The problematic problem of reality - why is it a problem?
In all experiments built to examine the nature of reality, there's always one prominent flaw - control factors. In each and every experimental setting, there is always the rule of making the least effort to discard extraenous variables. The point is, the less variables that are not under control, the better. In addition, researchers always strive to have the least varibles, because it will make the equation more complexed and thus increasing the chance of making an error in the process. When testing hypothesis, researchers would use the simplest techniques conceiveable to test the most complexed of phenomenon.
After reading a post by Chris Catham from his blog of developing intelligence, i came to familiarize myself with a theory or rather practice in formulation of theories called Occam's Razor. The Razor utilizes the principle of using the simplest theory is the best, but this is not achieved by making it too simple. There is a difference from Occam's Razor and the reduction method of simplification. In simplification one would simplify an item to the intended outcome. In this manner of reduction, oversimplification errors are very likely to occur. Occam's Razor utilizes a similar method, but one which is more probable to achieve a rational, well-founded theory. It states that a theory should be simple but at the same time able to explain all occurences of the phenomena. Thus, theories that do not explain all phenomena in context are said to be oversimplified and needing of further exploration.
In the terms of actualizing reality through a theoretical point of view, there are many forms that are being used. One of the methods thats is very well known is the OGK method. OGK bluntly and crudely means "Only God Knows". I'm sure that many have heard of it and not to mention used it as well. Perhaps this would be said to be the layman version of "unable to explain" phenomenon. You just give up on trying to explain a certain something to a certain someone, so you bluntly answer in resignation: "OGK."
What if you're a philosopher? One hot debate is between Immanuel Kant and Ayn Rand. I've read a few of Ayn Rand's arguments towards Immanuel Kant and there seems to be many distinct viewpoints that each person is trying to utilize. This brings a very prominent attribute of reality - superflous possibilities. As one argues with another, it is always important to remember that each person is using his or her perception as the arsenal for attack. It is not until both reach an agreed state of in-between perception that the arguement comes to an end. Thus, in an experimental design, we must first realize that we are looking at one specific context/perception. Making sure that the theory or hypothesis fits the data accomplished through experimental processes is ensuring that the theory fits that specific context of reality.
In actualization, one cannot just look at one side of the equation, but rather think that whatever you are working on is just one piece of the puzzle. Plus, reality might not be linear at all. With all the changes that one single being can produce, it is a multi-layered thing. One dictator rules over one doctrine, but other doctrines might not necessarily follow even if confronted with undisputable evidence. Reality would be very simple to explain, if only not for the human factor. Sadly, it is always this human factor that is likely to be lacking in any theory, making them temporal and perhaps very narrow in their flexibility to account for situations in general.
To view a full list of my links, please click below.