Hi Marsha, As I understand your question, you are asking me to provide my personal understanding of what is meant by theory. I Let me know if I misunderstood. I will deal with scientific theory since this is what I am most familiar with. If instead you are asking me to provide my understanding of understanding then this cannot be done in simple terms.
My post, from where your question came from, was questioning the value of the theory of evolution. I believe I made my case clear there, so, on to my "theory of theory". A theory is a reification (to use your vocabulary) of a system under which data can be explained. The theory of evolution (for example) is a reification of how we got here, what controls our here, and what we can expect beyond the here. As with any theory, this reification provides a conceptual framework from which meaning can be provided to observations are used to provide meaning. For a theory to be accepted, the observations must be fit within its structure. In this way, the observations (or data) are analyzed in terms of the reification. The data is neutral and can be used to fit into any theory available. That is, the theory will manipulate the data so as to conform to its reification. In this way, the data does not "prove" the theory, rather the data set is structured so as to give some depth to the theory, and allow for predictability. I will illustrate this by means of analogy. A book is a collection of words and phrases (data). To get meaning from a book, the words and phrases are reified as we deem appropriate. If such book allows multiple meanings (a sacred text of some sort, for example), then such reification becomes influenced by personal history and the "wiring" of the individual. We fully accept that the meaning provided to the individual by such a book can vary depending on the individual. Scientific theory is no different, and the data presented can be analyzed with input from personal history. The educational process "wires" us to view scientific theory in the way we are taught, and in this way, such theory is propagated within a culture. We are taught that the theory of evolution (for example) is the correct way to interpret the data, and that we should see the reality of our existence within that reification. The theory of evolution was a product of its time. I do not want to get into the history of it, but suffice it to say that Darwin did not come to his reification out of the blue. There were social and intellectual pressures which provided him his reification. I could also say that there were both life and inorganic level influences as well since the levels cannot be isolated as inherent (again using your vocabulary). By claiming that such a theory was a product of its time, the validity of the "rightness" of this theory comes into question, and one can then put the theory of evolution, as it currently stands, as a personal choice on what to believe about one's own personal reality. If the theory of evolution matches your experience in the world, then it is useful to you. Theories come an go, and the value of a theory lies in the personal. If one chooses to view existence as one which necessarily includes the "struggle for life", or as an impersonal world where "what is" is governed by the "laws" of chance, then the theory of evolution will indeed have high value. In my opinion (of course) It puts one within a framework where he/she becomes a victim of circumstances, and where one has little control over one's overall actions. Finally, to end I will briefly present a current state of the theory of evolution. For many years it was theorized that our phenotypic (physical) expression was a result of a rigid DNA which we had no choice but to pass along to our children. Since the vogue of the day is to claim that our behavior is a result of genetics, our own behavior is determined by this rigid DNA. The only areas of possible DNA modification were through random mutation. This of course evoked the laws of chance, which were (and still are) popular. It was assumed that the mixing of genes during the shuffling of genotypes following fertilization, was a predictable pattern if we had enough information. This is classically illustrated by Mendel's experiments with peas. However, more recently the theory of Epigenetics has found resurgence. This theory proposes that what happens to us in this particular life can be passed along to our children. Data can be used to support this theory. In this way, our children can 'learn", at a cellular level, from what we do, provided what we do happens before they are born (in my opinion, such cellular learning can happen even after, but I will not get into that). This implies that our current actions have importance in terms of the biology of evolution as expressed through DNA. Now, you can probably see how this notion of "personal responsibility" may fly in the face of classical evolution. But, I will leave that for you to ponder. I hope I have not lost you with all this rigorous posting. I am open to questions if they are well intended. Cheers, Mark On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:02 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > Mark, > > Evolution in one aspect representing an 'intellectual pattern', in another > aspect evolution representing 'ever-changing'... Since your "main thrust" > was to question 'theory', I can only invite you to please explain your theory > on 'theory'. > > > Marsha > > > > > > On Dec 7, 2011, at 10:10 AM, 118 wrote: > >> Hi Marsha, >> >> Yes many hold evolution to be of high value. Being involved in science I >> question it in the same way you question the reality of the reification of >> concepts. That is all I am trying to say, for scientific scrutiny is >> fitting data within a conjectured model. Until a better model comes around >> evolution is the way things exist. My main thrust was to question what does >> this theory do for us. >> >> Sent laboriously from an iPhone, >> Mark >> >> On Dec 7, 2011, at 5:12 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Mark, >>> >>> As I said I find the nature of all patterns far more fascinating than >>> evolution in particular. But let me this about evolution. It has, in >>> general, held up under scientific scrutiny. I have restated the idea that >>> the way to approach the UltimateTruth is through proving something false. >>> Well, the scientific method isn't perfect, it has become far too social, >>> but still it does try to test its hypotheses by proving them false. So as >>> patterns go, I find it a high value pattern. >>> >>> >>> Marsha >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Dec 7, 2011, at 1:30 AM, MarshaV wrote: >>> >>>> Mark, >>>> >>>> I find your question uninteresting. What is far more interesting to me is >>>> the nature of static quality: all patterns. That patterns, whether >>>> inorganic, biological, social or intellectual, are conditionally >>>> co-dependent, impermanent, ever-changing and conceptualized. That >>>> static quality exists in stable patterns relative to other patterns. >>>> Patterns depend upon innumerable causes and conditions (patterns), depend >>>> upon parts and the collection of parts (patterns), depend upon conceptual >>>> designation (patterns). Patterns have no independent existence. Further, >>>> these patterns represent "what works" depending upon on an individual's >>>> static pattern of life history. >>>> >>>> Why I hold evolution to be a high value intellectual static pattern of >>>> value is not a significant question, imho. >>>> >>>> >>>> Marsha >>>> >>>> >>>> Marsha >>>> >>>> > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
