Your Theory's No Better Than My Theory!

We live in a subjective world.  Why?  Because we are all subjects and the objects around us are what we observe them to be.  Perception is reality.  So I'm not sure of the meaning of 'objectivity'.  If a square shape to me looks like an oval shape to you, but we both use the word 'square' to describe it because that's the language we've learnt, does that mean the shape has been judged objectively to be square?  Objectivity suggests we can get into the minds of others, which I don't think is possible.

If we can't be sure that the existence of a square shape is a 'fact', what about more complex assumptions that are generally known as theories?  I do a lot of reading and get involved in Internet-based discussions on esoteric subjects, such as systems thinking.  As soon as the word 'system' comes into play, it conjures up a plethora of meanings.  That's because systems are mental constructs and exist only in our minds.  A system is a set of interacting or interdependent components forming an integrated whole.  So a tree can be thought of as a system that includes a root, a stem, branches, leaves and internal conveying systems.  The tree is an open system that interacts with many other systems, including animals, humans, birds, bees, soil, atmosphere and the sun.  But it's not a system, it's a tree!!  If I draw a system diagram of a tree, it is merely a mental construct to help me to understand how the tree functions and explain my understanding to others, who, by the way, might think differently.  The map is not the territory.

We all have theories, which can sometimes be supported by sophisticated modelling and simulation techniques to make a point.  I don't have a problem with that because the more information we have to support a theory might allow our thinking to converge with others to the point where our perceptions might align.  The words I use to describe something might be similar to, or even the same as, the words someone else uses to describe something.  However, a square in my mind might be an oval in yours, even if our descriptions are the same!

What is sometimes irritating to me is when someone will support their opinion with a theory from a guru, like Russell Ackoff, Peter Senge or Buckminster Fuller, in a way that suggests the guru's opinion legitimises their own theory.  Why should it?  Why are Peter Senge's theories, for example, better than my theories?  Don't get me wrong, I have a great deal of respect for Senge et al, but we are all human beings with our own mental constructs that help us to describe and try to understand life.

"Theories pass.  The frog remains.

Thank you Jean Rostand.