By specific theories, we mean scientific theories that focus on particular types of material reality or phenomena, such as elementary particles, plasma, superconducting materials, quantum tunnelling, chemical reactions, gene regulation, tectonic plate movement, and the Universe. After examining various visions of the theory division into components proposed by some of the prominent scientists (Isaak Newton, James Clerk Maxwell, Heinrich Rudolf Hertz, Pierre Maurice Marie Duhem, Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck, Albert Einstein, Norman Robert Campbel, Percy Williams Bridgman, and Gerardus (Gerard) ’t Hooft) and philosophers of science (Carl/Karl Raimund Popper, Thomas Samuel Kuhn, Imre Lakatos, Paul Karl Feyerabend, Mario Augusto Bunge, Ronald Nelson Giere, Joseph Donald Sneed, Wolfgang Balzer, and Carlos Ulises Moulines), one finds that these visions fail to consider all essential components and omit many important details, even of the chosen components. Incomplete and undifferentiated visions, on the one hand, overlook many critical features of a theory, including its development and connections with other theories. On the other hand, such visions often generate pseudo-problems, such as the incomparability of classical and quantum theories. As theories underpin the modern sciences, such perspectives lead to oversimplified and overly general understandings of science and its progress. The article briefly emphasizes the significance and utility of the polysystemic vision of specific theories and their development within history, philosophy, sociology, and pedagogy of science. The first part of the article presents the types of components and physicists’ views of theories. The second part addresses the views of philosophers and our conclusions. We emphasize that in the first part, we described a bridge between Newton’s unfading template of scientific theory and the newest trends in the interpretation of modern physical theories. It is a clear example of the Western scientific tradition of both continuity and change, so that the final product looks different, but its structure remains stable, familiar, and convenient for professionals. That is why it is quite possible for a modern-day scientist to read Newton and find statements useful for his practical activity, not to talk about specific pearls created by the genius.
Gabovich et al. (Wed,) studied this question.