Mark, Rigorous posting? :-) Well, I have to confess, that in some strange way I am impressed. It would be unfair not to admit it.
Marsha Sent from my iPad On Dec 8, 2011, at 12:13 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > 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
