An Interview About UTOK’s Philosophy of Science and Reality
Gregg’s son, Jon Henriques is getting his doctorate in quantitative psychology. As part of his graduate training, he took a class on the philosophy of science, and had to interview someone in the field. He chose Gregg and proceeded to interview him about how UTOK, the Unified Theory of Knowledge, frames some key issues in philosophy of science. As such, we decided to share the results of the interview. Jon developed this report for his class based on the interview, with Gregg making some edits to the written material to clarify the meaning.
For this project, I (Jon Henriques) decided to interview Dr. Gregg Henriques, a professor of graduate psychology at James Madison University to better understand his general philosophical perspective, perceptions of universal truths, the goals of modern science, and the relationship between the methods of science and knowledge. I chose Professor Henriques both because he is my father and because he has devoted his life to addressing such questions. He is the founder of UTOK, the Unified Theory of Knowledge (Henriques, 2022; 2024). UTOK was first formalized as a “unified theory of psychology” (Henriques, 2011), and it grew from there over the past decade into a complete philosophical system. As laid out in his recent book on UTOK (see here for a trailer and here for a series on the book), the system claims to coherently interrelate: (1) the objective knowledge of the natural sciences; (2) the subjective experiences and identity of the human psyche; and (3) the intersubjective wisdom of cultural collectives in a new, coherent system of understanding.
To start our conversation, I inquired about Professor Henriques’ views on the purpose of modern scientific research. He started with a clarification regarding the difference between basic and applied research. He stated that the major goal in basic science is to develop more accurate descriptions and explanations for the world we are in, and how it behaves (including us!). He said applied research was more about engineering technologies that could foster well-being, broadly defined. He also emphasized that there was an important distinction between science as it is framed by the modern empirical natural sciences and other contexts (e.g., some describe Aristotle as a scientist, but that is not what he meant in this context).
For basic, modern, empirical natural science, Henriques stated he thought the goals were to describe and explain behavioral patterns via an objective methodology. He characterized this as empirical observation from the exterior epistemic vantage point that can be quantified using mathematical tools with systematic investigation and experimental methods. Using an objective epistemological frame, the natural sciences try to generate “good explanations.” Henriques cited the physicist-philosopher David Deutch, who developed this concept.
Given his use of the term objective, I further questioned Professor Henriques if he felt that science could truly be objective. In clarifying, he stated that the epistemological methods of science were objective, essentially by definition. That is, they are designed to factor out both the subjective biases and values of an individual or group. He described a double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial and explained why this was an example of an objective methodology.
In terms of achieving objective knowledge about reality, Professor Henriques offered a qualified yes. He started by clarifying that his overall philosophy of science is closely aligned with the philosopher Roy Bhaskar, who developed critical realism. In his 2022 book, A New Synthesis for Solving the Problem of Psychology: Addressing the Enlightenment Gap, Henriques detailed the correspondence between UTOK and Bhaskar’s critical realism.
Critical realism embraces both the fact that science is socially constructed and the fact that science can yield some objective ontological truth claims about reality. In clarifying what he meant by this, he defined the ontic as reality independent of knowers, ontology as the theory of reality developed by knowers, epistemic as the knowing process, and epistemology as the study of how we know and how we justify what we know.
Henriques agreed with Bhaskar in claiming that knowledge in science is a social construction. He said UTOK explicitly frames human propositional knowledge as being “justification systems” developed by humans. And, thus, science is clearly a human construct and a system of justification (i.e., a propositional knowledge system that legitimizes what is and what ought to be). Science is also intimately tied to human phenomenology, which Henriques commented was a great insight of the famous philosopher Kant. Despite these facts, Henriques claimed, along with Bhaskar, that the modern empirical natural sciences have obtained some ontological insights that can be justifiably described as making objectively true claims about what is ontically real.
He characterized these objectively true claims about the ontic as being “transcendentally real” claims. Transcendent means that they are claims that transcend the normal boundaries and limitations of human subjective and cultural knowledge. In the interview, I asked him to explain further how we could achieve transcendently real claims. He cited Bhaskar, emphasizing what Bhaskar called the “TINA principle,” which stands for there is no alternative. The principle is what it sounds like; if we develop a set of descriptions and explanations that so tightly fit the observed data that they rule out all plausible alternative interpretations, then we can be confident enough in that ontological framework to label it as a universal truth. This is similar to what David Deutch called “good explanations.”
Professor Henriques proceeded to give the example of the fact that the vast majority of the observable universe is composed primarily of hydrogen and helium atoms. He characterized this transcendently real claim. And he explained that this connected particle physics, cosmology, and chemistry. He justified this claim with a thought experiment and prediction. Henriques stated than any alien intelligence that analyzed the universe in ways akin to our propositional systems would also arrive at the same basic conclusion about hydrogen and helium constituting our universe. Thus, according to this assertion about transcendent realism, if we were to encounter such aliens, they should have similar knowledge about the basic constitution of the universe. If they did, this would be a good example of the TINA principle and the fact that in some areas, modern empirical natural science had achieved a transcendent realist picture of the world (i.e., it has achieved objectively true ontological claims about the ontic).
I then asked him about scientific knowledge that did not meet the criteria of the TINA principal. He quickly stated that the vast majority of our knowledge did not meet the TINA principle. He stated he was a pragmatic realist who emphasized that most conclusions are tentative, that there is an enormous amount we do not know, and that we need to use abductive reasoning (i.e., the most plausible explanation, given current knowledge) to account for the available evidence. He pointed to the fact that there are many mysteries even at the foundation of physics that leave us baffled. Indeed, he had to qualify the above claim with the word “observable” because physics pointed to the existence of dark energy and dark matter that were poorly understood.
I then asked him about psychology. Henriques argued that there definitely were no TINA-principle-type knowledge in psychology. Indeed, he said this was a major concern of his life’s work. He argued that the modern empirical natural sciences, which he said stretched down from neuroscience into biology into chemistry and into physics, did have some degree of objective, ontological coherence. By this he meant that one can link those knowledge systems to true ontological truth claims like the one about hydrogen and helium constituting the observable universe. However, he said that little knowledge in neuroscience and biology meets the TINA principle. He said that perhaps cell theory does, which is the idea that the primary unit of life is the cell, but little else can meets the strict criteria of the TINA principle. Put differently, we have good, plausible ideas about how much of biology works, but it also is the case that almost none of those ideas are so “tight” that they are not open to much debate and interpretation.
Henriques went on to point out that even a basic link to transcendently real knowledge is not found in psychology. The reason, Henriques claimed, can be seen in what he calls “the problem of psychology.” He stated that this problem defined his intellectual quest for understanding.
“You see,” he said, “something dramatic happens in natural science when we get to psychology. Any semblance of consensual coherence, that is, any agreement regarding the basic scientific epistemological approach to the ontological framing of the subject matter, completely breaks down. Historically, this is generally known as ‘the crisis’ in psychology; however, I argue it is a bit of a misnomer,” he said. “The crisis can actually refer to many different things. For example, should psychology be predominantly a natural science, a social science, or an applied health service discipline? These identity questions can be considered to be part of the crisis.
“The problem of psychology, as I have defined it in my academic work, is the intellectual or conceptual problem of why we cannot effectively align the science of psychology with the natural sciences. It is striking when you look at it. After more than 150 years, we still cannot agree about what the science of psychology is about, relative to the natural sciences. Why on gods earth is that the case?
“Once I saw that problem,” he went on, “I was amazed no one had told me about it or talks about it. I think it is super important. Indeed, I think it points to a massive problem in science and philosophy that I label the Enlightenment Gap. I spelled it out in A New Synthesis. This refers to the fact that we do not have any good, consensually agreed upon system of knowing that effectively places mind in relationship to matter, and the objective knowledge of the natural sciences in relationship to subjective and social forms of knowing. Given this, we have not been able to get any good conception of the science of psychology.”
He went on to state that this problem shows up in the field’s empirical research. He characterized the scientific work in psychology as being akin to “sandcastles.” He said they might be beautiful and impressive and afford some utility. However, they ultimately rest on shaky epistemological and ontological foundations and are highly dependent on the schools of thought and methods of the researchers. Thus, the findings are vulnerable to being washed out with the tide when new schools of thought and new methods arrive. This results in a general failure of the discipline to generate cumulative knowledge that can be shared with the general public. He pointed to the “replication crisis,” which has been a major concern in the field for the last decade. When it is combined with psychology’s conceptual struggles, starting with the problem of psychology, the general state of knowledge is quite poor.
Henriques noted that we could interpret the state of affairs using Thomas Kuhn’s work on paradigms. He stated that Kuhn used the word in many different ways. One was that a paradigm for Kuhn could mean a “true paradigm,” which was when a science has consensus on how to do “normal science” because the group of scientists working in that area are satisfied with the epistemological power of the system to ontologically describe the ontic. He said the archetype of a true paradigm was Newtonian mechanics. However, Henriques stated that, “just because it is a true paradigm does not mean that meets the TINA principle, and, indeed, Newtonian mechanics was overthrown by quantum mechanics and general relativity at the beginning of the 20th Century.”
Henriques went on to say that if you don’t have a true paradigm, then you definitely don’t have TINA-principle-type knowledge. And the science of psychology has never had a true paradigm; that is, the problem. Instead, in psychology new ideas continually arise; however, since there are such a vast number of psychological frameworks these shifts do not justify a true paradigm shift. Instead, they just represent a bunch of schools of thought grabbing at slices of reality.
He noted that sometimes the word paradigm is used for schools of thought, which can be confusing. He stated that psychology was “pre-paradigmatic” in the “true paradigm sense” (i.e., it has never had one) and “multi-paradigmatic” in the school of thought meaning of the term (i.e., it has many, competing schools of thought). He said that his “unified theory” was an attempt to show that the outline of a true paradigm in psychology that bridged it into both the natural sciences and human/social sciences, and also connected to the humanities.
______________
Reflection:
This interview was impactful for me (Jon). I was unfamiliar with Roy Bhaskar and his critical realism and how it can frame transcendent realist claims. It seems like a more modern philosophical perspective compared to either realist or anti-realist. Based on our discussions in class, I feel that many people would identify with this framework. It seems reasonable that there is a true objective reality, and yet at the same time it seems difficult to justify any human experiencing this reality due to the different lenses that we each experience life through.
Regarding universal truth, I am a fan of the TINA principle. This concept makes for a clearer picture of identifying what should/shouldn’t be labeled as a universal truth. It may be arguable in some cases whether a plausible alternative exists, but broadly speaking I think it is a satisfying framework. Overall, this was a fun exercise, and it generated some fruitful conversations, which have had me thinking more deeply about my own perspectives. And it helped me better understand my father’s life work and passion for it.
References:
Henriques, G. (2024). UTOK: The Unified Theory of Knowledge. Skymeadow Press.
Henriques, G. (2022). A new synthesis for solving the problem of psychology: Addressing the Enlightenment Gap. Palgrave MacMillan.
Henriques, G. R. (2011). A new unified theory of psychology. New York: Springer.
