A “theory” is a hypothesis combined with evidence, with the purpose of offering an explanation of a phenomenon that allows us to understand the world in which we live. The proposition’s reference to “limitations” in relation to theories, means that there are certain factors that will hinder the extent to which each theory can be explained and justified. However, when we are looking at different types of theories according to areas of knowledge the methodology of the creation of theories will differ, for example, the creation of a natural science theory may be empirically based, which means a limitation could be a lack of technology, and this limitation would not be considered when interpreting Shakespearean plays. We can then ask are different theoretical limitations dependent on the area of knowledge or something else? In the arts to “understand” is to be able to interpret the intended meaning in a particular way, where as in the natural sciences it is to be able to concisely explain phenomena. The principal consideration of the proposition is the necessity to keep a number of such theories and we may question whether keeping a variety may lead to better interpretations, even though contradictory theories may hinder interpretations as well as future developments.
A multiplicity of theories help scientists in the natural sciences to put forward different ideas and develop a singular main correct idea, which then leads to a better understanding of the world. The extent to which for example, Ampere could have called Electromagnetism conclusive was due to the retention of Ørsted’s theory, as Ørsted’s theory was limited as he could not represent the discovery mathematically. This gap of knowledge led to intensive research throughout the scientific community in electrodynamics, which influenced Andre-Marie Ampere to develop a single mathematical form to represent the magnetic forces between current-carrying conductors. The development of Electromagnetism is purely due to Ampere’s development of Ørsted’s discovery. The theory of electromagnetism would not so clearly be understood if not for the retention of both magnetism and electricity. There were numerous theories surrounding Electricity and Magnetism as two different forces, however, through a combination of ideas and discoveries published by different scientists across time, the theory of Electromagnetism was created which also led to the development of special relativity in 1905 by Albert Einstein. That theory would not have been discovered in 1905 if not for the theoretical implications of Electromagnetism, which was only discovered due to a multiplicity of theories being kept. The extent to which Einstein could have confirmed special relativity would have been limited if not for Electromagnetism.
Numerous theories explaining scientific concepts, may eventually prevent development and only confuse us as a ‘theory’ may not yet be conclusive, which leads to a worse understanding of the world. The black hole information paradox is a physics puzzle that requires quantum mechanics and general relativity knowledge. In 1974 physicists Hawkings and Bekenstein hypothesised that black holes are not entirely black, and realised that as the black hole would be producing ‘Hawking Radiation’, it would be losing energy whilst losing mass which means it would eventually disappear. Calculations were also able to suggest that the physical information that entered the black hole would disappear along with the black hole, rather than dissipate with the ‘Hawking radiation’. This was a very controversial discovery as quantum theory suggests that it is possible for black holes to radiate as well as lose information, whereas Einstein’s theory of general relativity suggested that it was impossible. In 2004 Hawkings lost a bet made with physicists Kip Thorne and John Preskill, and he claimed he now believed that black hole horizons should fluctuate and leak information. Throughout 2004 and 2008 Hawkings devoted time, money and effort into creating an explanation for blackholes which lead to him claiming that he had in-fact solved the paradox, however, his claim is still yet to be accepted by the physics community as it was thought that he had not provided a strong enough argument to prove that what he theorized actually happens. ‘Hawking Radiation’ cannot be retained alongside quantum theory as they are not scientifically proven to be completely compatible at this current stage in time. Overall, the creation of ‘Hawking Radiation’ led to quantum theory being scrutinised, which then led to Hawkings having to change his line of argument. This clearly shows that where there is a lack of full understanding, numerous theories may not enhance understanding but instead lead to contradictory theories and eventually confusion.
It can be argued that multiple theories help put forward ideas to develop a singular main correct idea but at the same time; however, in the natural sciences they could lead to a lack of enhancement which would hinder the development of understanding. We gain knowledge as the unification of theories creates a singular theory with a high degree of clarity as all arguments are combined to make a prognosis that allows all arguments to be deemed correct. However, each theory has limitations as they can not be concluded to be conclusive, which leaves a margin for error within each theory which leads to confusion as when this margin for error is explored, new ideas can be suggested which may rival a former theory which leads to hindrance rather than advancements.
In the Arts, different interpretations of works of literature have been interpreted differently through different literary theories, specifically the feminist and new historicism literary theory. If we look at the limitations of such theories, we may see that they are somewhat narrow in their interpretations, which is why we need to keep numerous theories and increase our knowledge as well as adapt the narrow way we think through adding another perspective, which in turn will help us to have a better interpretation of the text. ‘The Great Gatsby’ is a novel written in 1925 in which American Author F. Scott Fitzgerald explores themes of materialism, the American Dream and class. The feminist critical theory explores the manner in which literature may undermine or reinforce the economic, political, social and psychological oppression of women. It also explores inherently patriarchal cultures and aims to expose misogyny in writing about women. We see that women are often sexualised through being described by how they look and what they wear, and they are also often described as property. The new historicism literary theory, however, suggests literature should be interpreted within the context of both the history of the critic and of the author. It insists that both the author and critic could have been influenced by circumstances as well as different beliefs, environment and prejudices. A focus on society in the 1920s, for example, can significantly illuminate our understanding of the novel. The different interpretations from these literary theories provide society with different perspectives which can allow us to create multiple different ideas and build on those ideas leading to a wider and better understanding of different literary texts, hence suggesting keeping a multiplicity of theories do indeed help to understand the text.
Interestingly, there is a theory in the arts called the new criticism literary theory that by definition does not allow a multiplicity of theories to be retained. The new criticism theory suggests literature should be interpreted purely based on the text itself, without considering context or anything else as everything else is irrelevant, including any of the above theories. It suggests that readers must study the text carefully, to find the meaning it possesses, disregarding any additional ‘theories’.
However, I believe using the new criticism theory purely is problematic, as understanding what the author may be trying to relay may be obvious through context, so the author’s subliminal message may be misunderstood without context. Using context would further enhance the reader’s understanding, which is why context is taught in schools. If I had not known context when analysing ‘The Great Gatsby’, then a cultural understanding would be missing for the main message of the text, thus further supporting the idea of the necessity to retain a multiplicity of theories.
So do we actually need to retain a multiplicity of theories to understand the world just because every theory has its different limitations? In the Arts, retaining numerous theories will improve our understanding of the world of literature to give us a rounded interpretation of the text. The unified theories in the natural sciences can also provide the world with a much better understanding as the amount of knowledge regarding each singular theory (despite any limitations) is put together, increasing comprehension. However, the lack of knowledge for the theories surrounding the black hole paradox creates controversy as the extent to which we know about black holes is limited, so that numerous theories can in fact, hinder our understanding of the world. Overall the claim is mostly correct as retaining a multiplicity of theories aids development and provides more knowledge through a different perspective whilst adding useful insight.