Man in Search of Reality.
see, it's never the environment; it's never the events of our lives,
but the meaning we attach to the events -- how we interpret them --
that shapes who we are today and who we'll become tomorrow." Anthony
is 10% of what happens to me and 90% of how I react to it." John
Kelly's theory of
Kelly proposes that there is an objective reality, but that we can not
know it because we must view it through our personal interpretation or
construction of it. His theory
is expressed in a basic postulate and extended through eleven
The Basic postulate
"A person's processes are
psychologically channelized by the ways in which he anticipates events."
In other words our personal understanding, our
individual actions and what we believe is all dependant on what we
anticipate. Not only do we sometimes view the world through rose
colored glasses, but we
view the world at all times through glasses of some color; be they dark
glasses or misty glasses or clear glasses; they all color our
Kelly puts it like this:
"Man looks at his
world through transparent patterns
or templates which he creates and then attempts to fit over the
realities of which the world
is composed. The fit is not always very good."
embraces the cyclic view of learning or experience:
"The unit of
experience is therefore a cycle embracing five phases: anticipation,
investment, encounter, confirmation or disconfirmation and constructive
"To exist is to change, to change is to mature, to
mature is to go on creating oneself endlessly." Henri
The corollaries of Kelly's above postulate are
presented below pretty much in their original form. In this form they
are somewhat difficult to understand, drenched as they are in Kelly's
formal jargon. An attempt has been made to try to clarify them for non
scholars and later to restate them in a form that might be easier to
Construction Corollary. "A
person anticipates events by construing their replication."
The construction corollary is all about how we
construct possible or impending events. Since events never really
repeat themselves, in order to look forward to them we must construct
something that allows us to perceive two or more of them to be similar.
Kelly is essentially saying that we build with our constructs, models,
for ourselves to internally perceive events (instances and actions)
that we believe can and will be repeated in the real world. Thus we can
anticipate or expect them to occur. Most importantly however, how we
build these models depends on how we view external events, which in
turn depends on the models we have already built. Kelly liked to use
music to illustrate how the replication of something emerges from our
interpretation. In their book
"Inquiring Man" Bannister and Fransella explain it like this:
"Each time we hear a melody played in a piece of
music, different instruments may be used, there may be a change of key,
there may be a change of rhythm and so forth, but still we recognize
the replicated theme. At a very basic level the themes we recognize,
the sameness we detect can be 'concrete', as in our noting of new
examples daily of pencils and sneezes and shoelaces, or they may be
very complex, subtle and highly personal replications, as when we
realize that once again have met defeat or affectation or truth."
One of the fallacies of stimulus-response
psychologies is that man responds to a stimulus. He does not. Rather he
responds to what he interprets the stimulus to be. This in turn is a
function of the kind of perceived replication (constructs) he has
detected in, or imposed upon, his external reality. In his book "The
Nature of Learning" G. Humphrey points out that you can condition (by
electric shock) a man to withdraw his arm when a G note is played on
the piano. However he goes on to show how if the same man is played
"Home Sweet Home" on the piano, he will not twitch a muscle, despite
the fact that the G note occurs 14 times in the tune. This is
presumably because he understands the replication as a tune and not as
a series of notes.
Individuality Corollary. "Persons
differ from each other in their construction of events."
The individual corollary is all about personal
uniqueness. Kelly is saying that each person constructs for themselves
an internal model of external events, and that those models differ from
one person to another. He is saying we are
different because we all perceive external events through our
constructs, which are different and organized differently. If Kelly was
asked why two people in exactly the same situation behave in different
ways, he would probably answer that it was because they are not in the
same situation. Each of us sees our situation through the goggles of
our personal map of reality. In their book
"Inquiring Man" Bannister and Fransella put it like this:
"We differ from others in how we perceive and
interpret a situation, what we consider important about it, what we
consider its implications, the degree to which it is clear or obscure,
threatening, or promising, sought after or forced
For Kelly the situation of the two people is
only the same from the point of view of a third party viewing the
situation through his own personal map of reality goggles.
This corollary does not argue that people
never resemble each other in the way they view situations, as this is
clearly negated by the sociality and commonality corollaries. However,
this corollary does argue, that in the final analysis, none of us are
likely to be a carbon copy of the another. Bannister and Fransella
"Each of us lives in what is
ultimately a unique world, because it is uniquely interpreted and
thereby uniquely experienced."
"Each person characteristically evolves, for his
convenience in anticipating events, a construction system embracing
ordinal relationships between constructs."
The organizational corollary is about how each
person develops, builds, a model or map of external reality out of
their theories about external reality. It is also about how those
theories are woven together into a system that predicts the probable
future and enables expectations of how the future may be, and may be
changed. Kelly calls this personal map of reality our personal
If a person is to make use of such a map of
external reality to anticipate events, the map must of necessity, be
able to provide him with clear predictions, inferences and movement. To
this end, the map must tend to resolve the more crucial contradictions
and conflicts that inevitably arise. This is not to say that all
inconsistencies must be resolved, but those that are not, cause the
person to be indecisive and vacillate between alternative expectations
of what the future holds in store for him.
Thus each person arranges his constructions in
an orderly fashion so that he can move from one to another easily. This
involves assigning priorities where one construction takes precedence
over another when inconsistencies appear. Thus one's commitments might
take priority over one's opportunities. This also involves a hierarchy
of abstraction where one construct contains others of a lesser
abstraction. Thus we can resolve the old adage of not being able to add
horses and cows by reinterpreting them as farm animals.
Dichotomy Corollary. "A
person's construction system is composed of a finite number of
Kelly believed that the constructs that make
up our personal maps of reality are always axes between two polar
opposites. Thus one construct might be the axis between beauty and
ugliness or heavy and light or light and dark. In constructs there is
no mid point however where things are truly grey. If something is
neither good nor bad it is outside the range of application of the
good/bad construct and that construct is not used.
When we are perceiving an auditory event we
determine that it is noise or music, static or communication.
Regardless of what it really is, we interpret it as being one thing or
the other. What sounds like music to me may sound like noise to another
person. Some people hear communication in sound where others hear only
static. If we have placed a person under the construct good verses bad,
and have interpreted him and his actions as good, we will continue
seeing him as good despite the fact he may perform actions that we
interpret as being bad. This will continue, till at some point, he will
do something so bad that we will reinterpret him as being bad. There
will be no in between. Constructs are ways of discriminating between or
contrasting something with something else. They are ways of identifying
what something is by distinguishing it from what it is not.
Colors are an interesting exercise in
constructs. If we take grey it can be contrasted with white and
contrasted with black. We can distinguish between more grey and less
grey. The very word shades may be contrasted with tints to form a
construct. While there are thousands of colors that have been named,
and used in swatches for choosing in design, most of us never need to
distinguish between them, and never form constructs to deal with them.
Only painters, interior decorators and people in the fashion industry
have use for such subtle distinctions. In the movie "The Devil Wears
Prada" there was great significance given to the color 'cerulean blue'
yet I, and I would think most people, could not discriminate between
blue and cerulean blue despite having seen the movie. It just isn't
important enough to us form such a construct.
We can envision the constraints of constructs
by a simple experiment using the artificial illustrations of perceptual
manipulation created by the gestalt psychologists. Below we see at the
left a man's face. If we start there and look at the successive
drawings, we will continue to see a man's face almost till we reach the
right. If on the other hand, we are to start at the drawing of the
naked girl on the right and work our way back, we will tend to see the
naked girl almost up to the first drawing left.
Also, Kelly tells us,
constructs are not essences distilled by the mind out of available
reality, they are imposed upon events not abstracted from them. Thus
Kelly clearly agrees with Karl Popper that there is no such thing as induction
(the inferring of general laws from particular instances).
Choice Corollary. "A
person chooses for himself that alternative in a dichotomized construct
through which he anticipates the greater possibility for elaboration of
This is like saying that we anticipate in
order to anticipate better or more accurately. The choice corollary
simply put means, that each person chooses the constructs to be added
to his personal map of reality, and that the ones he is most likely to
select are those ones which enable the map of reality to grow and
become a more accurate representation of external reality. The
essential feature of each map of reality is that it must become
continually more elaborate. Kelly puts it like this:
"It seems to me to follow that if a
person makes so much use of his constructs, and is so dependent on
them, he will make choices which promise to develop their usefulness.
Developing the usefulness of a construct system involves as far as I
can see, two things: defining it and extending it."
Defining is done by making clear how these
construct components are applied to objects or are linked to each
other. Extension is done by reaching out to new fields of application.
Note that men act because of their
anticipations and so can change things only by changing themselves
first. Men accomplish their objectives, if at all, by paying the price
of altering themselves irreversibly. The choices we make in adding
constructs alter the way we see the world, and in doing so, alter what
Range Corollary. "A
construct is convenient for anticipation of a finite range of events
The range corollary is about what makes a
construct different to a concept. Concepts are what we hang words on in
order to communicate. Constructs are what we use to distinguish,
differentiate or discriminate between one thing or event and another.
If concepts are one dimensional, constructs are two dimensional. A
concept can only distinguish between itself and the rest of the
universe. For a concept, what is not a car, is anything else in the
universe. However, the construct car/motorbike distinguishes between
cars and motorbikes. It has two dimensions it can be a car, it can be a
motorbike or it can be anything else in the universe. It's range of
convenience refers to what it can be applied to, in this case all those
things that can be differentiated into cars and motor bikes. There is
another range of everything else which could be termed it's range of
inconvenience. In their book
"Inquiring Man" Bannister and Fransella put it like this:
"The range of convenience is all
those things to which people might eventually find the construct
applicable; thus for some people 'honesty' can eventually be used in
relation to political honesty, sexual honesty, aesthetic honesty and so
Some ranges of convenience are very small.
Incandescent/fluorescent for instance is applicable to only a very
small number of things. Big/small however has a huge range of
convenience, being applicable to many things
and events. Despite the number of things big/small can be applied to,
Kelly says it can still be applied to only a finite number of things or
a finite number of events. Thus there are things that big/small is not
easily applicable to such as air or darkness or a sunset. There are
some also things that are so big or so small that the distinction
big/small is just not sufficient, and we would use micro/macro instead.
Constructs are of course very relative what is
big in one context can be small in another. Our sun is very big
compared to the earth but we would say it is a small star. The earth is
big compared to us but we are big compared to ants etc.
Constructs are combined with other constructs to
form structures which we impose on events in order to understand them,
and which we use to predict or anticipate events. Consequently those
constructs will be useful for forming expectations of a finite number
of events only.
Experience Corollary. "A
person's construction system varies as he successively construes the
replication of events."
The experience corollary is about how each
person's map of reality changes as the person perceives
inconsistencies, between internally created structures of expectation
of events, and actual outcomes as perceived through those structures.
Thus the person successively amends those structures in order to bring
greater consistency to his internal map. Kelly considers that this
ironing out of these incompatible structures implies an investment on
the part of the person. In his introduction to construct theory Kelly
puts it like this:
"Keeping in mind that events do not
actually repeat themselves and that the replication we talk about is a
replication of aspects only, it begins to be clear that the succession
we call experience is based on the construction we place on what goes
on. If those constructions are never altered, all that happens during a
man's years is a sequence of parallel events having no psychological
impact on his life. But if he invests himself - the most intimate event
of all - in the enterprise, the outcome, to the extent it differs from
his expectations or enlarges upon it, dislodges the man's construction
of himself. In recognizing the inconsistency between his anticipation
and the outcome, he concedes a discrepancy between that he was and what
he is. A succession of such investments and dislodgements constitutes
the human experience.
...The unit of experience is,
therefore, a cycle embracing five phases: anticipation, investment,
encounter, confirmation or disconfirmation and constructive revision.
This is followed, of course, by new anticipations, as the first phase
of a subsequent experiential cycle gets under way.
...Simply stated, the amount of a
man's experience is not measured by the number of events with which he
collides, but by the investments he has made in his anticipations and
the revision of his constructions that have followed upon his facing up
Clearly Kelly can be understood to mean that
we form hypotheses that are changed through successive refutation. This
is in line with Popper's idea that we cannot perceive sensory input
except through existing conjecture. In their book
"Inquiring Man" Bannister and Fransella put it like this:
"The constructions one places upon
events are working hypotheses which are about to be put to the test of
experience. ...A personal construct system is a theory being put to
"Your ability to learn depends partly on
your ability to relinquish what you've held." Milton
Kelly states however that confirming events
are as important to continuing investment as are disconfirming events.
He points out that confirming events give us the courage or stability
to make an investment. They provide a safe haven from which we can feel
willing to be disconfirmed in the future, and further willing to
constructively revise what we understand to be so.
Modulation Corollary. "The
variation in a person's construction system is limited by the
permeability of the constructs within whose ranges of convenience the
That is to say that the variation in a
person's map of reality is limited by its openness to allow extensions
and adaptations to be accommodated (within its range of applicability),
especially when incompatibilities with the external reality are
To some extent here we are talking
about lesser constructions that can be absorbed under fairly
extensive constructs. These inferior constructs, by being so absorbed,
restructure the extensive construct by adding to and rearranging the
other modules that make up extensive construct's structures. In
his introduction to construct theory Kelly puts it like this:
"He must have a construct system
which is sufficiently open to novel events to let him know when he has
encountered them, else the experience cycle will fail to function in
its terminal phases. He must have a system that will admit the revised
construct "that emerges at the end of the cycle.
[Permeability is] ...its
capacity to be used as a referent for novel events and to accept new
subordinate constructions within its range of convenience."
A construct such as god/satan might have a
reasonable size range of what it can be applied to, but it is not open
to change and adaptation or extension. It is fixed and can only be
altered by a massive reconstruction of the whole map of reality. The
construction good/bad though is probably being continually extended as
well as adapted in most humans.
Fragmentation Corollary. "A
person may successively employ a variety of construction subsystems
which are inferentially incompatible with each other."
The fragmentation corollary suggests that our
map of reality can become fragmented. We all know people who hold ideas
to be true that are in fact incompatible with each other. This is most
evident in crazy people, but in fact almost every person has a few
minor ideas that they have not resolved. In his introduction to
construct theory Kelly gives this example:
"A man may move from an act of love to an
act of jealousy, and from there to an act of hate, even though hate is
not something that would be inferred from love even in his peculiar
To the extent this occurs our personal map of
reality is confused, unconnected and broken up into smaller maps that
are less accurate in anticipating events. In their book "Inquiring Man"
Bannister and Fransella put it like this:
"A construction system is a hierarchy
and also a series of subsystems having varying ranges of convenience.
Therefore, conclusions about the 'same' series of events can be drawn
at levels that are not necessarily consistent with or even related to
This chaotic state is not always necessarily a
bad thing as it may be useful for individual survival and creative
ability. If not permanent or too severe such a state can be useful in
generating new and unique ideas. In his introduction to
construct theory Kelly puts it like this:
"For man logic and inference can be
as much an obstacle to his ontological ventures as a guide to them.
Often it is the un-inferred fragment of a man's construct system that
makes him great, whereas if he were an integrated whole - taking into
account all that the whole would have to embrace - the poor fellow
would be no better than his 'natural self'."
This state may be even more useful if the
person is aware that one or both of the inconsistent ideas may not be
true. It is our ability,
to knowingly hold inconsistent ideas, that is at the very heart of
Commonality Corollary. "To
the extent that one person employs a construction of experience which
is similar to that employed by another, his processes are
psychologically similar to those of the other person."
The Commonality Corollary is all about learning. Kelly
is saying that we are not similar because we (as the behaviorists
believe) behave the same way. Though clearly we do often behave the
same way for the same reasons, we may also behave the same way for very
different reasons. We are not similar because we have had the same or
similar experiences. (Though obviously, there is a relation between the
more experiences we have in common and our similarity, it is not one to
one.) An insane person, for instance, sees the same experiences very
differently to a sane person.
The constructs that we use to construct our
personal maps of reality are gathered through learning from the common
experiences of being human, and because we are surrounded by a very
similar external environment. It is however, the extent to which we
view or understand these experiences in similar ways that make us
similar. We are similar because we discriminate,
interpret, and see the implications of events in similar ways.
Also we are not similar because we use the
same verbal labels. The constructs are assembled in a common code
called language, which we all learn as a way of communicating with one
another, and as a conscious way of ordering our mental processes. These
words and word groups in themselves do not provide the similarity
however. It is the extent to which the words and phrases we use have
the same meaning to us and others that provides the similarity.
Perhaps, more importantly, our constructs are
drawn from centuries of accumulated knowledge and experience that
others in the world have developed. When cultures pass on this
knowledge, we access information stretching far back in time,
especially when it is passed on in some recorded form. Through
learning, we continually borrow from this heritage in order to
construct our personal maps or models of reality. It is not enough to
memorize these ideas of others however, we have to be able to see the
implications of these ideas as others did, to understand them. They
have to be meaningful to us in the way they are meaningful to others.
If they are not, we have learnt hardly anything, and we have no
similarity with others.
It is how we construct a model of events in
our minds, that provides both commonality and individuality.
Commonality is provided by the similarity in these internal
constructions which make us similar to one another, that provide a
similar kind of internal model of reality, and enable us to perform
mental processes (think) in similar ways.
Sociality Corollary. "To
the extent that one person construes the construction processes of
another, he may play a role in a social process involving the other
The sociality corollary adds a further layer
of interpretation when people are involved. It simply suggests that if
'person A' accurately perceives how another 'person B' sees the world
around him and his part in it, 'person A' can interact with 'person B'
in a social context. He can thus do this in a constructive way, in the
form of devising a role for himself, involving person B.
Here Kelly has gone way beyond the
cue-response notion of a roll. In 'one to one' sports like
tennis each player must try to anticipate what the other is going to
do, so he can be already moving in the appropriate direction before the
other even hits the ball. In chess the chess master has to think many
moves ahead before he moves, which means he has to anticipate what the
other player will do for many moves. The fact is, we simply cannot
interact with others unless we have constructed a theory about what the
other is doing, as our own actions would be meaningless and outcomes
could not be predicted.
In the theatre the actor must be able to
perform without further cue from the director. In team sports such as
football a player must be able to play a certain position without
further signals from the coach. This of course involves interpreting
what all his own team members are going to do and interpreting what all
the members of the other team are going to. This is somewhat simplified
by the existence of rules which are supposed to form a common way of
interpreting the world of the game. However, each person has to
interpret the rules and they do not always interpret them the same way.
In the game of life however there are often no rules to guide you, so
you tend to interact with less people and try to be very accurate in
how you interpret how those others are seeing the world.
importance of these corollaries. Kelly's postulate
and corollaries are important because they are the only true attempt to
produce a comprehensive theory about an internal model of external
reality. This site holds that an internal model of reality is essential
in understanding learning. Although Kelly refers to this model as our
personal construction system, and others have used other names. This
site prefers to refer to this model as our 'personal map of reality'
and will most often refer to it by that name.
Reconciliation with Popper's philosophy.
Popper's central position, like that of Kelly, is that there is an
objective reality but that we can not know such a thing because there
is no possible way of verifying that reality is so. Popper was fond of
quoting Xenophanes, an early Greek philosopher who first stated this
Xenophanes position is this:
- "The gods did not reveal, from the beginning all
things to us,
but in the course of time through seeking we may learn to know things
- But as for certain truth, no man has known it nor
shall he know it,
neither of the gods nor of all things of which I speak.
- For even if by chance he were to utter the final
he would himself not know it:
- For all is but a woven web of guesses."
Popper believes we view the world through the theories that we hold.
Kelly believes we view the world through our constructs which can be
seen to be essentially the same. Popper's use of
expectations is surely also significant as it hardly differs in meaning
to anticipations. Expectations in Popper's terms are tentative theories
or conjectures that are held until subsequent events refute them.
Popper often refers to these expectations as dogma because he was aware
that even when refuted by experience they are resistant to extinction.
In fact the refutation of any conjecture and thus the disappointment of
expectations creates a new dilemma for the individual. This situation
impels the creation of a new conjecture to replace the one refuted
which in turn creates a new expectation.
Popper puts it like this:
"All observation is an
activity with an aim to find or to check some regularity which is at
least vaguely conjectured, an activity guided by problems, and by the
context or the expectation (the horizon of expectations as I later
called it). There is no such thing as passive experience; no passively
impressed association of impressed ideas. Experience is the result of
active exploration by the organism (person), of the search for
regularities or invariants. There is no such thing as a perception
except in the context of interests and expectations and hence of
regularities or laws."
Popper also proposed a
cyclic view of learning. He developed this as the following schema:
TT-> EE-> P2
is the initial problem
TT is the tentative theory (conjecture or expectation)
EE is error elimination
is the new problem
Popper also suggests that
is no real starting point in this schema and that it could also be
written as follows:
EE-> P-> TT2
Thus it becomes very like Kelly's schema:
Anticipation -> Investment -> Encounter ->
Confirmation or Disconfirmation -> Constructive Revision
Kelly's use of investment to indicate that there is resistance to
change can be seen as equivalent to Popper's use of the term dogma to
indicate resistance to change.
Popper I think would not oppose the possibility of including
investment, as he observed that some theories were more resistant to
change than others. 'Encounter, confirmation or disconfirmation', these
are what decides if there is a problem or not. If the theory is
confirmed, there is no conflict but if it is disconfirmed, there is a
problem. Constructive revision is clearly error elimination, and
necessitates the formation of a new tentative theory. Which of course
leads to new expectations
To some extent Kelly's corollaries can be
rewritten in Popperian form, which hopefully also reinterprets them in
a manner that is more accessible, understandable, and clear to people
unfamiliar with Kelly's jargon. This site has attempted to
reconceptualize these ideas in a more Popperian form as follows:
- Construction Corollary. A
person's expectations of events are invented by conjecturing their
- Individuality Corollary.
Persons differ from each other in their expectation of events due to
the fact that they hold different theories.
- Organizational Corollary. Each
person invents for his convenience in the expectation of events, a
system of interconnected theories.
- Dichotomy Corollary. A
person's interconnected theories are composed of a finite diversity.
(It is difficult to see how Popper might deal with dichotomy.)
- Choice Corollary. A
person chooses for himself that alternative in a new conjecture,
through which he expects the greater possibility for elaboration of his
system of theories.
- Range Corollary. A
conjecture is applicable for expectation of a finite range of events
- Experience Corollary. A
person's system of interconnected theories varies as he successively
interprets their validity against perceived outcomes.
- Modulation Corollary. The
variation in a person's system of interconnected theories is limited by
the openness of those theories to refutation and reconstruction.
- Fragmentation Corollary. A
person may successively employ a variety of conjectural subsystems
which are incompatible with each other. (Although Popper
would probably hope that we would try to iron out these
- Commonalty Corollary. To
the extent that one person employs a conjecture or theory which is
similar to that employed by another, his understanding, beliefs and
actions are psychologically similar to those of the other person.
- Sociality Corollary. To
the extent that one person reasonably correctly conjectures the
beliefs, understanding and actions of another, he may interact in a
social activity involving the other person.
Reconciliation with Piaget's development theory.
Piaget's theory is a theory of development and it was arrived at
through meticulous observation of young children from birth to mid
adolescence. While this theory is based on an absolutist philosophical
assumption that we can some how experience reality directly, it seems
likely it can work just as well with the philosophical assumptions of
Kelly and Popper where reality can only be
experienced as a complex interweaving of theories or viewed through our
personal constructs or as a constructed model of itself. Although
Kelly's theory evolved out of his experience with therapy it has many
implications for child development that are consistent with Piaget's
ideas. Both Kelly and Piaget provide an open ended theory of learning
in which important changes take place in the structure of each person's
internal knowledge rather than it's content. Piaget shows that as we
develop the interrelations between ideas, they become more dense.
Likewise for Kelly, the matrix of relationships between constructs
tends to become increasingly less simple.
Also both Kelly and Piaget
adopt an internalized point of view. It can be shown that although one
person's perception of reality may be very different from another, it
makes perfect sense from the point of view of the person with that
perception. Thus each internal map, regardless of age or development,
has its own logic and coherence. Each has its own perfectly logical
sequence of development.
Piaget never talks clearly
about an internal structure, but when he says that something is
assimilated, we must assume it is assimilated into something. When he
talks about accommodating to fit external events, something must be
accommodated. This something would be a what Kelly calls a cognitive
Personal Maps of
Reality (Personal Construction Systems)
The internal construction of a model of external reality, as proposed
by this site, is not fully realized into a structural entity by Kelly.
Kelly preferably concentrates on the bits it is made up of, or the
constructs as he calls them. What he does make clear, is that this
personal construction system, is something that must change and be able
to be changed. If we liken it to a map it must be able to be redrawn
and made more accurate. That it must tend to optimize toward being an
increasingly better approximation of external reality. Clearly then it
is not the totality of mind. If it proves to be inaccurate something
clearly occurs to make it more accurate. Kelly likens this to the
loosening and tightening of relations between constructs. Loosening
allows the constructs to drift and form new and unusual relationship
combinations. Tightening, on the other hand, causes the constructs to
be restricted by the imposition of logic. These can be likened to the
invention or formation of conjecture and the logical criticism and the
subsequent testing of conjecture.