I had finally completed my workout for the day and traversed my regular route, heading towards the elevator, down to the ground floor, then out the front doors. It was the moment I headed to the elevator and clicked the bottom arrow that a musing I had maintained resurfaced in my mind.
I recall creating an amusing theory regarding people and how they behave with elevators. I had devised that, say an elevator was on the 10th floor, and said individual was on the 5th floor with the intention of heading up, clicked the bottom arrow, they did so to “summon” the elevator from where it is to where they are. Thus my theory was stipulated as so:
“Individuals who exhibit the aforementioned behavior with elevators, tend to possess a controlling nature”.
Undoubtedly, the grounds on which such a theory was formed was merely an observation followed by a seemingly selected conclusion pertaining to a certain domain, psychology for instance.
While waiting for the elevator and having recalled the trivial theory, I recognized an error I had unmistakably made. The theory jumped to an unfounded conclusion, whilst a more founded one with a firmer grip on a more definite logical conclusion was so obviously in sight. In fact, the jump characterized a general flaw that seeps through thinking in a plethora of ways; ultimately resulting in a more or less far-fetched conclusion. Whilst In forming my theory I had jumped, and missed an imperative logical step which may be of more clarity than the initial theory.
I had overlooked the true maxim. Which is the following, people who exhibit such behavior had undergone these sequential steps:
a) collected information regarding the current floor of the elevator
b) performed a mathematical relation between the floor they were currently on and the initial floor of the elevator
c) clicked the direction accordingly, summoning it to them
In light of this, suppose I were to draw a theory from this observation it would be as follows:
“People who direct the elevator to their floor tend to be calculating individuals, thus are more analytical in nature”.
Is this new theory a sounder one than the first?
I had left the elevator by now and was heading past the doors and to the car park. The thoughts I had began to resemble an interesting section I was reading in Karl Poppers intellectual autobiography, “Unended Quest”, where he tackles the ideas of how theories are generated, the scientific method, and other similar and very different topics. In one of the chapters he makes a clear distinction through his theory of learning, whereby there exists a practical problem that has been sensed or identified, a tentative theory was formulated, then the process of error elimination occurs, finally resulting in a new practical problem. This process can be started at any point (practical problem or theoretical problem) and in essence highlights the incompleteness of knowledge. The crux of the matter can be summarized simply as so: one starts off with a problem, attempts to make it soluble, may or may not have made it soluble, and generates a visible or soon to be visible new problem.
In his book and lectures, Karl Popper used this schema to characterize the formulation:
P₁ → TT₁ → EE₁ → P₂
Not only does science adhere to such a learning process, it is inherent in knowledge as a whole. Poppers formulation can be easily discerned in my musing. I will go on to show this by way of utilizing the schema.
- P₁: (abnormal) behavior of people calling elevators from a floor to their own instead of inputting the direction they want to go, why?
- TT₁: Initial theory that people who exhibit the (abnormal) behavior with elevators are controlling in nature…
- EE₁: A logical jump exists between summoning/directing an elevator to commandeering/controlling nature. Mental steps of an analytical nature exist that these people undergo before summoning, which may indicate a more clearer conclusion. Thus revising TT1 to: People who direct the elevator to their floor tend to be calculating individuals, thus are more analytical in nature.
- P₂: To be determined the next time I use an elevator.
The outcome is therefore a revised theory with the healthy belief that it has not completely solved its identified problem, and rather may incite future problems which may directly or indirectly stem from it. Frankly, such an attitude is necessary for the furtherance of any part of human endeavor — be it biological, behavioral, intellectual or otherwise. As much as completeness’s unimaginable beauty is vigorously sought after, it is imperative to come to terms with the inevitable understanding that completeness is reserved for the infinite and the divine.