Frankenstein Sciences Theory

A broader framework extending Frankenstein Science Theory to the relations between multiple scientific disciplines. It posits that the sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology) are not hierarchically arranged (physics at the bottom, sociology at the top) but are assembled from overlapping, often inconsistent ontologies and methods. There is no unified “science”; there are sciences that talk across each other, borrow methods, ignore contradictions, and stitch together local coherences. Interdisciplinarity is not the fusion of fields but the creation of Frankenstein monsters that work despite their internal tensions.

Example: “Frankenstein Sciences Theory explains why cognitive neuroscience works despite the contradiction between neural and psychological descriptions—two sciences stitched together for practical use.”

Frankenstein Sciences Theory by Dumu The Void May 26, 2026

Frankenstein Science Theory

A meta-scientific framework arguing that actual scientific practice is not a unified, coherent method but a patchwork of heterogeneous approaches, models, and standards. It borrows from Feyerabend’s epistemological anarchism: science works because it breaks its own rules, stiches together incompatible methodologies, and tolerates contradictions. No single “scientific method” exists; instead, successful science uses whatever works—controlled experiments, natural history, simulations, serendipity, even intuition. The “Frankenstein” metaphor emphasizes that science is a bricolage, not a cathedral. This theory challenges textbook accounts of “the scientific method” and explains why science is so creative and resilient.

Example: “Frankenstein Science Theory explains how Einstein used thought experiments (not empirical), while Pasteur used controlled trials—two methods, same science.”

Frankenstein Science Theory by Dumu The Void May 26, 2026