By definition, “adroit” means to be skillful, smart, or clever in the use of one’s hands or mind. To have an adroit theory explained, therefore, one would need to be hands-on with their approach in taking measurements.
This approach is one that is often taken when training individuals to complete a specific task. There are also components of adroit theory in quantum physics and other theory postulation efforts as part of the effort to prove an idea. For the average person, however, adroit theory comes down to a world that is either macro-realism or micro-realism.
What Is Macro-Realism and Why Does It Matter?
Macro-realism is a method of training or scientific observation where there is an attempt to create a generalized feeling for what “might” happen. If you were training to respond to a life threatening situation, macro-realism training would have sights, sounds, and experiences that were similar to what the real thing would be like.
The goal is to replicate the conditions that resemble what could be encountered should the scenario become real.
When using macro-realism as a part of an attempt to prove a scientific theory, it becomes necessary to put real items into a simulation to see how they would react in that environment. If you were trying to see how the universe initially expanded from the generally accepted idea of the “Big Bang,” you would take the information you know and then add in the parts of the theory you are attempting to prove.
Macro-realism matters because instead of trying to get everything right, it attempts to predict what an outcome will be instead. By going hands-on with the approach, there is the possibility to see how a person (or a theory) will react when it is placed under pressure. This way, you can begin to see what potential outcomes there will be so that you can plan accordingly now for those potential outcomes.
What Is Micro-Realism and Why Does It Matter?
Micro-realism is the complete opposite of macro-realism. In a micro-realism environment, the scenarios must be absolutely specific to the expected environment that is expected. If a university were teaching medical students how to work in a hospital emergency room, micro-realism would demand that the students be taken to a duplicate ER with the same equipment that would be available to them.
Then these students would be asked to evaluate patients based on what the average emergency room would see over time. The idea here is that by showing a student what life is like, their vocational skills will improve because they are forced to use the logical centers of the mind.
Micro-realism is also an approach that can be used to work with various theories. This is the predictive aspect of what a theory can provide, which offers some level of credibility to it. If my theory predicts that there will be a lake found underneath the ice of Antarctica, then physical research and experimentation can prove or disprove the idea.
So here’s the difference: micro-realism is something that has predictive capabilities and an opportunity to be proven. Macro-realism is a general overview of the environment that offers credibility to that a specific idea can even exist.
Why Is the Adroit Theory Such an Important Part of Philosophy and Science?
In order for science, philosophy, or human thought in general to be taken seriously, there must be a critical approach that is maintained. We must continue to question our own objectivity, the macro-realism of the environments we create, and the micro-realism of the facts that we believe to exist. If this questioning process ever stops, it will create doubt within the ideas, theories, or concepts that we are attempting to prove.
This is one reason why there is so much doubt for the Creationism view of the Young Earth Model. Under Young Earth theory, the planet we live on is only 5,000-10,000 years old instead of millions or even billions of years. In order to create the macro-realism environment for this theory to exist, there is a requirement that the Book of Genesis be taken literally. In other words, God took six actual days, in a 24-hour period, to create the planet.
Then, on the micro-realism level, Young Earth theory generally rejects the idea of common ancestry. This means the facts which offer predictive capabilities of the theory include a literal Adam and Eve, an actual Garden of Eden, and an active supernatural being.
In comparison to the idea of creation, we could take a Darwinian approach. On the macro-level, the environment becomes a primordial soup. We have a place where the survival of the fittest will dictate how a species develops. If a mutation occurs that helps to make a species stronger and more adept, then it will duplicate itself. Over a long period of time, we come to our modern planet that is older than we know. It is a theory of common ancestry.
On the micro-realism level, we receive the process of how such an environment could be created. Cells are able to divide or life is formed through the creation of protein structures. It creates a predictive model that may or may not be able to prove the theory, but puts forth an opportunity where the theory could potentially be proven with more information.
In looking at both ideas through the idea of adroit theory, which offers the most opportunities to be hands-on with its study?
In Young Earth theory, the Bible becomes the primary source of idea development, which is a book that has been translated into 80,000 different versions – each one a little different. In Darwinism, there are scientific concepts which are offered that could be directly studied independently of any book.
Assumption Is What Destroys the Adroit Theory
Now there are many who will say, “Evolution can’t possibly be true,” and others will say, “Young Earth theory can’t possibly be true.” Why do individuals say these things? Because of their own personal experiences and observations.
If someone sees something miraculous happen by their own definition, then it lends credibility to the idea that their approach is correct. This is because they took a hands-on approach to their macro-realism environment and used it to observe direct micro-realism facts.
This is why being just as strict with adroit theory applications to philosophy or religion as we are in science is incredibly important. Taking a Darwinian approach to the world view, whether it is right or wrong, puts everyone onto the same common starting ground. It allows each person to go hands-on with their own observations to predict what an outcome will be.
There may be different outcomes or ideas, just as one medical student reacts differently in an emergency room situation as the other, but the general purpose of the macro-environment remains the same: to increase knowledge.
When we look at what are often considered to be facts in religion or philosophy, what we’re really looking at is an assumption of fact being treated as something that has already been proven. In Young Earth theory, the entire concept relies on how the Hebrew word yom is interpreted. Yom literally means “day.”
And there are places in the Bible where a single yom is compared to long periods of time. Even in the Book of Genesis, “day” is used as a definition for the entire period of creation. This means it is up to an individual’s personal interpretation of this single word to determine what their ideas regarding the creation of the planet and the universe happen to be.
Why Adroit Theory Must Be Applied Before Anything Else
People will interpret facts based on the conclusions that they have drawn for themselves, even if those conclusions can be proven wrong. Ask a Young Earth theorist and a Darwinian theorist to look at the same geological record and you’ll likely get two very different answers. Even though the micro-realism is very real and verifiable to both individuals (after all, there are rocks right in front of both people in this example), the final meaning will be very different based on the concepts that were formed from their thoughts regarding micro-realism.
This is why the adroit theory explained in this way offers one simple solution: investigate matters on a personal level. Maybe the macro-environments are not as real as they seem to be. Maybe the micro-realism concepts that are being offered are not observable or predictable in some way.
By questioning everything, we can develop our logic centers in such a way where our personal assumptions can be set aside.
If there is an emergency situation, you don’t want someone getting scared, shutting down, or refusing to do their job. You want them acting on their instincts that have been developed through hands-on training. When we can apply this to the worlds of science, philosophy, and religion, we may not have much common ground between individuals due to our different personal experiences.
What we will have is common ground in order to explore each idea with a hands-on approach.