The Inconsistency Approach to Science (BiPSA)
Science traditionally is a pursuit of consistency. The underlying tacit assumption is that the universe is guided by some laws of nature with which all that happens is fully consistent. This assumption has more to do with human psychology than with any supporting evidence. The Universal theory of innovation assumes the contrary: the universe is explained via several distinct theories which are used as opinion sources to answer a cascade of binary questions. To the extent that the various theories as a group increase the validity of the answers -- science is well served. Much as a client is served by a council of wise people. As long as the council's advise is helpful, it matters not whether it was arrived at via consensus or by some conflict resolution. Similarly, the combined utility of a set of distinct and not mutually derivable theories of science is independent on whether these theories are mutually consistent, or subject to an effective conflict resolution.
Accordingly, we map any issue of uncertainty into a cascade of binary questions: b1, b2, b3, .....bn
Each binary question is responded to by the prevailing set of m distinct theories: T1, T2, T3, .....Tm Each response is in the form {-N:+N}, and the responses are integrated into a summary answer in the same format {-N:+N}, representing the best summary knowledge about the issue. When these answers improve to the point that the innovation objective can be achieved, we regard our theoretical insight as satisfactory. To the extent that raw data must also be incorporated in the BiPSA summary -- our theoretical insight is lacking. A theory of science, hence, is a data acquisition reduction device: reducing the amount of data necessary to come up with sufficiently confident BiPSA response to the binary cascade. By integrating the data acquisition saving over all the innovation objectives invested in, one can compute the universal utility of a theory of science.
