Theoretical Adaptability

From the previous section on The Dilemma of Absolute Truth in Theories, we can conclude that we cannot assert the existence of absolute truth. Moreover, history shows that theories that are not absolutely true have still guided human life and development. From the perspective of human progress, there is no need to confirm the absolute truth of a theory before acting. When observing the world today, we see that religion and tradition are still widely accepted, and various theoretical systems exist across different regions, some of which are entirely contradictory in their claims and guidance. While we can reasonably assume that these theories contain certain fallacies, this does not prevent them from being accompanied by human societal development. Different theoretical systems continue to operate in various regions, with some fostering regional identity and cultural cohesion, guiding local lifestyles and work practices, and occasionally creating barriers to the dissemination of foreign theories.

Based on this situation, I propose the concept of theoretical adaptability:

Although we cannot assert absolute truth, theories that cannot be deemed true still produce various positive or negative effects in human development, life, and work. By observing real-world societal operations, we find that not only do absolutely true theories generate positive effects across various human endeavors. As long as a theory is applied appropriately, even non-true theories can promote societal development and create value for society.

Each individual possesses their own set of theories, based on which they make as rational a set of actions as possible. While this process may not be entirely sensible and involves emotional factors, an individual’s theoretical framework significantly influences their behavior and thinking patterns. In a specific region, the theoretical sets in human minds form a larger regional theoretical set, and the intersection of these individual sets manifests as regional culture, traditions, and other unique expressions. For example, in coastal areas where people have long relied on fishing, locals may believe in specific maritime deities or follow traditional (experiential) methods mixed with superstition to guide fishing practices. These local lifestyles may inadvertently prevent the depletion of fish stocks or protect fishermen from deadly storms. Similarly, in forest-dwelling tribes that rely on hunting, rituals or divinations may guide hunting decisions, resulting in balanced randomization that supports the reproduction of local animal populations and thereby prevents overhunting and species extinction.

In both fishing and hunting scenarios, certain traditional practices, which modern perspectives might deem fallacious, have historically guided human production and labor, producing positive effects on regional societal development.

This perspective offers a new angle to articulate the significance of theories. While we cannot assert a theory’s absolute truth, even theories deemed fallacious may have their uses, which I refer to as theoretical adaptability. The adaptability dimension enables observers to move beyond the binary of truth and fallacy, allowing them to reevaluate a theory’s role. Returning to the geocentric and heliocentric models, both may have adaptability in different contexts. However, theoretical adaptability has contextual limitations. In some scenarios, a theory known to be fallacious can still guide actions, but in others, its fallacious nature may lead to severe negative consequences. For instance, using the geocentric or heliocentric model to plan interstellar travel would undoubtedly fail, but using the geocentric model to guide ancient farmers to work at sunrise and rest at sunset was sufficient.