I started with the question where theories came from, how we could make better once, and how we would know that an even better theory might not be right around the corner, but hadn't been invented yet. But theorizing is a human and a social endeavor, even if the theory is part of science. To me, by generalization, this raised the question of a bridge between the natural science and the social sciences. I conjecture that there should be a unified theory that explains how theorizing and other social phenomena arise out of nature and natural phenomena. Evolution seems to be a natural candidate since it leads to increased complexity rather than to chaos (2nd law of thermodynamics).
My Ph.D. research was on building a computer model of language comprehension and use in simple tasks. I looked at quite a few different tasks and usage in different geographical locations in my subsequent career. I concluded that it is unlikely that there is a universal body of knowledge and semantic usage. However, I felt that smaller skill sets are nearly universal, shared by people tackling similar problems.
I then went on to work with simplified subsets of language to re-engineer tasks and move along computer-assisted workplace automation. I became convinved that the search for a universal semantics was simply the wrong question.
I became convinved that a focus on tasks and action was appropriate. I also became convinced that one needs to look at evolution to see how the complexity of skills is developed and maintained. After years of building computer-based models for many tasks, I am convinved that information processing is central to working with complex skills, and that language was a central element in such information processing.