The Study Philosophy—The theory and role of the study

Since introducing my theory that there is a causal link between autism and cPTSD, particularly that long term unmet autistic needs lead to cPTSD over time, I've received a lot of questions about why this is a theory and not a hypothesis.

So, I'm going to take a few minutes to focus on this question, because it's an important one.

First of all, theories and hypotheses exist in different domains to solve different things.

Theories are philosophical. They exist to pull together existing ideas and to connect dots in new ways that humans have not considered before. (At least not in any formal way.)

The main role of a theory is to create new meaning from existing knowledge. 

But theories are not meant to prove. They are meant to explore. 

They are meant to introduce new ideas in the landscape of human knowledge and understanding as just that... ideas.

Theories cannot be proven right or wrong because there is no existing being that holds that level of knowledge (the ultimate truth about anything) to assess whether it's right or wrong.

So, as humans, the best we can do is theorize. Come up with what we think is right. And then come up with reasoning as to why we believe that.

That's where the sciences come in. 

The sciences look to investigate theories. 

They build entire systems to isolate out specific ideas and look for measurable/quantifiable evidence in the world (physical, biological, social, psychological, spiritual, etc) that either conflicts with the theory or supports it. 

Conflicting information can be enough to completely disprove a theory. But supporting information can never be enough to outright prove one...

Because, as I mentioned earlier, there is no being who knows the ultimate truth, who can evaluate our findings to determine if we have found it.

Think about children on a playground. They can come up with several versions of what they believe is happening when it's raining. 

One might suggest it's god crying. Another might suggest it's a parent with a waterhose standing on the roof...

But will any even come close to articulating what scientists have discovered? Of course not. They're children.

They might climb on top of a playhouse to see if they can see a parent with a waterhose. They might theorize about god and come up with all sorts of reasons they believe the rain is god's tears...

But they will never get to the point of understanding rain the way our greatest scientists have. 

Now think about science as a field.

Did we always know everything we know now about how rain works? 

We didn't. Scientists had to investigate. Study. Analyze. Understand. 

And our understanding of the rain has evolved a LOT since the stone age. 

Because science evolves by building on past discoveries. We knew more in 1900 than we did in 1800. We knew more in 2000 than we did in 1900. And we will know more in 2100 than we knew in 2000. 

It's how science works. That's why the field exists.

But here's the thing...

Before scientists can investigate... they need a theory. 

Something to investigate. Not something they are convinced is correct so they can look for proof that supports their belief.

But something they feel makes sense based on everything that's been investigated and discovered before.

A new theory... synthesized from existing information, identifying new patterns, connected new dots, and putting all of it together in a novel logical formulation to construct a new idea.

And this is where the field of philosophy comes in. That's one of its most important functions. To find new truths we can investigate. 

So that's what we do. We construct entirely new ideas (built upon existing ones). 

Oftentimes theories that are extremely vast. Think theories like Maslow’s Theory of Human Motivation (and his hierarchy of needs), Darwin’s Theory of Evolution (and natural selection), Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, Freud’s Theory of the Mind…

These were all once vast philosophical ideas that were developed from countless pieces of information across disciplines. 

But none of these new ideas were presented as claims that Maslow, Darwin, Einstein, or Freud had discovered the ultimate truth. They were proposals.

Contributions to the world to be investigated. (All of which we are still investigating to this day).

And this is where research comes in.

Because without research, all we have is a world of 8 billion people with countless ideas. Some smaller than others, some enormous, but countless…

And no way to determine which ideas are more likely to reflect the ultimate (hidden) truth.

We need science and research to help us do this by finding a way to measure what we have theorized. 

But this can be impossible if the theory we are attempting to measure is too large with too many variables. 

Because with too many variables it can become impossible to isolate which thing is influencing what in the research. 

So we often need to pick a small part of a much larger theory to focus on... something extremely specific... and most importantly, measurable. 

Something that isolates out just enough variables (not too few, but also not too many) so the collected information can be analyzed and evaluated for patterns... ones that are meaningful to the theory being studied.

And this is where hypotheses come in.

Hypotheses are not theoretical. They are measurable predictions. Not predictions in that we have already concluded that our hypothesis is true.

But predictions in that based on everything we have discovered so far, based on all the research that has come before, based on what we have largely come to agree upon in the field of science as (current) truth... that if we study this thing... our prediction will be the likely outcome. 

And this is where I will bring this discussion back to my work... what I have done... what I have not done... and what I am looking to do...

My theory is that there is a causal link between autism and cPTSD... particularly that unmet autistic needs lead to cPTSD over time.

This is a CAUSAL theory. 

I am not theorizing that there is a correlation. I am theorizing causation.

And given that I am operating in the realm of philosophy and not science when I am discussing my theory, this is not only acceptable... it is operating as a philosopher should. 

Identifying where the research should go next.

And this is where the distinction between theory and hypothesis becomes crucially important. 

My proposed hypothesis (not yet concretely defined) will be oriented around finding supporting evidence of a portion of my theory. A portion that can be isolated out and measured.

It will not attempt to "prove cause"... because science doesn't do that.

But what it will attempt to do is find supporting evidence of my theory... that unmet autistic needs can lead to cPTSD over time.

So... in short...

My theory is that there is a causal link.

My hypothesis will be something small and measurable... not causal... that will help us understand more about the internal autistic experience as it relates to how our unmet needs impact us over time.

I know that was long, but I also know it was a necessary distinction to make.

I hope those of you who have made it this far found this post helpful in understanding what I am hoping to do with this research. 

More to come soon... 🙏🏻

Also, for those who have been following along, I'm still working on creating a centralized hub for everything related to this research project. 

Here's what I plan on including...

- Project updates (this will start with all of the updates I've shared as posts on here, but will eventually grow to include updates I don't share on here as updates become more regular).

- Study philosophy (this post)

- Research foundations (all of the posts I've shared on here so far that go into detail about my theory)

- Study timeline (I will share the post where I shared our original timeline, but this will be updated once our research team is fully formed and we can discuss the timeline together)

- Introduction to the research team (this will grow as we add collaborators, which we are actively in the process of doing 🙂)

- Frequently asked questions (this is currently a work in progress, but I hope to have it added very soon)

- Sign up link (for those interested in staying updated on our progress with this research project)

Let me know if there's anything else you'd like to see...

P.s. For those who may be new here...

I'm Nicole Filippone, autistic philosopher of human difference and translator of the human experience. I spend a lot of time synthesizing existing information about autism across domains... philosophy, psychology, physiology, learning, lived experience, and more.

Welcome 🙏🏻