The Theories That Guide Us, The Theories That Mislead Us
Today's Theories - August 9, 2025
Some theories save lives. Others destroy them. Saturday made that distinction brutally clear in ways that should make us all think harder about the ideas we choose to believe.
August 9th wasn't just another news cycle—it was a masterclass in the double-edged nature of human theorizing. While scientists at the University of Rochester were developing elegant new frameworks for controlling chemical reactions at the quantum level, a gunman in Atlanta was acting on his own dark theory about vaccines and illness. While archaeologists celebrated revolutionary discoveries about human civilization, conspiracy theorists were twisting those same discoveries into elaborate fantasies. While psychologists offered evidence-based frameworks for self-compassion, families of missing hikers clung to theories that might never bring closure.
Welcome to the paradox of theories in 2025: they're simultaneously our greatest tools for understanding reality and our most dangerous weapons for distorting it.
When Theories Turn Lethal
Let's start with the most sobering story of the day. Police believe the gunman who opened fire near CDC headquarters in Atlanta was operating under the theory that COVID vaccines made him sick. According to reports, the shooter's family confirmed this belief to investigators, turning what might have been a personal health concern into an act of violence against a federal institution.
This isn't just another tragic shooting—it's a case study in how theories can become deadly when they replace evidence-based thinking. The gunman's theory about vaccine harm might have felt as real to him as any scientific fact. But theories divorced from evidence have a way of demanding increasingly extreme actions to maintain their internal logic.
The CDC shooting represents the darkest endpoint of conspiracy theorizing: when belief becomes so consuming that violence feels justified. It's a reminder that theories aren't just academic abstractions—they're frameworks that shape behavior, and some frameworks are more dangerous than others.
The Mysteries We Can't Let Go
But not all desperate theorizing leads to violence. Sometimes it leads to something more human: the refusal to accept that some questions might never be answered.
New theories about the disappearance of hikers Kris Kremers and Lisanne Froon dominated online discussions Saturday, more than a decade after the two friends vanished during a hike in Panama. The "sobering theory" suggests what might have happened based on recovered camera footage and other evidence.
What's fascinating about this case isn't any particular theory, but the human need to theorize at all. When official investigations reach dead ends, amateur theorists step in to fill the void. They parse through evidence, construct narratives, and debate possibilities with the intensity of professional investigators.
These theories serve a psychological function that goes far beyond finding answers. They represent hope—the belief that if we just think hard enough, connect enough dots, consider enough possibilities, we can impose meaning on chaos. For families and friends of missing persons, theories become lifelines, ways to stay connected to loved ones who exist now only in the realm of possibility.
The difference between helpful and harmful theorizing often comes down to this: does the theory serve the theorist, or does it serve the truth?
When Ancient Wisdom Meets Modern Paranoia
Nowhere is this distinction clearer than in the story that captured both archaeological excitement and conspiratorial fervor: Göbekli Tepe, the ancient Turkish site that's turning our understanding of civilization on its head and attracting Joe Rogan-style conspiracy theories.
Göbekli Tepe is genuinely revolutionary. Built around 12,000 years ago, it predates Stonehenge by thousands of years and challenges everything we thought we knew about early human organization. The site suggests that complex religious and social structures emerged much earlier than previously believed—a legitimate paradigm shift in archaeology.
But revolutionary discoveries have a way of attracting revolutionary interpretations. The same evidence that excites archaeologists has become fodder for theories about lost civilizations, ancient aliens, and hidden knowledge. Podcasters and conspiracy theorists have seized on Göbekli Tepe as proof of everything from advanced prehistoric technology to extraterrestrial intervention.
Here's what makes this particularly maddening: the real story is already extraordinary. We don't need aliens to explain why a 12,000-year-old temple complex is remarkable. But sensational theories often have more emotional appeal than careful archaeology, and emotional appeal has a way of winning in the marketplace of ideas.
The Göbekli Tepe phenomenon reveals something troubling about our relationship with knowledge: we seem to prefer mysteries that validate our existing beliefs over discoveries that expand our understanding.
Speaking of which—where do you stand on this particular mystery? This question gets to the heart of how we evaluate extraordinary claims: do we default to conventional explanations, or do we remain open to possibilities that challenge established thinking?
But Saturday also showcased theory-making at its absolute best...
The Quantum Leap Forward
But Saturday also showcased theory-making at its absolute best. Researchers at the University of Rochester developed a new theory that explains how to control chemical reactions using quantum mechanics—essentially solving a "quantum jigsaw puzzle" that could revolutionize chemistry.
This is the kind of theoretical breakthrough that changes everything quietly. Most people will never hear about quantum reaction control theory, but it could lead to more efficient drug development, cleaner industrial processes, and better materials science. It's theory as tool-building: creating frameworks that expand human capability rather than constraining human thinking.
The quantum chemistry breakthrough represents everything conspiracy theories are not: rigorous, testable, collaborative, and immediately useful for solving real problems. It shows what happens when theories are developed through evidence rather than emotion, when they're designed to serve humanity rather than the theorist's ego.
This is also why legitimate scientific breakthroughs often get less attention than conspiracy theories. Quantum reaction control theory requires years of study to understand fully, while ancient alien theories can be grasped in a single podcast episode. Complexity has a marketing problem.
The Theory That Saves You From Yourself
Perhaps the most personally relevant theory to emerge Saturday was the "Most Days" theory—a psychological framework for combating perfectionism and self-criticism. The theory suggests that instead of demanding perfection from ourselves, we should aim to get things right "most days," allowing for human fallibility while maintaining general progress.
It sounds simple, almost trivial. But like many effective theories, its power lies in providing a different lens for interpreting experience. Instead of seeing occasional failures as evidence of inadequacy, the "Most Days" theory frames them as inevitable parts of a larger pattern of success.
This represents theory-making at its most practical: taking complex psychological research about perfectionism, self-compassion, and behavior change, and distilling it into a framework that people can actually use in daily life. It's the opposite of conspiracy theorizing—instead of making the world more mysterious and threatening, it makes personal growth more achievable and less intimidating.
The "Most Days" theory also demonstrates something important about helpful theories: they acknowledge uncertainty rather than promising certainty. They offer frameworks for navigating complexity rather than simple answers to complicated questions.
The AI That Learns to Persuade
Meanwhile, researchers were testing AI systems designed to improve vaccine attitudes using motivational interviewing techniques—essentially teaching machines to use psychological theory to change human minds about medical treatments.
This raises fascinating questions about the future of theory-making itself. If AI systems can be trained to apply psychological theories more consistently than human counselors, what does that mean for the practice of persuasion? And if these systems prove effective at promoting vaccine acceptance, how long before similar techniques are used to promote other beliefs?
The AI persuasion research represents both the promise and the peril of applied theory. It could help combat medical misinformation and save lives. It could also become a tool for manipulating public opinion in ways we haven't fully considered.
The Spectrum of Belief
What Saturday ultimately revealed is that theories exist on a spectrum of usefulness. At one end, you have frameworks like quantum reaction control and evidence-based psychology that expand human capability and understanding. At the other end, you have conspiracy theories and unfounded medical beliefs that constrain thinking and sometimes lead to violence.
Most theories fall somewhere in between. The missing hikers theories might not solve the case, but they help people process grief and maintain hope. The Göbekli Tepe conspiracy theories might distort archaeological evidence, but they also spark interest in ancient history.
The challenge isn't to eliminate all unproven theories—that would eliminate creativity, speculation, and much of what makes human thinking interesting. The challenge is to develop better intuitions about which theories deserve our belief and which ones deserve our skepticism.
The Meta-Theory of Theory-Making
Perhaps what we need is a theory about theories themselves: a framework for evaluating the frameworks we use to understand the world. Some criteria might include:
Does the theory encourage or discourage further inquiry? Good theories generate testable predictions and invite scrutiny. Bad theories claim special knowledge that can't be challenged.
Does the theory make the world more or less comprehensible? Helpful theories provide clarity and understanding. Harmful theories add unnecessary complexity and confusion.
Does the theory serve the theorist or serve the truth? The best theories help us understand reality, even when that understanding is uncomfortable. The worst theories make the theorist feel special or superior.
Does the theory acknowledge its own limitations? Robust theories specify the conditions under which they might be wrong. Dangerous theories claim universal applicability.
What We Choose to Believe
Saturday's mix of breakthrough science, tragic violence, ancient mysteries, and practical psychology reminds us that theory-making isn't just an academic exercise. It's how we navigate reality, and the theories we choose have consequences that ripple out into the world.
The CDC shooter chose to believe a theory that turned his personal health concerns into a justification for violence. Families of missing hikers choose theories that help them maintain hope in the face of uncertainty. Scientists choose theories that expand our ability to manipulate matter at the quantum level. Individuals choose theories that help them be more compassionate toward themselves.
These aren't equally valid choices. Some theories are supported by evidence, promote human flourishing, and expand our understanding of reality. Others are not.
The question facing each of us isn't whether to have theories—we can't navigate the world without them. The question is which theories we'll choose to guide our thinking, and whether we'll have the wisdom to distinguish between frameworks that serve us and frameworks that enslave us.
In a world where theories can spread faster than facts, where conspiracy thinking can lead to violence, and where the difference between breakthrough science and elaborate speculation isn't always obvious, perhaps the most important theory of all is this: the ideas we choose to believe have the power to shape not just our understanding of the world, but the world itself.
What theories guide your thinking? And how do you distinguish between the frameworks that help you understand reality and the ones that might be leading you astray? Hit reply and let us know.
Today's Theories by Theorypedia is a daily exploration of the ideas that shape our understanding of reality—and the reality that keeps reshaping our ideas. Subscribe for more analysis of the theories that guide us, mislead us, and occasionally change everything.