TOK: Theory

When I was little, I used to make dumplings with my mom. As an unskilled person, the shape of my dumplings usually came out uneven. I assumed that dumplings with perfect shapes must be made by machines. However, my mom insisted that they were made by skilled crafters. Although we were both looking at the same dumplings at the same time, both of us had different theories as to how it came to be.

Theory is defined as something suggested as a reasonable explanation for an observation. We rely on them to make sense of the world we live in. Every theory is one possible explanation for a condition or a proposed question. However, each one has its limitations since it offers a narrow lense to approach an inquiry. Many theories in math and science are developed through reasoning. Scientific reasoning proposes a series of steps from building a hypothesis to testing that idea. On the other hand, art theories are developed overtime through experiences in emotion. In either areas of knowledge, faith is the fundamental support of all theories. Humans have developed tools such as the telescope and microscope to help us understand the reality. Similarly, theories can be tools we use to reach an understanding. Plato’s Theory of Forms asserts that the physical realm as we know it is only an epistemological shadow of the true reality. A form is the idea of what the world should be, a result of the interpretation of a theory. Admittedly, the more “shadows” we gather, the clearer the picture of reality we see. But problems arise when theories conflict with each other. Likewise in art, an interpretation mixed from various art theories would give a broad but shallow view. Therefore, a multiplicity of theories could pose more confusion than answers, which leads to the question — could a theory with limitations provide a deeper scope of knowledge than comprehensive theories?

Art students usually interpret an artwork using art theories, which are much like literary criticism because they offer a lense to understand the artist’s intention. For example, formalism and abstractism are two popular and contrasting lenses to look at art. The formalism theory in art consider an artwork solely by what is presented without looking beyond the visible -- elements like color, shapes, textures, and line are emphasized, while the context of the work is de-emphasized (sybariscollection.com 2017). Abstract expressionism consider art as a portray of feelings, often requires audience to “experience” the art. As a result, people can have different interpretations of an artwork depending on the theory they choose to use. Each theory has its limitations. Formalism does not take into account the background of the painting and neglects its historical significance. Abstractism looks beyond what is on canvas, and its extrapolations are often unreliable since it requires the audience to feel, using emotion instead of logic. In my middle school art class, we tried to mimic Jackson Pollock’s style by spraying paint on a canvas. Jackson Pollock’s paintings are easily recognizable since they look like a tangled mess. The random lines on the canvas make many think “my cat can do that”. When I first encountered Jackson Pollock’s work, I could not understand how he rose to fame with art that anyone could make. However, I read that the seemingly random scribbles of paints were drawn directly from his unconsciousness. Instead of drawing exactly what he sees, Pollock let his subconscious mind control his hand, revealing what is hidden in his mind. I traced the lines with my eyes, like following his mind. The analysis of Pollock’s artwork enhanced my opinion of his painting. Formalism and abstractism theories cannot be used both at once because they create it. In surrealism, artwork are not a representation of the reality, but artists’ emotion. Formalism leads to an observation of lines and shapes, whereas abstractism leads to an observation of the Pollock’s stream of consciousness. Formalism prevents audience to see his artwork as more than random paint. Using a multiplicity of theories would also lead to a broad but shallow interpretation. Plato’s theory of forms has established that the ultimate truth is impossible because we cannot view the world through multiple lenses all at once; we have limited ability. Then, it would be best to choose one lense to see a deeper image, rather than trying to capture to the holistic but blurry image. Therefore, a multiplicity of theory in art could disrupt the understanding of an artwork.

In science, however, a multiplicity of theory is needed to generate an accurate understanding of the world. Scientific theories are generated by using the scientific method in order of question, hypothesis, experiment, data collection, data analysis, and eventually theory formation. Although the scientific method is useful in checking the validity of a theory, it can be flawed. One of the famous superseded scientific theory, the theory of spontaneous generation, held that living creatures could arise from nonliving matter and that such processes were commonplace and regular. It was hypothesized that certain life forms such as fleas could arise from inanimate matter such as dust, or that maggots could arise from dead flesh. This theory is obviously nonsense today. However, it did follow the scientific method. This theory was believed for more than 2 centuries, until Louis Pasteur settled the question of spontaneous generation with his flask experiment that led to pasteurization. Not only are theories based on limited data, but our understanding of the world is also based on limited theories. Theories are often repudiated as new, more compelling evidence arrive.

Heisenberg’s principle of uncertainty states that one cannot measure both the exact velocity and position of an object simultaneously. The act of measuring an object’s speed changes its position and vice versa. One can measure the exact position at the expense of an accurate velocity, or measure the exact velocity at the expense of an accurate speed. The technique fails to generate a holistic perception of an object. Similarly, we cannot understand the university with a multiplicity of theory simultaneously. Each theory gives a slightly different interpretation, but sometimes the result cannot be combined. This shows that we do not get a better understanding when we apply every theory at once. Instead, a single theory gives an accurate understanding.

Not all theories should be treated equally under all circumstances. When selecting which theory to believe, it is important to take the specific condition into account. This means that we must use a relevant theory when examining knowledge. For example, the world we live in is governed by classical mechanics (Newtonian physics), whereas subatomic particles are governed by quantum mechanics. In the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment, logic conflicts with intuition. Imagine a cat and a bomb in a sealed box. The bomb has a 50% chance of killing the cat in the next hour. At the end of one hour, you open the box. You would see that the cat is either dead or alive. However, Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger pointed out that, in the quantum world, the cat is both dead and alive before you open the box. This idea seems absurd because we are unfamiliar with the laws that govern objects at the quantum level, where matter can be in two states at once. The phenomenon for particles to have dual characteristic is an example of superposition. Schrödinger's cat is a thought experiment for us to imagine what happens at the quantum level. A cat, of course, is too big to be used as a real example. The idea of superposition, however, has been proven in the double-slit experiment, which demonstrated that light and matter can behave both as waves and particles at once (Francis 2001). Laws that govern different areas of knowledge can be vastly different, and the same holds true for different topics in one area of knowledge. This shows that theories are not universal.

A multiplicity of theory in both science and art will likely cause contradictions. Using one art theory can generate a deeper interpretation of an artwork whereas a multiplicity of theory would blur our understanding, providing a broad but shallow view. In science, a multiplicity of theory is necessary to understand our universe. Contradictions in scientific theories can strengthen our knowledge. However, there are times when we cannot apply multiple views at a phenomenon. Therefore, a theory with limitations could possibly provide a deeper scope of knowledge than comprehensive theories in some areas of knowledge.