Interestingly, the social scientists’ way of inferring from polls is fundamentally not much different to what physicists do in thermodynamics to predict the system’s variables (e.g. temperature, pressure), based on the statistics of its constituent elements. However, these statistical methods seem to fail in Sri Lankan society, not because of the greater complexity in human organisations, but because of a fundamental limitation in the western sciences.

A central problem of thermodynamics is to find the probability that a given system be in a specific quantum state of energy. This probability depends on the number of quantum states accessible to the system, which in turn depends on the number and the quantum nature of its constituent particles. When we can count the quantum states accessible to the system, we know the entropy of the system. From entropy we can derive other thermodynamic properties of the system such as temperature and pressure. As evident, the epistemology of thermodynamics is structured in such a way that knowledge of constituents of a system relates linearly (and indirectly) to the knowledge of the system as a whole (constituent whole). In other words, thermodynamics predicts the values of macroscopic variables in terms of the micro states of the constituents of a system, but cannot predict the micro states of the constituents in terms of macroscopic variables. Therefore, thermodynamics, like most other western sciences is not equipped to consider the effects that the system as whole has on its constituents (Vidya kathandara, Nalin de Silva).

Granted that formulations of thermodynamics may not be directly applicable to complex human organisations such as nations and political parties. However, social scientists and political scientists alike draw inferences about the state of human systems using a similar methodology as in thermodynamics: by using statistical information about the number and nature of its constituents. As in thermodynamics, the predictions social scientists make about the whole system are linearly related to the knowledge about the constituents gathered in polls (constituent whole). This linear methodology will work only if the constituent’s behaviour is unaffected by the system as a whole, like molecules in a gas.

Interestingly, in societies where individualism is promoted in place of collectivism, one could argue that humans do behave like molecules in a gas i.e. independent of the system’s behaviour. Therefore in societies where individualism is promoted in place of collectivism, linear relationships could work and the system’s (in this case political party’s) behaviour maybe predicted linearly from the information gathered at opinion polls.

It follows that in societies where collectivism is promoted in place of individualism, the constituent’s behaviour could be predicted linearly from the information gathered from the system (whole constituent).

However, in a society like ours, where both individualism and collectivism are given equal importance, both the system and its constituents have a potential to influence each other. Here we could argue that the system has a cyclic relationship with its constituents. Since thermodynamics does not take into consideration the effects that the system as whole has on its constituents, the linear methods of thermodynamics (and opinion polls in social science), fail in a cyclic relationship. This is probably why opinion polls fail to predict the behaviour of the party as a whole in Sri Lanka. To make accurate predictions about cyclic systems, we need to develop a science that relate knowledge of the whole system to the knowledge of it’s constituents in a cyclic manner.

This type of science is most likely to be developed within Sinhala Buddhist ‘Chinthanaya’ where cyclic relationships are inherently understood. Certainly, ordinary Sri Lankans need no such theories to understand how their political parties work, but pundits may need to advance their thinking.