Right from the beginning, what was implied by thêmata werethose preconceptions in science
that involve dyads or triads such as: atoms/continuum, simplicity/complexity,
evolution/involution, analysis/synthesis or steadfastness/evolution/catastrophic change. Such
an approach, according tospecialists, seems to be in a proper relationship with the dialectics
of the investigative approach, dialectics which, at all times, was seeking consensus between
two or more opposingideational constructions.
In time, it was found that thêmata is strongly anchored, not only in the field of scientific
thinking, but also in that of common sense. However, psychosociologists say that "common
sense is, by its nature, profoundly antinomic, and the antinomies thatmake up the mental
activities of humans, such as the formation of concepts, language meanings and images, can be
present in human thinking for a very long time". Examples of such antinomies in the common
sense are the ones like we/they, freedom/oppression, human/anti‑human or fear/hope.
Ultimately, thêmata must be seen in the form of taxonomies of opposing nature that directly
influence both scientific thinking and non‑scientific/naive/street thinking, opening or blocking
their evolutionary paths.