Is there an implicit theory in Hodges' model?

 INDIVIDUAL

|

 INTERPERSONAL    :     SCIENCES               

HUMANISTIC -------------------------------------  MECHANISTIC    

SOCIOLOGY  :   POLITICAL 

|

GROUP

From early on I've thought that there is a theory in Hodges' model. Maybe not in the structure - the axes, or the (potential and eventual) content - the care (knowledge) domains, but in combination is there an implicit theory?

"Models in the philosophy of science are usually distinguished from theories. However, the distinction is not always clear cut and some authors slip from one to the other. Three examples of philosophers who use the terms differently are: Apostel [16] who allows a theory to be a model, Hesse [216] who argues that a theory is meaningless if it does not include a model and van Frassen who says “To present a theory is to specify a family of structures, its models...” [161] p. 64). On the whole the use of the term ‘model’ implies something relatively concrete, possibly visualisable, approximate, specific and tractable whereas a ‘theory’ implies a more general, abstract and reliable construction. In the social sciences it is more common to use the term ‘model’ for things that would be called theories in the physical sciences (according to Braithwaite, 1962, who deplores the practice)."

Edmonds, B. (1999). Syntactic Measures of Complexity. Doctoral Thesis, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. http://bruce.edmonds.name/thesis/

[16] APOSTEL, L. Towards the Formal Study of Models in the Non-Formal Sciences. Synthese, 1960, 12, 125-161.

[216] HESSE, MB. Models and Analogies in Science. London: Sheed and Ward, 1963.

[161] VAN FRASSEN, BC. The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon, 1980.

[73] BRAITHWAITE, R. B. Models in the Empirical Sciences. In NAGEL, E; SUPPES, P; TARSKI, A (eds.). Logic Methodology and the Philosophy of Science: Proceedings of the 1960 International Congress. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1962, 224-239.