First of all, according to Berger & Luckmann, in "The Social Construction of Reality," there are at least four kinds of symbolic universes which map on to our universe: mythology, philosophy, theology, and science. I am focusing on science.
The 'underlying processes' that we wish to explain using a code system can always map onto multiple codes. Perhaps we can hope for various kinds of mathematics to be proven to be identities. The underlying processes are a very deep structure. The observations map on to the deep structure. The theories map on to the observations. The predictions map on to the theories. True, there is interdependence; but, there are many things missed in the net.
Theories are social constructs. If it is not monolithic, then it must be plural. It is not just that science has a multiple of theories -- every theory has multiples of alternative hypotheses and sets of hypotheses. Alternative theories.
In the construction of the human subject, this universe may be necessarily multi-theoretical. Perhaps so too for the physical universe, especially at the scales of very large and very small.
Finally, though the heliocentric theory is by and large the best current theory for motion in our solar system. This does not eliminate the geocentric theory if you wish to use a more complicated mathematics. True parsimony usually applies here; but, we cannot rule out discarded theories altogether. Discarded theories could be redeveloped at a later date, perhaps for the baby which was discarded with the bathwater so to speak. Unknown theories are at least as unlimited as the human imagination.
I am trying not to speak gibberish. I am also trying to avoid self-indulgent crap and pretentious gobbledygook too. Perhaps one day I shall succeed.
Systematically examining the 'propositional calculus' for each group of theories could allow for many alternate theories. The 'universal' 'law' of gravitation seems to be the most accepted 'theory'. We assume that if it were superseded, then there would be an even more universal law. Perhaps a unified field theory of sorts. But, the later theories do not need to progress. Multiple unified field theories may be possible too. Does this have to be a contradiction in terms?
Does science, by definition, have to be 'conclusive' and rule out differential diagnoses for its subjects? There are few conclusions to the 'bustling confusion' that is commonly experienced. Is it such a bad thing to entertain multiple theories for the same experiences?
