Theoretical Openness

As discussed, we may identify a theory’s fallacies but cannot assert absolute truth, placing us in an intermediate state between truth and fallacy when evaluating theories. When we disagree with a specific theory or viewpoint and notice logical flaws or fallacies in others’ conflicting views, the typical response is to criticize or attack those flaws. However, based on the above reasoning, we cannot assert the absolute truth of our own views either. From others’ perspectives, our theories may also contain fallacies or logical gaps. Ultimately, people should not constantly oppose others due to differing theories or views. Here, I propose an alternative way to approach differences.

When we identify flaws in another’s theory, we can only prove its fallaciousness or logical gaps (not absolute truth), but we cannot deny its adaptability to their context. As shown earlier, even fallacious, non-true theories can have positive value in certain scenarios.

We apply a theory or solution because we believe it has greater adaptability to the context we face. When evaluating different theories through the lens of adaptability, there is no need to negate others’ theories. Instead, we should explore the meaning and value of their theories in their specific contexts from their perspective.

When people refrain from asserting the absolute truth of their theories and instead explore the adaptability of different theories, they enter a state of theoretical openness. In this state, individuals continually update their theoretical frameworks to achieve higher adaptability and apply them, thereby improving their circumstances.

(Later sections will discuss the relationship between theoretical openness and consensus-building mechanisms. In consensus-building, criticism is one method to achieve consensus, as new theories and differentiation require discussion and critique of existing ones. However, understanding and accommodating the adaptability of others’ theories under a state of individual theoretical openness is equally important and can serve as another tool in consensus-building.)