Originally Posted by
Lev Kamensky
Quoting from “Introducing Psychology: “Although we often use the word “prove” in everyday life, strictly speaking NOTHING CAN BE PROVED. This is simply because NO amount of evidence is sufficient – there is always a possibility of new, conflicting evidence.
A cartoon follows: Once there was a Theory that all swans were white…But then Black Swans were discovered…No-one yet found a Spotted Swan…
So, just collecting lots of data to SUPPORT a Theory is of limited use: a good Scientist looks for evidence to DISPROVE a Theory.
Science is a bit like Law: even in court, it’s not possible to PROVE someone is guilty – only that they are, “beyond reasonable doubt”. There have been many convictions where later evidence has led to a reversal!
In “Science”, we can also never be certain that a Theory is “correct” or “true” – we therefore prefer to think of a Theory as being USEFUL, until a better one comes along. Newton’s Theory of Gravity (attraction of objects) was replaced by Einstein’s Theory of Gravity (distortions in space).”
I prefer to think of Jung’s methodology or Socionics as useful (living symbols), rather than absolute truth:
“An expression, which stands for a known thing, is a sign, and never a symbol. A symbol is alive only so long as it is “pregnant” with meaning. Once the meaning has been born out of it - the expression is found which formulates the thing sought, expected, or divined even better then the symbol - it becomes a conventional sign for associations that are more completely or better known elsewhere. (Or it retains only a historical significance)
Any psychic product, if it is the best possible expression at the moment for a fact as yet unknown or only relatively known, may be regarded as a symbol, provided that we accept it as the expression for something that is only divined, and not yet clearly conscious.
Since every scientific theory contains a hypothesis, and is therefore an anticipatory description of something still essentially unknown, it is a symbol.”
“A symbol really lives only when it is the best and highest expression of something divined but not yet known to the observer. It then compels his unconscious participation and has a life-giving and life-enhancing effect.” ((Jung))
So what I am saying is let's not get fanatical about theories. They may not make sense -- but symbols never do:
"Such products are so constituted that they would lack any kind of meaning were not a symbolic one conceded to them.
Taken as a bare fact, a triangle with an eye enclosed in it is so meaningless that it is impossible for the observer to regard it as a mere accidental piece of foolery. Such a figure immediately conjures up a symbolic interpretation." ((Jung))