanding array of incompatible accounts of “what is really going on,” with no principled way to decide among them. Disagreement does not signal a problem to be solved. It becomes a stable feature of the landscape.

Meaning without constraint

In non-pathological theory-building, interpretation plays a limited role. Competing ways of understanding a formalism are constrained by phenomena. Some interpretations make contact; others fail. Over time, the space of viable meanings narrows.

When phenomenological constraint is absent, interpretation is liberated from consequence.

The mathematics continues to function perfectly well, but it no longer privileges any particular construal. The formalism underdetermines its own meaning, and nothing external steps in to close the gap. Interpretation becomes a matter of emphasis, taste, or metaphysical temperament rather than explanatory adequacy.

Why interpretations proliferate rather than converge

Interpretative proliferation is often described as an embarrassment of riches: so many ways of understanding the same theory, each illuminating a different aspect. This framing misses the structural point.

Interpretations proliferate not because the theory is too deep, but because it is insufficiently constrained.

When a formal system is tightly coupled to phenomena, most interpretative moves are simply wrong. They misdescribe events, mispredict outcomes, or fail to generalise. Only a narrow band survives.

When that coupling is loosened or absent, the opposite occurs. Almost any coherent story that can be mapped onto the mathematics is permitted. Interpretations accumulate rather than compete.

The illusion of pluralism

From within a pathological framework, interpretative diversity is often celebrated as openness.

Pluralism is taken as a sign of conceptual fertility. The theory is said to be so rich that it supports multiple ontological visions at once. Calls for resolution are dismissed as premature or philosophically naïve.

But this pluralism is deceptive.

The interpretations do not disagree about the world. They disagree about how to talk about a formalism whose relation to the world is already indeterminate. The disagreement is therefore insulated from empirical settlement.

What looks like tolerance is, in fact, stalemate.

Interpretation as substitute for theory development

As interpretative activity expands, it begins to take over the role once played by theory-building itself.

Instead of refining the conditions under which a framework would instantiate, effort is redirected toward redescribing the same formal object in ever more elaborate conceptual vocabularies. New interpretations promise insight, depth, or reconciliation, while leaving the underlying relation to phenomena unchanged.

Interpretation becomes a way of doing something without taking on new epistemic risk.

In this sense, interpretative proliferation is a downstream effect of surrogate success. It allows intellectual labour to continue productively within a closed symbolic system.

Why debates never end

One of the most recognisable symptoms of interpretative proliferation is the endurance of debate.

Decades pass. Positions harden. Generations of researchers inherit allegiances. Yet no decisive argument ever lands. Each side can claim internal coherence, mathematical adequacy, and aesthetic appeal.

This persistence is not accidental. It is structurally guaranteed.

Without a shared site of instantiation, there is no mechanism for convergence. The debate is not unresolved; it is unresolvable on the terms in which it is conducted.

The rhetorical inflation of “interpretation”

As interpretation takes on increased importance, the term itself inflates.

What once named a provisional bridge between formalism and phenomenon comes to name a comprehensive metaphysical stance. Interpretations acquire ontological ambitions disproportionate to their evidential footing. They promise to tell us what exists, what is fundamental, and how reality is structured — all without encountering an event.

The language of interpretation thus masks a deeper absence. It fills the space where instantiation should have been.

Looking ahead

Interpretative proliferation marks a turning point. The theory is now rich in meanings but poor in contact. Disagreement is permanent, pluralism is stable, and critique loses traction.

In the next part of this series, we will turn to the last stabilising mechanism: linguistic drift and rhetorical immunity. Here we will see how key terms stretch, blur, and slide in order to protect pathological frameworks from external challenge.

At that point, pathology becomes self-sealing.

A Theory of Theoretical Pathology: 4 Aesthetic Capture

Once surrogate success is established, a further stabilising mechanism comes into play. Criteria that were once auxiliary — helpful guides rather than decisive standards — migrate into the centre of theoretical judgement.

This mechanism is aesthetic capture.

Aesthetic capture occurs when values such as elegance, beauty, simplicity, naturalness, or inevitability cease to function as heuristic preferences and instead begin to operate as epistemic warrants. What looks right comes to stand in for what is right.

From guidance to authority

Aesthetic values have always played a role in theory-making. They help researchers navigate vast spaces of possibility. They guide attention, encourage economy, and reward conceptual clarity. Used properly, they are productive constraints.

Pathology begins when these values acquire authority.

Elegance is no longer a reason to explore a framework; it becomes a reason to trust it. Simplicity is no longer a preference among alternatives; it becomes evidence of truth. Naturalness ceases to name a modelling convenience and comes to be treated as a property of the world itself.

At this point, aesthetic judgement quietly replaces phenomenological constraint.

Value systems doing epistemic work

Aesthetic capture is particularly insidious because it feels intellectually virtuous.

To value elegance is to resist ad hoc complexity. To value unification is to seek coherence. To value simplicity is to avoid unnecessary proliferation. These are admirable commitments. The difficulty arises when they are asked to do work they cannot do.

Aesthetic values are coordination values. They organise collective effort. They stabilise research communities. They make long-term collaboration possible. What they do not provide is contact with phenomena.

When value systems are pressed into epistemic service, the distinction between what a community prefers and what the world affords begins to blur.

When ugliness becomes disqualifying

One of the clearest signs of aesthetic capture is the treatment of recalcitrant phenomena.

Empirical irregularities, awkward parameters, or inelegant mechanisms are no longer challenges to be accommodated. They become embarrassments. A theory that works but offends aesthetic sensibilities is dismissed as provisional, shallow, or fundamentally misguided.

Conversely, a theory that fails to account for any observable phenomena can retain prestige so long as it satisfies the prevailing aesthetic ideals.

In this way, aesthetic capture inverts theoretical priorities. Appearance overtakes accountability.

The moralisation of taste

As aesthetic values harden into standards, they take on a moral tone.

Those who resist an elegant framework are said to lack vision. Those who insist on phenomenological grounding are accused of conservatism or intellectual timidity. Skepticism is reinterpreted as an aesthetic failure rather than a methodological one.

This moralisation further insulates the theory from critique. Disagreement is no longer about evidence or explanation, but about sensibility.

Taste becomes destiny.

Why aesthetic capture is so effective

Aesthetic capture works because it recruits genuine intellectual pleasure.

There is real satisfaction in seeing a complicated landscape fall under a single formal principle. There is delight in inevitability, in the sense that things could not have been otherwise. These experiences are powerful, and they are not illusory.

What they are not is evidential.

When the pleasure of coherence is mistaken for the presence of a phenomenon, the theory gains an emotional resilience that is hard to dislodge. Doubt feels like vandalism.

The closure of possibility

Paradoxically, aesthetic capture often presents itself as openness.

By privileging deep principles over surface phenomena, the theory claims access to a broader domain of possibility. In practice, the opposite occurs. Alternative approaches are excluded not because they fail empirically, but because they violate taste.

The space of viable theories narrows, even as the rhetoric of depth and fundamentality expands.

Looking ahead

Aesthetic capture completes the transition from theory as a constrained engagement with the world to theory as a self-sustaining symbolic practice. Success is now recognised aesthetically, defended morally, and pursued collectively.

In the next part, we will turn to a further consequence of this shift: interpretative proliferation. When mathematics is unconstrained by phenomena but saturated with aesthetic value, meaning fragments rather than converges.

At that point, disagreement becomes permanent.